Response to interpellation 2023/24:383 on women who lack the financial means to divorce
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that economic violence is a serious form of oppression and that the government is working to increase the detection of violence as well as strengthen support to municipalities for housing 1. L believes that financial knowledge is important for economic independence and that the government is taking measures to analyze the housing market and the impact of remote work on equality 1 2. L also emphasizes investments to get foreign-born women into the labor market 3. L believes that the most important thing is to fight inflation 3 and that the government is working with concrete measures for foreign-born women 3 4. L argues that one must make better use of existing tax resources before discussing tax reforms 4. 5 S argues that the government does not conduct any economic equality policy and that women are punished by the government's policy 5 6. S believes that the government rejects proposals for extra child benefits, student grants, and bank tax 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 Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! Sofia Amloh has asked me how I intend to act so that the economy does not prevent women from leaving a bad relationship.
I welcome the member's commitment to the issue, a commitment that I share. Violence by men against women shall be combated with the full force of society. Violence by men against women can also involve economic violence that leads to the economy preventing women from leaving a bad relationship.
Economic equality is one of the gender equality sub-goals: Women and men shall have the same opportunities and conditions regarding paid work that provides economic independence throughout life. The Government stands behind this goal. Added to this is, of course, the importance that more people, especially women and girls, should be able to build up their finances in order to feel both security in everyday life and belief in the future. Here, financial knowledge is extremely important so that one can make well-informed decisions regarding savings and capital, which today is unequally distributed.
Unfortunately, we face a worse economic situation, which makes existence even more financially strained for many households. In that situation, it is important that the fiscal policy is well-balanced and that the government acts to bring down inflation. Inflation hits Swedish households in general, but in particular the especially vulnerable households with small or no margins. Among the especially vulnerable households are single women with children.
Regarding economic violence in close relationships, I want to emphasize that it is a serious form of violence and oppression, where control and power are exercised by the perpetrator with the help of finances. A person subjected to violence who is already in a state of economic vulnerability risks being hit hard, which can make it difficult for those who want to leave destructive and violent relationships. This can become particularly palpable when economic margins decrease as, for example, housing costs and food prices increase. For the person who is subjected to it, it can have serious consequences in the form of long-term debt. This, in turn, limits the possibility of leaving the relationship and securing a new home.
An important part of the government's ongoing work to combat violence in close relationships, including economic violence, is a joint agency mandate to increase the detection of violence (A2022/00842). Another pressing measure is the Socialstyrelsen's mandate to strengthen the national support to the municipalities in their work to provide support to victims of violence to arrange permanent housing (A2022/00528). A safe home is crucial to be able to maintain protection and a prerequisite for a functioning life situation for women and children who are victims of violence. Socialstyrelsen also has a mandate to propose measures so that victims of violence receive more coordinated support during contacts with authorities, which can be crucial for leaving a violent relationship (S2023/03257). Jämställdhetsmyndigheten has a mandate to increase knowledge about victims of violence who live with protected personal data, with a focus on women and children (A2023/01276). Skatteverket has, in addition, a mandate to establish a national structure for cooperation with, and information dissemination to, other agencies in order to contribute to a uniform, secure, and effective handling of protected personal data (Fi2023/03131).
The ten-year national strategy to prevent and combat men's violence against women applies until 2026, and an action program to intensify the work applies for 2021-2023. The Government is now working on developing a new action program to counter and combat men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression, including economic violence, which shall apply for 2024-2026.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the government closely follows questions regarding economic equality and economic violence.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer, but there are a few things in the answer that I am puzzled by and which I find unclear and somewhat strange.
The Minister says that financial knowledge is extremely important in order to be able to make well-informed decisions regarding savings and capital, which today is unequally distributed. Yes, there is probably some truth to that. But it is not the financial knowledge that has been decisive for a majority of women who today feel an anxiety about being able to leave a relationship with a man they no longer want to live with. It has not been the financial knowledge that has been decisive when it comes to being able to leave the relationship or not.
I think it is an answer that places the responsibility on the individual woman. It is then the woman who has not saved enough or who has not made the right or wise economic choices when it comes to saving, and it is that which has put her in this economic situation.
It is an answer and an explanation of a social problem that is both out of touch with reality and trivialized. It is somewhat cheeky, even for a bourgeois politician, to describe the situation in that way.
It made me think of Ebba Busch. She tweeted a few years ago about how women with low pensions would make different choices in life.
Madam Speaker! The Minister says in his response that inflation needs to be combated and that inflation hits Swedish households hard in general and in particular the especially vulnerable households with small or no margins. Among the especially vulnerable households are single women with children.
I completely agree. That is why I have called the Minister to the chamber to have exactly this debate. But what is said in the response is that important financial trade-offs are being made.
We are reached by report after report that a third of all adults in Sweden have difficulty paying running expenses such as rent and food. The Enforcement Authority points to historically high levels of indebtedness among the Swedish people, and women stand out. Two out of three single parents - who are mainly women - cannot afford to let their children participate in an organized leisure activity. Six out of ten women feel anxiety about their economic situation and about whether they can manage to move to their own housing in the event of a separation or divorce.
The Minister of State is, and many with me are, answerable. Does the Minister for Equality think that these are the correct fiscal considerations when the consequences look like this?
Why are you doing nothing so that the particularly vulnerable households, single women with children, do not take this hit in this tough economic crisis? That women cannot leave a relationship or a marriage because they cannot be economically independent in Sweden is beyond all criticism. If one does not act on it as a responsible minister, one should be careful with words.
It is not credible, or for that matter worthy, to say that the government stands behind the sub-goal on economic equality when it is women who are punished by your policy.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! When we talk about economic equality, I can feel a frustration over how narrow that discussion has been for all too long.
We are talking about wage differences. It is very important to talk about wage differences, because there are still, even today, far too large wage differences between men and women. When one looks at what it is due to, one sees that it is largely due to the fact that men and women make different career choices that affect incomes.
However, we cannot stop there. We must look at life economics. We must look at women's entrepreneurship, capital, and savings. It is not about, as Sofia Amloh claims, placing some form of responsibility on women, to blame women for not having sufficient financial knowledge. But when we see that capital and ownership differ so much between men and women, we cannot just stand by passively and say: We cannot talk about that, because then we are blaming women. We must, of course, find the reasons why it looks the way it does and act to strengthen women's economy, not just in the paycheck but through life economics.
It is true, just as Sofia Amloh points out, that economic inequality can constitute an obstacle when it comes to leaving a violent relationship. In our work to combat and prevent men's violence against women and other violence in close relationships and honor-related violence and oppression, we must generally tear down the obstacles that exist today, so that people have real opportunities to leave a violent relationship or, for that matter, a relationship that one does not want to stay in for some other reason. This is not just about the violence, but it is about the freedom to be able to stay in or leave relationships that one does not want to be a part of.
Here we need to take a number of measures, and this government is doing so. As an example, I can mention that in the regulatory letter for 2024, the government gave a new assignment to the Gender Equality Authority to analyze the housing market from a gender equality perspective. It is also a very important measure that of course is linked to the question of economic limitations that may exist when it comes to leaving a relationship. If one does not have the economic means to acquire a new home, it can result in staying in a relationship.
We have also, in the regulatory letter for 2024, given a mandate to Mynak, the Agency for Occupational Health Knowledge, to investigate how increased remote work has affected equality. If we look at a longer perspective, regarding the pay gaps between men and women, we have seen that the gap has gradually decreased. But we have seen a slowing effect in recent years. And here it is also obviously important that we see what causes this situation, what impact the pandemic has had, and how the situation we now find ourselves in after the pandemic is affected by increased remote work.
These are some examples of the measures that the government is taking to give all people - men and women - the freedom and opportunity to leave relationships that they do not want to stay in.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! I can help the Minister with the assignment that has been given to various agencies, especially when it comes to the analysis that the Gender Equality Authority was to conduct of the housing situation. There are no homes. No homes are being built by this government. It is quite simple to answer that question. And it will definitely not benefit women who need to leave a destructive relationship.
But this debate is about the fact that this government is not conducting any economic equality policy. And I have just demonstrated a number of different consequences of the fact that women are currently systematically deeply economically vulnerable.
The Minister has said several times that she is following the issue and thinks it is important. It is time for the Minister for Equality to step down from the gallery, get out of the commentary box and start acting and not just follow the issue.
Madam Speaker! One of the most female-dominated sectors is healthcare and care. This government is responsible for the fact that a welfare slaughter is currently taking place all around our long country. Almost all regions are forced to issue warnings. And in my own region, Sörmland, the managers are relinquishing responsibility for the work environment because it is beyond control.
We Social Democrats want to invest much more in welfare and healthcare. We Social Democrats proposed an extra child allowance. But this government and the Minister for Equality said no. We Social Democrats proposed an extra student grant. But this SD-led government also said no to that.
The banks are taking profit after profit. Overall, it is estimated that the banks are taking excess profits of 90 billion kronor. We Social Democrats proposed a bank tax on their excess profits. But you know what, this government said no.
Politics is about prioritizing, and you have not prioritized women and their economic situation.
Madam Speaker! Now the savings account is empty, if there were anything in it. And the wallet is empty. One has sold what one has on Blocket or on Tradera, and one has pawned the inherited jewelry. Still, one just now cannot afford to pay the rent or to buy food for one's children.
We have never said that we demand that households be fully compensated. What we say is that the fight against inflation must not cost whatever it takes. And we have above all said that it must not cost the particularly vulnerable. How poor and how indebted must women in Sweden become before the Minister for Equality acts instead of analyzing and commenting on reality?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! Sometimes when one stands in this rostrum, one wonders if the person one is debating with is even listening to what one is talking about. I have presented concrete measures. Still, it is claimed that I am pondering and analyzing.
I mentioned in my previous post two measures that the government has taken, and we are doing much more than that. We have, for example, a special focus on the group of foreign-born women, whom we see as the absolutely most vulnerable group among women. Here, the government has also made several initiatives.
We have, for example, an agreement that was signed this spring between the government and SKR regarding a joint initiative to reach out to foreign-born women who visit the open preschool so that we can try to get them into the labor market.
We also have a joint agency plan to increase the entry of foreign-born women into the labor market, which is to be concretized. The agencies involved here are Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Jämställdhetsmyndigheten, and Migrationsverket.
There are several such concrete measures that specifically aim to increase economic equality with a focus on the groups that need it the most.
We are, however, in an economic crisis. This cannot have escaped anyone in this country. And in an economic crisis it has historically been so, and this crisis is no exception, that it hits the economically most vulnerable the hardest. Those who have the smallest margins are hit the most in an economic crisis.
The single most important thing to do in this situation has been to fight inflation. Even if one were to ensure that people get more kronor in their wallets, it does not help if these kronor are then worth nothing and if they are not enough to pay the rent and buy food and clothes, or for that matter, for the children's leisure activities. In that regard, the government has had a strong focus on fighting inflation, and there we now see positive results. It is the result of this government's policy and is of great importance for everyone in our country, but of course especially for those with the smallest margins who have a great interest in that every krona actually also be worth something when the bills are to be paid.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! I actually believe that quite a few of you agree with me that an extra child allowance in the month of January would have made a difference. I am quite convinced of that.
That the government stands here and says that it would not have mattered, that it would not have been worth anything without it having been something out in the periphery or in the margins is a very bourgeois view.
I think it is a pity that we have a government that cannot see that it would have mattered for the single women who are trying to make ends meet and who feel a sense of panic when they have no money when there are several days left before they get any new ones when they are to buy food and a number of other things. There are zero kronor in the account. Then the child benefit would have mattered.
Madam Speaker! Then the Minister says that one has a special focus and that one presents a lot of proposals on what one does about the economic situation. One has a special focus on foreign-born women. It is the measure, that one has a special focus and a plan that one is to concretize. I believe it is time to start doing that. Then one can quite quickly start acting. That is what I am somewhat looking for.
Madam Speaker! I can once again state that the Minister for Equality has not prioritized women, even though we know that they are those who are hit hardest in a crisis. When one does not do so, one also chooses to accept that women and children should take the biggest hit in the economic crisis. I find that deeply sad.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I shall begin my concluding remarks in the same way as I began my previous remarks, namely that I find it fascinating that it does not seem as if the other side is listening to what is being said. I did not say a single word about the child allowance in my previous remarks, or that it would not matter. What I am talking about is that we need to fight inflation, because if we do not, whatever money we have in our wallets or in our bank accounts will be worth nothing.
I also spoke about concrete measures - not just vague fluff - to reach the group of foreign-born women.
I want to bring in an additional perspective when we talk about these issues. We are, of course, in an economic crisis, which affects the vulnerable. In this situation, it is of course important that we safeguard our money and ensure that it goes to the right things and to those who need them the most.
This government is investing heavily in combating the criminal economy, which today turns over between 100 and 150 billion kronor. We are going to crush it. We need to ensure that taxpayers' money ends up where it can actually make a difference, for example in our welfare and for those who actually have a right to our welfare funds—those who need more money in their wallets. This has been enormously neglected by the previous government, and before we talk about any kind of tax reforms, we need to make better use of our existing tax resources. It could make a big difference if that money went in the right direction.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.