Response to interpellation 2022/23:150 on economic family policy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers that the government [is pursuing] a balanced and restrained economic policy to avoid worsening inflation 1 2. M argues that the extension of the temporary housing allowance is a targeted measure that helps families with children with low incomes 1. M emphasizes that inflation is the main culprit that must be fought 2. M argues that the social assistance has been increased by 8.6 percent to cover inflation 3. M emphasizes that the work principle is crucial 3. M notes that school meals are a good safety net 3. M argues that it is important to fight inflation and high prices on electricity and fuels 4. V argues that the government lacks proposals to solve the problems 5. V considers that children are hungrier when they arrive at school 5. V argues that the government's measures are not new crisis measures but measures from the pandemic 5. V advocates for an increased child allowance for single parents 5. 6 V argues that the increase of the social assistance by 8.6 percent is a pure adjustment in accordance with inflation and not an investment or initiative that helps families with children 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Isabell Mixter has asked me whether I consider that the goal of the economic family policy is being achieved and, if not, how I intend to act to achieve the goal. Isabell Mixter has also asked me whether I intend to take any further measures within the economic family policy to help families with children through the crisis.
Madam Speaker! The government has taken over the responsibility for a country facing a recession at the same time as many people are affected by dramatic cost increases as a result of high inflation and increased energy and fuel prices. Not least families with children are hit very hard by the difficult economic situation. As Isabell Mixter notes, school children are eating more in the school cafeteria than before. It is a clear sign that some families with children are starting to have it tougher.
The parliamentary objective for the economic family policy is that it shall contribute to a good economic standard of living for all families with children and reduce the differences in the economic conditions between households with and without children. To provide families with children with low incomes with extra financial support, the temporary supplementary grant provided to families with children receiving housing allowance has been extended until June 2023. Housing costs are the largest individual expenditure item for many households. To reduce the risk that families with children cannot pay their housing costs, it is therefore accurate and appropriate to extend the reinforcement of the housing allowance for a limited period.
In addition to family policy, measures are also being taken in other areas that will benefit households, such as the upcoming electricity subsidies, for which payments will begin next week for electricity price areas 3 and 4. The government has also, among other things, set the national standard for the maintenance support at a level that is 8.6 percent higher than in 2022 and maintained the unemployment benefit and the activity support at the higher level that has applied during the covid-19 pandemic. Taken together, these are effective measures to help households in a difficult time, with a particular focus on the most vulnerable households. It is at the same time important to point out that the government needs to conduct a balanced, restrained economic policy to avoid exacerbating inflation, while at the same time we must build Sweden stronger for the future.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I note at the same time that this government lacks proposals to solve the problems we are to discuss here today.
The goal of the economic family policy is, just as Anna Tenje pointed out, to contribute to a good economic standard of living for all families with children. It is a goal that has applied under both the previous government and this government.
The high inflation is now hitting people very hard. It places higher demands on politics to implement measures so that we reach the goal for economic family policy. Costs for food, electricity, and other basic necessities have increased sharply. It is particularly tough for households that already had small margins before. Among families with children, there were already many single women living with a low economic standard before the economic crisis. It is a group that is now finding it even tougher.
A number of alarm reports have recently come from schools in several different municipalities around the country that the children are eating more at school, especially on Mondays and Fridays. This is a sign that the food is not sufficient at home as a result of the higher cost of living. The children come to school hungrier and know that there will be a shortage of food during the weekend. This also means that the costs for the schools, and ultimately the municipalities, are increasing.
In a survey that SVT sent out to the municipalities, 12 of the 21 municipalities that responded state that more school meals have been consumed lately. According to a survey that DN has conducted, six out of ten municipalities answer that primary school students have eaten more school meals since the economic situation for households has worsened. 76 percent of the municipalities answer that they are increasing the budget for school meals in 2023. Their survey has been answered by 200 municipalities.
A principal at a school in Sundsvall said in an interview with SVT that they may be forced to make cuts in the school's educational costs. As a result of the increased costs for food purchases, they may be forced to choose between reducing purchases of teaching materials and laying off staff. The state grants that municipalities and regions have received are not sufficient to cover the current high inflation, especially considering that there will be higher costs for food due to increased demand.
It is also testified that more and more people are turning to civil society to get help. It is described that among them are groups that have not previously sought help there, including families with children. This must be regarded as a failure.
The Minister also refers to the electricity support that was supposed to arrive on November 1 but which still has not been paid out. Still, no one has answered when the electricity support will reach my region, northern Sweden. It is a very tough situation for many. Some have electricity bills of over 10,000 kronor to be paid, something that one absolutely could not have predicted.
At the same time, the Enforcement Authority is concerned by a sharply increasing number of private individuals and companies that are struggling to pay their electricity bills. For private individuals, the number of cases concerning unpaid electricity bills increased during 2022 by 19 percent compared to the previous year. The debt amount increased by 27 percent. The companies have it even worse. The total debt amount has doubled, and the number of cases has increased by 30 percent. The right-wing parties' broken election promise is having devastating consequences.
It is obvious that the economic situation right now is unsustainable for far too many families with children and that the government is not living up to the goal of a good economic standard of living for all families with children.
I would like to ask the Minister again: Does the government intend to take any further measures to help families through the economic crisis?
Frida Tånghag (V)
Madam Speaker! The Minister's answer has raised some questions for me and a reflection.
It concerns why one chooses to increase the social assistance by 8.6 percent as a compensation for the price base amount, which is actually only intended to offset inflation. Why does the government choose to stop there when we know what tough economic situation Sweden finds itself in?
I have a question as well. I miss, in connection with this, measures from the government. They do not count the supplement that exists for children staying at home within the social assistance. It should be a self-evident priority. We know how tough it is for families with children to make everyday life work. It does not only concern those families with children who have it hardest and need society's help.
I can only agree with what Isabell Mixter said here. The state support that goes to municipalities does not cover the increased costs or the inflation today.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin with inflation. Inflation leaves no one untouched. It leaves no household untouched, it leaves no company untouched, and it definitely leaves no municipality untouched.
Inflation affects us all, and it hits households with the toughest and most difficult finances the hardest. If one has few or small means, inflation obviously hits even harder, also given the high electricity prices, the high fuel prices, and furthermore the high food prices.
The question is: What is the most important thing to fight, and what is the most important thing to get rid of? I believe that previous governments, regardless of color, would have landed at roughly the same conclusion. Inflation is the big culprit that we must fight.
If we do not get a handle on the high inflation, it will continue month after month, year after year. We will end up in a situation where food prices freeze at a very high level. Then our poor families with children, the households that have the toughest finances, will definitely end up in an even worse situation.
That is why it is important for the government to pursue a balanced policy when it comes to which economic supports one provides and which economic investments one makes.
We have landed on extending the temporary increase of the housing supplement. It hits hardest. Housing costs are the largest expense for not least families with children and then especially for single women with several children.
In this way, we pursue a balanced policy that does not risk fueling inflation even further. But I share the interpellant's concern regarding the tough conditions that we see today in many households. I fully and completely share the interpellant's description of how it looks in many of our schools right now.
We can observe that the tax-funded food is a fantastic benefit we have. It exists precisely so that all children can eat until they are full at least once a day in order to be able to receive the education and the knowledge to which they are entitled. It is a fantastic benefit.
Many schools are now reporting that it is primarily more children who are eating in the school cafeteria. It is also important to emphasize. Children who previously have gone to the grocery store during the break to perhaps buy less healthy snacks such as soda, chips, and candy are now choosing to eat the school meal instead.
This is fundamentally good. Then it obviously testifies to tougher economic conditions. The children perhaps do not have as much pocket money, which means they go to the dining hall and eat the food instead. It is actually fundamentally good.
I hope that when the economic crisis is over and inflation is defeated, the children continue to eat in the dining room instead of spending money in the grocery stores on food that is, in any case, not as nutritious.
But of course, more children are also eating more. They eat more on Mondays, on Fridays, and after the break. That has been the case for a longer period. It has now worsened. It is good that Swedish schools and Swedish municipalities have a preparedness for this.
Of course, inflation leaves no one untouched. Food is also becoming more expensive. It results in a higher cost for the municipalities. I hope that they prioritize correctly.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank you again for the answer, Anna Tenje.
I want to start a bit where you finished. It is a bit of a trivialization of the problem that children now eat more in school to say that they previously went to the kiosk or similar. The patterns one sees, that it is precisely on Mondays and Fridays that the children eat more, suggest that it is not an effect of more people choosing to refrain from going to the kiosk without another type of effect. The children are hungrier when they arrive at school.
That the government has chosen to maintain a temporary increase of the housing allowance is, of course, good. For those who receive those funds, it is very welcome but hardly sufficient. The government has also not seen to correcting the unfortunate fact that those who receive social assistance do not get to share in the extra money. It is often those who are the most economically vulnerable.
The Minister stated that inflation leaves no one untouched. But it is also clear where this government's priorities lie. At the same time as they claim they do not want to fuel inflation by giving those who need it most support, the government has lowered the tax for those who have incomes over 50,000 kronor. After the turn of the year, they received a tax cut of approximately 1,400 kronor per month. That is money that a single mother can only dream of.
Vänsterpartiet has other priorities. In our budget, there is an increased child allowance for single parents of 500 kronor. It is a well-targeted initiative as we know from the statistics that it is precisely single parents who have the lowest economic standard. We also strengthen both the unemployment insurance, the health insurance, and the pensions.
Economic family policy contributes to leveling differences. That is also why it is such an important tool to ensure that all families have a decent life. But the benefits within the area of family policy have been eroded over time and do not contribute as strongly to leveling differences now as they did before. It becomes particularly serious in a time where costs are increasing avalanche-like.
Growing up in poverty, especially for a long period, contributes to social exclusion. Not being able to participate in leisure activities or being able to go to parties because one cannot afford presents leaves deep marks. It also limits the opportunities to participate in working life as an adult.
I am also very questioning regarding the Minister's answer. The measures that Anna Tenje refers to are not additional crisis measures, but rather measures that were implemented during the pandemic and which the previous government had in its budget.
After that, inflation has escalated, and households are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. When the cost of living increases dramatically, the government's response is that it will not lower incomes and that it will compensate households for the high electricity prices far too late. That is not sufficient.
Do you stand firm on whether the goal of economic family policy should be to contribute to a good economic standard or not? Both the statistics and the testimonies we are met with from society speak clearly. Families with children, both single-parent and cohabiting, are finding it increasingly difficult to manage to make their finances stretch for basic necessities.
Will this government leave people in the lurch, or will you take further measures? Will the government allocate resources to the municipalities so that they can manage to meet the increased costs without cutting back on activities?
Frida Tånghag (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the brief answer regarding social assistance and indexation!
The only thing I can state from the answer is that it is inflation that is coming into focus. In that case, I cannot see that an increase of the social assistance by 8.6 percent is either an investment or an initiative. It is a pure adjustment in accordance with inflation, and it is not an improvement for those who are dependent on society's help and those who are dependent on social assistance. It will not help any families with children.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! We begin where Frida Tånghag stopped. I want to be clear about this: The maintenance support this year is increased by 8.6 percent. Inflation is 8.7. Guarantee pension and other benefits that follow the price base amount have been increased by 8.7. I believe I was clear that this is an increase. It is not an investment. I have not designated it as such.
But one has nevertheless landed on that one needs to increase the support by 8.6 just to cover the inflation, which one also does. It is much more than one increases, for example, the pensions and the wages or what the employees can now expect in the collective bargaining movement, in any case in this respect.
Regarding the other calculations that Isabell Mixter was referring to concerning the income tax, this is precisely a calculation. We therefore cannot, Madam Speaker, take the credit for having lowered a tax, but this simply occurs through an annual calculation of the income tax. It is about where the breakpoint for the income tax lies. This is how it has been in recent years. One can obviously make deviations from this routine for each year, but that would also result in other consequences.
The interpellator pointed out that I trivialized the issue of the food. I want to be clear, Madam Speaker, that I am absolutely not trivializing anything. I am simply stating that it is not just about more children eating more, but also about more children actually eating in the school cafeteria. It was simply a statement. Fundamentally, I think it is good that children eat the school meal, which we all help finance through taxes. The school meal is a good safety net; one gets nutritious, real, and good food in school.
With this said, Madam Speaker, I think it is important to also speak about other parts of strengthening our households both in the short and in the long term. It is simply about the work line. We often forget it when we talk about these issues, but the reason why one ends up in a difficult situation with scarce financial means is often that, for various reasons, one does not have a job to go to. Therefore, it is important to strengthen the incentives and the opportunities to move from benefits to work so that one can in that way strengthen one's own situation and also one's future pension. These parts are extremely important.
I know that there are many municipalities around the country that work a lot with these issues, but from the state's side, we can certainly do even more moving forward. It is about promoting the work line. It is about ensuring that one moves from benefits to work and is matched with education and transition so that one has a greater opportunity to enter the labor market.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! It is clear that when the bourgeois do not have any answers, the old LP record starts spinning over and over again with the same type of answer: It is the work line, and it is the work line.
The problem is not this. The problem is that your government is not taking any measures for households that are now having a very tough time. It is also a goal that you yourselves have set: The economic family policy shall contribute to leveling differences. But now we see that it does not live up to this.
I want to ask Anna Tenje again: What do your government and you intend to do to support families with children?
I also want to take the opportunity to read out a quote from an article in DN today: "And if I am hungry in the evening, my parents say that I should eat more at lunch." It is a student in grade 3 in a school who says this.
One can absolutely think that it is nice that students get food in school, but it is not just about that. It is about that children do not get enough food at home. Somewhere, you as a government must acknowledge that it is a fatal failure that we in Sweden today have children who go hungry? It cannot be reasonable.
But if Anna Tenje is not prepared to support families with children further, perhaps her government instead wants to take measures so that the municipalities can afford the additional food costs they are now experiencing as a result of hungrier children? Do you want people to stop prioritizing education, or what is it that Anna Tenje believes the municipalities should do?
Will your government, Anna Tenje, re-evaluate the state grant to municipalities based on the situation we are seeing now? And are you prepared to implement more measures to support families with children in the crisis?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, the interpellor, for the important question that you have raised and the debate and discussion that we have had!
I want to be careful to point out that the inflation and the difficult economic situation that we have right now, with high electricity prices, high food prices, and high fuel prices, leaves no one untouched. But it hits above all those households that had it the toughest already before. I do not think anyone can say that it is good that children go hungry and are recommended to eat more at school. Obviously, it is not so.
That is exactly why it is so incredibly important to fight inflation, the high fuel prices, the high electricity prices, and the economic situation that we find ourselves in today. Otherwise, we risk getting stuck in this situation for a long time to come and not just end up in it for a shorter period. One can only state that it is not all parties in this chamber that have been involved in fighting high fuel prices and high electricity prices. They may instead have contributed to inflation becoming long-lasting and affecting households for a longer period.
This is an important issue. We are in the middle of an economic crisis right now, so it is obviously extremely important to follow these parts very closely. What incentives or what measures we implement further ahead from the government's side, we will simply have to return to.
I have, perhaps in contrast to the interpellator, a very high level of confidence in our municipal politicians out in the country. I am completely convinced that they, like the government, can prioritize correctly and properly in this case. The municipalities do not necessarily cut back on education, as there is also a different budget process there. There is plenty of what lies outside the core activities that the municipalities can then choose to forgo prioritizing instead of education or, for that matter, food in schools.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
I would like to remind that according to Swedish parliamentary custom, the speaker formally addresses their speech to the Speaker and thereby indirectly to the members of the Chamber. This means that direct addresses between speakers, such as for example saying you or you all to each other, should not occur.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.