Response to interpellation 2023/24:256 on basis for social analysis and financial stability
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that there are problems and risks with collecting data on all households' assets and debts, especially regarding personal privacy 1. M questions the need for individual data at a detailed level compared to statistical samples 2 and argues that it is a big step to require microdata on all households' assets in a state database 3. M argues that there is a risk that the purpose of such a register is to be able to tax people more heavily or to reintroduce a wealth tax 3. S argues that there is a great societal need for the statistics to describe society, evaluate economic policy, and prevent financial instability 4. S wants authorities to receive a better statistical basis that includes the asset side in order to improve risk assessments.
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 Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! Ingela Nylund Watz has asked me when I and the government intend to return to the Riksdag with a proposition that creates the possibility to increase knowledge about the households' overall economic situation.
The investigation into statistics on household assets and debts is based on a motion from the Riksdag. It proposes that statistics on all household assets and debts should be compiled based on data from, among others, financial companies. The investigation's proposal has been subject to a referral process.
Several referral bodies are positive towards the investigation's proposals, but criticism has also been voiced. It concerns the concern regarding how personal privacy is affected by the collection of data on all households' assets and debts. It has also been stated that there may be other, less intrusive measures to obtain the necessary data.
It is important to promote opportunities to analyze the risks that households' high indebtedness entails. An arrangement that involves producing data on all households' assets and debts is, however, fraught with a number of problems.
The matter is being prepared in the Ministry of Finance, and otherwise, the government has no further comments today.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
It is barely a year since we stood here and held an interpellation debate on the need for statistics on households' debts and assets. At that time, I pointed out that the Riksbank and the Finansinspektionen have for several years requested more detailed information on households' assets and debts so that they can better analyze the development and become more accurate with measures within the framework of monetary policy and their responsibility for financial stability. It is something that I know the Minister is aware of, and also the International Monetary Fund and the European Systemic Risk Board have urged EU member states to produce.
I want, just as the Minister does in the response, to remind that the investigation that was carried out came after an announcement from the Riksdag. It was a result of a motion from the Riksbank to the Finance Committee with a request for such an investigation. Everyone in the committee was in agreement – except for the Sweden Democrats, who reserved themselves against the decision.
The high indebtedness of households is still a major problem. This is shown especially now when inflation has skyrocketed and is tormenting us all. In order for our authorities, which are responsible for financial stability, to be able to manage the risks with this, I argue that we must be prepared to give them the tools they request.
But there is an additional dimension to this that I would like to highlight. It is described very well by the Fiscal Policy Council, which has provided valuable comments on the investigation even though it was not formally a referral body. The Council argues that there is a great societal need for this statistics and gives three main reasons for this.
Firstly, the statistics are needed so that we can describe what society looks like, which the council considers fundamental for a knowledge-based social analysis and, ultimately, for a well-functioning democracy.
Secondly, the council argues that the statistics are needed to evaluate the effect of economic policy. Today, neither the public, the authorities, nor we politicians have sufficient information to be able to evaluate the effects of economic-policy measures that affect individual households. That is a quite remarkable and important point.
For the third, the Fiscal Policy Council argues that the statistics are necessary to conduct a good stabilization policy and to prevent the emergence of financial instability.
Madam Speaker! On the occasions, for example at the Finance Committee's public hearings, when I have had the opportunity to ask the Riksbank's representatives whether the need for the requested statistics remains, the answer has been a clear yes.
As late as a few weeks ago, the Governor of the Riksbank received this question again in Ekot's Saturday interview, and he gave a very clear answer: Yes, we need this statistics. It would improve our basis for our decision-making.
Now, the fact is that the referral period for the investigation we are talking about expired on April 21, and judging by the Minister's answer, I do not receive any notification today as to whether or when a government bill to the Riksdag can become relevant. But for me to be able to understand the Minister's hesitations, I would like to know the following: Does the Minister consider the request for better data on the household's asset side to be relevant at all?
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! Let us begin by stating that we in Sweden shall have good decision-making bases for the decisions we make. It pleases me that also Ingela Nylund Watz and hopefully all the Social Democrats think so. It is important that we have good decision-making bases.
Let me thereafter state that there are obviously many discussions taking place here at the same time.
Is a good basis for decision-making the same thing as knowing everything about all individuals at all times, down to the level of detail? Ingela Nylund Watz can certainly explain in more detail how we would have a radically different monetary policy if we, for example, knew who has a built-in microwave at home. Is it at that level? Would we have radically different measures for macro-stability in general if we knew exactly how many miles every household drives with their car every year?
I think there are reasons to nuance this a little. Collecting a very large amount of data or collecting all data about all individuals and storing it in a large database is obviously associated with a number of tools that many would want to use - researchers and government officials and others who make decisions.
But it is also associated with a number of risks and problems. We know that we live in a very digitized world. To centralize all information about all people in a register, or at least information about all people's all economic activities and assets, is of course associated with a number of risks and problems. It can be seen purely morally, obviously. There can be a privacy problem with the fact that one is to collect data.
I do not know exactly where Ingela Nylund Watz wants to draw the line, but in the debate, proposals have emerged that one should report every year how many miles one has driven with one's car and so on. I do not know where Ingela Nylund Watz is prepared to draw the line in these contexts.
If one is somewhat interested in research and various statistical methods, one can of course also ask whether one needs data on all people, always, or if one can have a sample of data and make decisions based on that. Would monetary policy, stabilization policy, or the measures taken to counteract over-indebtedness and other types of problems look radically different if one made decisions based on a collected statistical basis instead of having individual data for every person? What happens if such a register leaks, for example? I think that different things must be weighed against each other; such is politics.
We have now received the referral responses, and an analysis of these is ongoing. Let me be clear that we see the need of the authorities, but I think that Ingela Nylund Watz is approaching the issue from a rather radical position. She still has a broader mandate than various authorities do.
I am a bit curious about how Ingela Nylund Watz views trade-offs – that is also important in politics. Should we collect data on how many kilometers one drives with their car every year? Should every renovation in the home be reported to the state? Should every krona one has in a savings account be reported into a register? Should all of this be collected together in one giant register of all Swedes?
I think that one, as a government representative and Member of Parliament, must weigh different things against each other. That researchers and authorities want all information about everyone can be understood from many aspects. But is Ingela Nylund Watz, as a representative for the Swedish people, unequivocally positive about all such information being collected? How much should the citizens administer themselves? How great a burden should be placed on households and so on?
Regardless of whether one is for or against it, I think it would be appropriate to have some reflection on both the advantages and disadvantages of this from Ingela Nylund Watz's side.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the contribution! I find it interesting in several different ways. I interpret it, nonetheless, benevolently, as that the Minister in some sense acknowledges the need to gain better knowledge of what the households' assets look like, which could be of use in both decision-making and the exercise of public authority. I therefore choose to interpret the Minister's statement positively.
The more tedious part of the Minister's contribution concerns the diminishing of the debate. It is well self-evident that the Minister, who holds the tool to produce a bill for the Riksdag, has every opportunity to make the trade-offs that the Minister requests of me. It is clear that if the government wants to meet the need that several of the referral bodies say they see, namely the need to create better foundations for decision-making and the exercise of authority, the Minister is free to submit proposals to the Riksdag that align well with the important trade-offs that the Minister thinks one should make.
I realize that there are difficult trade-offs in, among other things, privacy issues, but there are referral bodies that say this can be managed. I do, however, respect that these are difficult questions.
But it is the government that sets the pace when it comes to this. Either the government wants to meet the need that our heavy authorities, Riksbanken and Finansinspektionen, have flagged for several years, or the government does not want to. I think it would be honorable of the minister, in that case, to say: No, we do not think this is something we want to respond to.
I and, I believe, several other parties in this chamber are prepared to engage in serious discussions regarding a proposition where the government shows which trade-offs it wishes to make. I think it is reasonable that the minister in some way addresses the question of the need for this statistics instead of just problematizing it. Of course we can problematize, but the minister holds the tools to present a proposal in the direction that has been requested by several of the referral bodies and originally by the Riksbank.
The submission from the Fiscal Policy Council regarding the need to create a better basis for economic-policy analysis should still give cause for reflection, so I ask again: Does the Minister for Finance share the assessments made by the Fiscal Policy Council regarding the need for this statistics?
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! Now we meet here in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag, an absolutely excellent format for conducting discussions. One can express one's heart's and one's mind's meaning regarding various matters, moreover in a public format so that the Swedish people have the opportunity to take part in what one thinks and feels.
Madam Speaker! I think perhaps Ingela Nylund Watz is missing that chance a bit and am therefore genuinely curious about what types of problems Ingela Nylund Watz sees with collecting all the data on all people in Sweden all the time. For the sake of the matter's continued progress, I would appreciate hearing what is Ingela Nylund Watz's and the Social Democrats' position regarding this.
How much data does Ingela Nylund Watz think the citizens themselves should need to report? Should one report how far one has driven their car every year? Should one report exact changes one has made in their home? How much should, in that case, be automated from declarations, bank accounts, and companies? How large a burden is Ingela Nylund Watz prepared to place on different types of companies? How does Ingela Nylund Watz think these data should be collected and administered? How does Ingela Nylund Watz view the risks if such data were to leak out or end up in the hands of a person or organization that we do not want to have this type of data? Where is Ingela Nylund Watz prepared to draw the line? Why does Ingela Nylund Watz think it is so important to have data on all people, always?
What advantages does Ingela Nylund Watz see in having data on the entire population compared to, for example, having sample data on a part of the population? Most research and surveys are still conducted on the basis of sampling. Having individual data on every single individual, always, is very unusual. It would be a very large machinery to operate. How would Ingela Nylund Watz weigh the pros and cons of having a comprehensive register, where we collect all information about everyone, always, versus different types of data collection that provide a statistical basis that can be analyzed?
How does Ingela Nylund Watz see monetary policy being different with data at a granular level for every individual? Has Ingela Nylund Watz herself reflected on the Riksbank Governor's and others' discussions regarding data? What is the personal reflection regarding this? What would genuinely be different if we knew at a granular level how far one has driven their car every year, for example? What other types of measures does Ingela Nylund Watz envision from Finansinspektionen or other authorities so that they know things in detail about every individual? How much would this cost to implement? What will be the effect compared to, for example, having a sample to work with?
In Sweden, we may not be so accustomed to having a big argument or a high tone regarding data and statistics management. But I am genuinely curious about how Ingela Nylund Watz views these trade-offs between different things. Or is it just about demanding a register of everyone, always, with all the information and not being satisfied with anything else, period? How does Ingela Nylund Watz genuinely view these different types of measures? I would like to hear a bit more about that.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the contribution! I think it is good that the Minister has pinpointed a number of questions that need to be addressed in connection with handling the investigation. I understand that a great deal of work is underway regarding this, and as I said in my previous contribution, I have great respect for it – there are many trade-offs to make. It is about privacy. It is about how far one can go, what kind of data it is, who should do it, and how much responsibility one should have oneself. A long series of the questions that the Minister points out are completely relevant. I truly hope that a well-elaborated proposal will come from the Minister in a government bill in the future.
I do not have the ambition to shout for any register whatsoever. What I am looking for concerns the fact that for several years there have been requests from our heaviest authorities that handle the financial stability in Sweden. They have said that a better statistical basis that does not only show the households' indebtedness - which the authorities know most about - but also could give a hint as to how it looks on the asset side, could play a role for their risk assessments when it comes to financial stability. This is my grounds for action.
Since then, an investigation has been commissioned. That investigation is now on the Minister's desk and has been subject to consultation. I assume that when the Minister submits a bill to the Riksdag, several or quite many of the trade-offs that the Minister says needs to be made have also been made. We can have the discussion there. If the will exists, I am completely convinced that we can jointly ensure that the Riksbank's needs are met in this regard.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! Ingela Nylund Watz says "a hint". The step from "a hint" to demanding microdata on all households at all times is quite long. Then every asset and every change in one's life shall be registered in a large state database.
One can be for one thing or the other, but there is a big difference between getting a tip or a better basis for decision-making and always knowing everything about everyone. In that case, one must collect a very large amount of data concentrated in one place.
Madam Speaker! One might possibly question Ingela Nylund Watz and the Social Democrats' very great interest in building a central database of all people's assets and holdings while they completely overlooked having control over other important state functions. I am thinking of gang crime, migration, the population register, and the coordination numbers.
Ingela Nylund Watz had a central role during the years when Sweden lost control in a number of areas. How many coordination numbers were distributed? What was the situation with the population registration? Which people were actually staying here in Sweden? It apparently did not seem so important for the Social Democrats to address this. But knowing everything about everyone's assets has an enormous value. Here one can wonder what is actually the driving force.
It is not unknown that the Social Democrats repeatedly return to the idea that they want to increase taxation. Now I do not know exactly what Ingela Nylund Watz herself thinks about the wealth tax, but various proposals to tax assets more have been raised by the Socialdemokraterna. One cannot escape the thought that the intention is for this register to play a completely different role, namely that people should be taxed more heavily and that one should be able to reintroduce a wealth tax, something that once upon a time created very large problems for Sweden. I am not prepared to contribute to building up such an infrastructure in Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.