Response to interpellation 2022/23:308 on the temporary increase of the housing allowance
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers it appropriate to extend and increase the temporary housing allowance for a limited period because housing costs are the largest expense for families with children with weak finances 1. 1 M argues that the increase is accurate and that the government must pursue a well-balanced economic policy so as not to fuel inflation 1 2. 2 3 M emphasizes that it is important to re-establish the work principle so that more people can move from benefits to work 2 3. 4 M points out that households receiving maintenance support have received a national standard adjustment of 8.6 percent and that it is the municipalities' responsibility to decide on deductions 4. 3 M argues that inflation must be fought through precise investments targeted at those who are particularly vulnerable 3.
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! Many thanks to Isabell Mixter for the interpellation she has submitted to me!
Isabell Mixter has asked me if I intend to work towards ensuring that even persons with social assistance also receive the temporary increase in the housing allowance and if not, why. Isabell Mixter has also asked me if I intend to work towards a permanent increase in the level of the housing allowance and if not, why.
Madam Speaker! I am pleased that Isabell Mixter supports the government's increase and extension of the temporary supplementary grant in the housing allowance. Families with children receiving housing allowance are facing a particularly tough situation in the current economic climate, and the housing allowance is a targeted benefit to reach households with weak finances and to provide extra resources to economically vulnerable households with children. Housing costs are the largest individual expense for many households, and to reduce the risk that families with children will be unable to pay their housing costs, it is appropriate to extend and increase the temporary supplementary grant for families with children within the housing allowance for a limited period.
All child households with housing allowance will receive the temporary supplementary allowance and will thus receive a higher total housing allowance with the proposal. An extension and increase of the supplementary allowance can contribute to more families being able to manage their livelihood with less or without financial assistance from the municipality.
One of the government's most important tasks right now is, however, to combat inflation. Inflation hits Swedish households particularly hard in general, but especially the particularly vulnerable households. In that case, it is necessary to pursue a well-balanced economic policy so as not to risk fueling inflation further so that it remains for longer and successively digs itself even deeper into the households' economy.
Financial assistance in the form of social assistance consists of the so-called national standard, which is a minimum level for the needs that the standard is intended to cover, as well as actual reasonable costs for, among other things, housing and household electricity. Households receiving financial assistance thus have their actual reasonable costs for, among other things, housing and household electricity covered by the assistance. For 2023, the government has set the national standard to be 8.6 percent higher than the 2022 national standard. This can be compared with the increase of the national standard between 2021 and 2022, which was 1.6 percent. It is therefore 7 percentage points more now.
The government is closely following the situation for the groups that are most vulnerable. I hope that Isabell Mixter and the other members of the Riksdag in the future contribute to not fueling inflation unnecessarily by, among other things, advocating for an overly expansive fiscal policy that risks hitting economically vulnerable families with children the hardest.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! Anna Tenje highlights in her response to my interpellation that the housing allowance is a targeted benefit to reach households with weak finances and to provide extra resources to economically vulnerable child households.
The Minister also rightly points out that housing costs are the largest individual expense for many households. She therefore also argues that it is appropriate to reduce the risk that families with children cannot pay their housing costs and that we therefore need to extend and increase the temporary supplementary grant to families with children within the housing allowance for a limited period. On that point, we are in complete agreement.
My question, however, is why the government does not choose to ensure that people who receive social assistance, a group living with a low economic standard, can also be allowed to use this temporary crisis support to pay rent or buy food for the children.
The housing allowance is counted as an income and is therefore usually deducted from the social assistance that the municipalities provide to people in need of it. In practice, this means an unchanged economy for the families, while the municipalities receive reduced expenditures for the payment of social assistance - unless the municipality makes a decision on special exceptions. If the government now says it wants to protect the most vulnerable households and wants to help them through the crisis, I do not quite understand why they want to leave this group of parents and children out.
The national standard for social assistance has, as Anna Tenje very rightly pointed out, been increased by 8.6 percent after the turn of the year, but that does not cover the high inflation, which in December 2022 according to Statistics Sweden was at 12.3 percent, while the national standard was being increased at the same time. The temporary extra increase of the housing allowance was also announced much later by the government, so therefore the situation must have worsened further.
During the press conference that the government and the Sweden Democrats held to present the proposal for the extension and increase of the temporary housing allowance, some confusion also arose. To the question of whether the proposal meant that persons with social assistance would be able to receive this and whether the situation that was previously known was a problem would be corrected, government representatives answered that was the case. Then it turned out that was not the case.
In the memorandum that formed the basis for what was presented at the press conference, one could also read very clearly that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna expected that this would result in a saving for the municipalities. It was a bit embarrassing, one might think.
Civil society is now reporting that more and more people are turning to it for help with food and essentials when the social assistance is not enough. Government representatives have many times spoken about helping those who have it the toughest in the crisis. My question then is: Why does the government not ensure that even those who receive social assistance are allowed to share in the temporary increase of the housing allowance?
Madam Speaker! I note that the Minister does not answer the question I posed in the interpellation regarding whether the government intends to make the increase in the housing allowance permanent and, if not, why. What will happen to the housing allowance when the temporary increase expires?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! The Government's assessment is that it is appropriate to extend and increase the temporary supplementary grant to families with children within the framework of the housing allowance for a limited period. One such occasion was during the pandemic. Another such occasion is now, when the economically tough situation has hardened somewhat and inflation is high.
Whether this is extended or made permanent and what it will look like going forward, we will have to return to in the budget - and the members know that. We will provide an announcement in the future.
This is an issue that we are following, and it concerns a particularly vulnerable group that we are definitely following particularly closely given the economically difficult situation.
If inflation sticks, if the situation for Swedish households tightens, especially for the families with children who have it the toughest, then we simply have to return. But it is the temporary part that is important to emphasize. The most important part – now I am not saying it is always so – is to ensure that the conditions are good so that more can work, so that more can move from benefits to work and more can work more. This fundamentally benefits the families with children the most. And we definitely have a focus on restoring the work principle so that more can move from benefits and exclusion to a job.
I want to point out that we are closely following the group particularly vulnerable, who have a tough economic situation, and we will return in the budget for 2024 regarding what a potential extension will look like or what happens if we choose not to extend.
All child households with housing allowance will receive the temporary supplementary allowance and thus receive a higher total housing allowance with the proposal. It is targeted - unlike increasing the child allowance, which is not particularly targeted at all but only finds 23 percent of the individuals among one-fifth with the lowest economic standard. Instead, this risks fueling inflation.
It is a matter of taking responsibility here and now for the families who are currently having it extra tough, and also seeing the importance of not fueling inflation so that it digs deeper and deeper into the household economy of all families with children.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! Anna Tenje mentioned in her speech that the most important thing right now is to fight inflation. Consequently, nothing can be done to help the most vulnerable households, other than the temporary increase of the housing allowance.
Why then does the government do the opposite, things that fuel inflation? Both the Riksbank and the Konjunkturinstitutet have pointed out that the electricity support drives up inflation. The Left Party's policy would, according to Konjunkturinstitutet's assessment, have little effect on inflation, while at the same time the most vulnerable households are supported. Sverigepriser would lower inflation by 1-2 percentage points. The government does nothing, except to lower the tax for the very richest.
That the government now does not want to announce what will happen with the housing allowance is problematic because households are having it extremely tough right now. They do not know if they will be able to stay in their rental apartments, if they will be evicted, if they will end up with the enforcement authority, or what will happen. Even Hyresgästföreningen has pointed out that people must be informed about what happens in 2024. Will the temporary housing allowance remain, or what will happen for the households that are having it extremely tough now?
We know that inflation is high and that it is extremely difficult for many families to make ends meet. It is particularly tough for those who receive social assistance. They live on, in principle, the bare minimum. Christina Olsson, secretary general for Makalösa Föräldrar, an association that organizes single parents, has called the fact that people do not get to keep the increase in the housing allowance a theft from families with children, meaning that the municipalities keep the temporary crisis support. I can only agree with Christina Olsson that it is a very unfortunate construction that something the government does to truly provide help to the most vulnerable households does not reach them. It is incredibly sad.
Why do you not want, Anna Tenje, to ensure that families with children can afford food, rent, and so on?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam President! I previously pointed out that for households living on social assistance, a change of 8.6 percent has occurred in the national standard. The housing costs will then remain unchanged for the household because the costs are covered. With this said, families with children are having a very tough time in any case. We know this because a typical wage-earning family has not received an increase of 8.6, but rather it has landed on an increase of 3 percent. But that family still has to tackle an inflation of 12 percent. It is a difficult and strained situation in general.
I also want to point out that families with children receiving social assistance have received an increase of 8.6 percent, and this can be compared to the 2021 level which was 1.6 percent. That is not to say that it is easy.
Then it was the question of whether a deduction should be made or not. I think the member is well aware that the municipalities actually decide whether a deduction should be made on the temporary supplementary grant or not, that is to say, it falls within the framework of local self-government. It is different in different municipalities, and I can state that in the municipality where I previously had the privilege of being the chairman of the municipal executive board, the money went to families with children during my leadership. I do not really know how it is now, but that was the case at least then.
It is well obvious that the government's intention is that the money should come to the families.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam President! It is true that the municipalities can make decisions on exemptions, and my home municipality Sundsvall has also done so – where I have previously been a municipal politician. That is good, but it is also unfortunate that one's zip code should determine whether one should stand in the food queue at Stadsmissionen or not. It is unfortunate that whether one can afford food or not should be determined by where one lives.
We know that food poverty is increasing. That picture is confirmed by Stadsmissionen. They issue a poverty report annually, and it shows that 62 percent of the interventions go to people who live on long-term financial assistance. This includes, among other things, help with food and clothes.
Why does the government want to hand over the responsibility to ensure that people can afford food and essentials to civil society? It is incomprehensible to me.
Anna Tenje was saying that work is extremely important in order to support oneself. That is, of course, something we agree on. But sometimes it sounds like the government representatives are saying that people living on benefits have no requirements placed on them and do nothing. But then I can clarify that according to the current Social Services Act, one must be available for the labor market to have the right to subsistence support. The law also stipulates that one does not have the right to subsistence support if one has money in the bank or other assets that can enable support. Thus, there is also a requirement that all people must seek work if they have the possibility to work for wages.
That you fail to mobilize a sufficiently good labor market policy that gets people into work is your responsibility. Until then, we must ensure that people in Sweden 2023 do not have to starve. It is your responsibility. Why do you not want to ensure that even these people and children are given the opportunity to avoid it?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I more than gladly accept the final relay baton that the member handed over to me regarding the restoration of the work line.
The Speaker himself has been supportive of a government that, over a period of eight years, has successively and with incredible precision succeeded in dismantling the work principle. I am of the firm opinion that there is nothing more important for the poor, vulnerable families with children than that we re-establish the work principle so that there are greater opportunities to move from benefits to work and greater opportunities to be included—to be a part of society rather than to live in exclusion. I therefore take the relay baton more than gladly.
Furthermore, just here and now, it is about fighting inflation – not fueling inflation further but having precision in the initiatives one makes so that they are truly targeted towards those who are particularly vulnerable and have it the toughest, and not some large, general brushstrokes that rather risk fueling inflation so that it can continue to gradually eat its way into household economies. That would be bad in general for our households, and it would be particularly bad for the families with children who have it extra tough.
I would like to, with this, Madam Speaker, thank you for this debate and for the interpellation. This is, as mentioned, an issue that the government is following very closely and takes very seriously.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.