Response to interpellation 2022/23:304 on gas subsidies for households
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the government has introduced support that mitigates the effects of high energy prices, which is significantly larger and faster than the previous government's proposals 1 2. KD claims that the gas price support is a solution for those who have been affected by high gas prices 2. KD believes that the government is cleaning up after a dismantled energy system by paving the way for more wind power and removing obstacles for new nuclear power. KD argues that they are keeping promises to cut healthcare queues and lower the reduction obligation to bring down food prices. S argues that the government has broken promises to citizens and allows itself to be guided by corporate interests 3 4 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Ola Möller has asked me if I intend to take any measures to compensate those Helsingborg residents who do not receive any gas support and what reasons underlie my decision to delete a certain sentence which, according to information in Helsingborgs Dagblad, has been deleted from the proposal.
I want to start by saying that this is a very difficult time for many households and companies. I truly empathize with the households that have been affected by the extreme energy prices we have seen since the autumn of 2021 and, above all, since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I also want to be clear that the various supports that the government has developed cannot in any way fully compensate for the effects that the very high energy prices have had on the costs for households and companies. We can alleviate the effects to some extent, but not eliminate them.
A prerequisite for the gas price support is that the consumer had the right to take out gas at the point of delivery according to an agreement with the gas network company on 1 February 2023. The gas network companies that are to administer the support have explained that this is not practically possible to do without a cutoff date, and the choice then lies between establishing a cutoff date and providing no support at all. Difficult trade-offs need to be made, and the government has worked so that as many as possible can take part in the much-needed gas price support. Consumers in electricity area 4 have, as is known, also had high electricity prices and can therefore receive help through the electricity support.
Regarding Ola Möller's second question, about whether the government would have deleted a part of its proposal, it is a misunderstanding of how the government works. The Government Offices prepared a draft regulation and referred it broadly to relevant authorities and other actors. Among the responses received were clear objections from the gas network companies, which are to carry out the payments and apply the regulation, that it would not be practically possible to administer the gas price support without a cutoff date.
Regarding further gas price subsidies, the government proposes in the year-end budget that gas price subsidies should also be granted for November and December 2022. The government intends to return with any adjustments to the subsidy ordinance in this regard.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would, of course, like to begin by thanking the Minister for Industry for the answer to the interpellation.
This interpellation is submitted because the current Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson sat in the kitchen at the home of a resident of Helsingborg and promised the moon and the stars if only his side won the election. We have heard that before.
Energy price subsidies by November 1, then well before Christmas, and a high-cost protection would be introduced. Nothing came. New nuclear power was to be built from day one, and according to what the current Finance Minister tweeted, it would be started within a hundred days of the government taking office. The current Minister for Enterprise would stop steel forests, but it turned out as it did with that matter as well.
It would result in a 9 or 10 kronor reduction at the pump for diesel and 5 or 6.50 for gasoline. But we know how it turned out with that matter. There, even the Prime Minister managed to break the promise of 5.50 that was given here just before with less than 24 hours' notice. Archer to Ukraine was to come directly after the election, and all Russian spies would be deported. There would be abolished amortization requirements, means-tested labor immigration, and masses of laws introduced against the gangs on June 1 this year. There would be no tax increases.
There will be no 20 billion for the justice system. There will not be 2 percent of GDP for defense appropriations. There was not supposed to be any tax increase on ISK accounts, but there was, despite the promise of a reduction. And perhaps the most noticed: falukorv would become cheaper, according to the current Minister for Enterprise.
A colleague of mine spoke with parliamentary journalists about exactly this. Of course, politicians have sometimes made promises and not kept them. But then politicians usually step forward and apologize for it and explain why. That is not happening now, according to the parliamentary journalists. Now they are just being brushed aside. And instead, we see that new promises are made and broken in less than 24 hours. It is clearly remarkable. It damages trust in politics.
What makes me sad in this case is that the current Prime Minister sat in the home of a resident of Helsingborg, looked her in the eyes and promised the gas support, provided he won the election. But that promise was broken. If you break a promise that you have given to an individual person in her kitchen and have looked her in the eyes, I think you should apologize.
The Prime Minister is not here. But the Minister for Enterprise is here, and the regional board of the Moderate chairman in Skåne has previously pointed out that the Minister for Enterprise has been arrogant and unserious. No Moderate MPs are present in the chamber. I would have wished that they were also here to represent the people of Skåne. But that may be because it is easier to criticize the Minister for Enterprise, who is not in their party, than to criticize their own Prime Minister, who is in their party. I must nevertheless give the Minister for Enterprise credit that it is not her fault.
It is, after all, what the Minister for Enterprise says; there have been proposals to solve the issue. Therefore, I wonder if the Minister for Enterprise could imagine, on behalf of the government and the Prime Minister, asking for an apology for the promises that the Prime Minister has broken. It is indisputable that the promise was made and broken. It has not been denied by the Prime Minister.
I give the Minister for Enterprise the floor. Is the Minister for Enterprise prepared, on behalf of the government and the Prime Minister, to apologize to the people of Helsingborg, whose confidence in the government has been exhausted?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask the member if the member has any question on the merits.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker and Minister for Enterprise! I interpret that as a no.
In one case, it is interesting that individual companies have such power over the government's policy as is shown in this matter. It is interesting, because it does not only happen in this matter. My colleague Marianne Fundahn comes from another part of what the Minister for Enterprise usually calls the heartland, namely Trelleborg. She asked a question about condominium owners' and tenants' right to gas support. Also there, the Minister for Enterprise was clear in a written response that it was complicated for the companies and that it therefore was not possible.
For me, it is incomprehensible in a time when Chat GPT would be able to manage to write an essay for an A-course on gas subsidies at the university and when My AI on Snapchat can certainly account for both the one and the other opinion on the gas subsidy. But a company cannot go back in time and see that on a certain day a certain customer had a certain consumption and thus a certain fee. That one cannot do that without the government stepping forward and saying that it shall occur by a certain date is quite remarkable. I believe that many of the students who are now sitting in the stands here would very well be able to perform that calculation.
The interesting thing is also that it is clear that one could solve this. One could have had two breaking points.
Furthermore, we recognize the argument that it is not possible, from when it was about legal entities and electricity support. At that time, it was not possible to distinguish individual firms from the support. Then there was a media storm when what we believed was an individual firm - we do not know if it was an individual firm or not - received over 700,000 in support. Then it suddenly became possible to distinguish between individual firms and private individuals in the next round, Mr. Speaker.
So it is about political will. The big question is why the government allows itself to be governed by a single company without questioning it.
It is not sufficient to say that it was urgent. Given the time elapsed between the government taking office and when the gas support arrives, it is obvious that there has been no major danger regarding the time aspect. This also applies to the supports to the companies, which have also taken a long time.
In this case, I wonder why the government allows itself to be governed by the interests of individual companies even in this issue, just as in the issue of profits in welfare and the school companies' way of sucking out money.
In substance, I also wonder why the Minister for Enterprise is not prepared to apologize for unfulfilled promises. If anything, that is a factual question. It is obviously also a moral question, which we should definitely also discuss here. But in substance, I wonder why the Minister for Enterprise is not prepared to apologize to the people of Helsingborg whom her head of government looked in the eye and lied to. I do not understand it. It is not difficult.
If the Minister for Enterprise had been able to apologize, the entire issue would have ended up in a different position. One could have said: "We regret that we have failed in the matter of people's trust." It is quite important for the political system that we politicians are able to admit if we have made a mistake.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It is like this: There is no other previous government that has paid out such large support to households and companies in such a difficult time as this government has done. This government will have paid out a total of approximately 55 billion in electricity support.
It is about electricity support in four different models. Two of them reach households. Approximately 5 million Swedish households will be able to take part in the electricity support. It was paid out in a first round at the end of February and the beginning of March, and a second round is coming now. It is relief of thousands of kronor to many households that have had it very difficult. And it is significantly larger, faster, and safer than the previous government's proposal.
When it comes to electricity support for companies, the application period at Skatteverket opens tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. At that point, it will be possible for the companies to apply.
In addition, we have paid out and developed a model for a type of price support also for customers and households with gas. It has also reached the people of Helsingborg. It was exactly what the Prime Minister promised, that a price support would be established for those who have also been affected by high gas prices.
If we compare with the previous government's proposal, we are talking about significantly higher levels for a regular villa. In the first round of electricity support to households, one could get at most between 6,000 and 7,000 with the previous government's proposal. Someone who has a regular income and a regular villa has been able to receive between 16,000 and 20,000 in electricity support in the first round. It is significantly much higher.
Furthermore, it was received in direct connection with the very tough winter that has been. It can be compared with the previous government's model, according to which it was to start being paid out in April and for many during the coming summer.
We can also move on to the companies. How much would the companies receive in support with the previous government's model, with the Social Democrats, whom Ola Möller represents, in power? Zero – you would get zero. It is time to stand here with this high tone and make sweeping accusations that have no bearing on facts and reality when you stood for exactly zero in support to the companies and zero to the households that have gas. The people of Helsingborg received zero with the previous government's model.
This is a model that is fundamentally bad. I am the first to admit it. Why? Well, it is based on the idea that one should try to patch and repair in hindsight, because the Social Democrats, when they were in power, removed 3,000 megawatts of planned nuclear power. The price for that, the whole of Sweden has had to pay, not least southern Sweden and not least the people of Helsingborg.
That decision was one that Ola Möller himself was part of making. One refused to stop the shutdown of Ringhals 1 and 2 in this chamber when one had the chance.
This is a system and an electricity support that is not perfect for the long haul. It is truly a bandage on a broken leg, at best. It is not worthy of the welfare state Sweden. We must have a robust energy system that can withstand difficult times. That was not what the Social Democrats left behind.
We are compensating for that now. And we are providing relief in a difficult time. But the only way forward is to build the system strong again.
Ola Möller (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that the Minister for Enterprise claims that the economic policy currently being pursued is more expansive than the one pursued during the pandemic. She says that there is no government that has provided such large support. I think that the Minister for Enterprise probably needs to read some of the fiscal policy appendices in the budgets.
(Minister for Energy and Business EBBA BUSCH (KD): I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns electricity support.)
So, the Minister for Enterprise now said that it concerned electricity support. That is obviously correct, but that was not what the Minister for Enterprise said. Words mean something. Promises mean something. If one cannot manage to apologize for a breach of promise – which is particularly flagrant because the Prime Minister sat in the kitchen of the people in Helsingborg and promised – I think perhaps one should not be so picky with words.
It is also the case that it was we Social Democrats who referred the model that applies now. That was good, because we had to act quickly last spring. But the government has a tendency to say that it is the Social Democrats' fault as soon as something has gone wrong. Had we continued debating for a while longer, it would probably have been said that it was the Social Democrats' fault that Ulf Kristersson issued the promise. That is how it works.
Instead of taking responsibility for its own promises and its own policy, the government says that everything is the Social Democrats' fault. But I take home to Helsingborg that the leader of the Christian Democrats and our current Prime Minister do not apologize even though they have lied to the people of Helsingborg and let the companies - with rather weak arguments - decide the government's policy. We see it in this issue and in the issue of profits in welfare, and we will continue to see it during the mandate period, because that is what this government is.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! This interpellation debate has been a bit all over the place and has not solely concerned the interpellant's question. Perhaps it is because the Prime Minister – the current one, but then in opposition – promised a gas price subsidy. It also became a gas price subsidy. That is the bottom line. That is a fact.
Did it become a perfect system? No. That is because it is not possible to compensate in hindsight in a good way when one has not done the homework from the beginning. It is the government's task now to clean up after a dismantled energy system - and, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. There is no quick fix. It can only be done by paving the way for more wind power where it is welcome on land and at sea and by tearing down all the obstacles that stand in the way of building up new nuclear power. It is about the nuclear power that the Social Democrats refused to save and which has caused very many households in southern Sweden - not least in Helsingborg - to have it incredibly tough.
Just look at the promise we gave regarding healthcare! We promised to allocate more funds to cut down healthcare queues, and that is exactly what we are doing. Look at the promise we gave regarding nuclear power! We promised to remove the obstacles that exist regarding legislation, number of sites, and number of reactors, and that is exactly what we are doing now. Look at the promise to maintain support for Ukraine! It is greater than ever, and yes - it became Archer to Ukraine.
Look at the question of doing what we can to bring down the price of falukorv for Swedish households! Ola Möller can laugh as much as he wants in the speaker's chair, but I do not think there is anything funny about children in Sweden sometimes going to bed with rumbling stomachs. We promised to do what we can to bring down that which drives up the price of food in our country, and that is exactly what we are doing with the reduction obligation. We promised to bring it down to 6 percent, and that is exactly what we are doing. Overall, this will far exceed the price levels that applied during the election campaign when we drew up the calculation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.