Response to interpellation 2024/25:422 on evictions of households with children
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M takes the eviction of families with children seriously and emphasizes the importance of cooperation between authorities and municipalities 1 2. M argues that the focus should be on preventive work, detecting economic vulnerability in a timely manner, and supporting people back into the labor market 3. M believes that agreements in the housing market must be respected 3 and that the temporary supplementary grant in the housing allowance has been an important measure 1. M argues that work and own income are the best guarantees against poverty 2 and that tax cuts make it more profitable to move from benefits to work 2 4 5. M argues that increased taxes risk locking people into poverty 6. S believes that the economic conditions are the primary cause of increased evictions 7. S proposes an increased child allowance and permanent supplements to the housing allowance 8. MP argues that the child allowance and housing allowance must cover actual costs so that children can have secure homes 9. M wants to set higher requirements for the municipalities so that more children can see their parents go to work 6. M wants to continue working to break social exclusion and strengthen household finances so that more can live on their own wages 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! Ingela Nylund Watz has asked the Minister for Social Affairs when and how he and the government intend to act so that the number of evictions involving children will decrease.
The interpellation has been handed over to me.
The Government takes the occurrence of evictions seriously, not least among families with children. In order to increase knowledge on why the number of evictions of families with children has increased in recent years, the Government has tasked the National Board of Health and Welfare with mapping and analyzing the cause. The agency shall report on how different municipalities work to prevent evictions and what measures are taken after an eviction has been carried out. Furthermore, the National Board of Health and Welfare shall submit proposals for measures to reduce the number of evictions of families with children and support the municipalities in their work.
In November last year, the government also submitted the bill Measures for better housing supply (prop. 2024/25:42) to the Riksdag. In the bill, it is proposed, among other things, that the municipal guidelines for housing supply shall be replaced with action plans for housing supply. The action plans shall, among other things, contain information on what needs for additional housing exist in the municipalities. The bill also proposes that it should be clarified that municipal housing agencies may mediate housing that has been reserved based on different needs and offer priority without it affecting the possibility of collecting a search fee from the applicants. The Riksdag adopted the bill at the end of January, and the new rules began to apply on March 1 this year.
Within the framework of the government's national strategy to counter homelessness, which applies between 2022 and 2026, the government has given several agency mandates aimed at countering evictions. For example, the county administrative boards have been tasked with supporting the municipalities in their work to prevent evictions during the strategy period. Furthermore, the Swedish Enforcement Authority has been tasked to work towards ensuring that social services and landlords in all municipalities cooperate to prevent evictions. That work has been particularly focused on preventing the eviction of families with children.
The social welfare committees' knowledge of the living conditions in the municipalities needs to be given greater space in the municipalities' social planning. Based on their specific knowledge of social aspects in the municipalities, the social welfare committees have the opportunity to influence the design of new and older residential areas. The Government has therefore tasked Boverket and Socialstyrelsen with developing a methodological support to support the social services and develop the social perspective in social planning with a focus on homelessness. Socialstyrelsen has additionally been tasked to develop such support for the social services based on the broader focus found in the bill on a new Social Services Act (prop. 2024/25:89).
For many households, the housing cost is the single largest expense. The housing allowance is a targeted benefit to reach households with weak finances. The temporary supplementary allowance in the housing allowance has been an important measure to support households in a time of increased living costs. To strengthen the economic situation for those who have had it the hardest, the government has, on five occasions, extended the temporary supplementary allowance to families with children within the housing allowance. We have also increased the supplementary allowance when the needs were assessed as greatest.
Madam Speaker! The world economy is currently in a period of uncertainty, and there is a risk that the economic recovery will become more protracted. Therefore, it is good that the public finances are so strong. It provides good conditions for us to manage a potentially deepened recession. The Swedish economy stands strong, not least compared to other EU countries. This also means that Sweden can do more to support the economy as we may now be heading towards lower growth.
Madam Speaker! I can truly understand that many are worried and wondering what this now means for wallets and jobs. There is also, as I said, a risk that the recovery in the economy will become more protracted. But we are ready to support the Swedish economy if it is needed for the Swedish households. Sweden has strong public finances, and that will mean that we can handle the effects better than many other countries.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, which I have been waiting for since February 14. The answer unfortunately shows with all desired clarity that the government in practice is failing the most vulnerable children and their parents. It is sad to have to state that this government, led by SD, lets the children take the hit for the cost crisis. The number of evictions has overall increased by 10 percent in the last year, those with children involved by 17 percent. It is a clear signal that something is deeply wrong in our society. As I see it, this is deeply unworthy of a welfare country. It concerns 711 children who were evicted in 2024.
The measures that the Minister enumerates in his answer are mapping, analyses, and investigations; they ensure that the government has something to say when the question arises. It is a lot of talk and very little workshop. The Minister is in fact trying, through all these analyses and investigations, to divert attention from what in my opinion is the fundamental problem and which the government should see, namely that its own economic policy has led to the fact that single parents now have it so tough that they are forced to borrow in order to be able to put food on the table and pay the rent.
In reality, right now, while poor families with children are becoming even poorer due to higher food prices and rent increases that are so high that they have difficulty covering the rent, the government is outright worsening the support for the most vulnerable. The extra supplement to the housing allowance was lowered on January 1 from 40 percent to 25 percent and will be completely abolished on July 1.
It is thus the most vulnerable who are made even worse off by the government's economic policy. Therefore, the main point in the Minister's enumeration of investigations and mappings, the assignment to Socialstyrelsen, is bordering on provocative, I would like to say.
It is exactly as if the government does not know that it is increasingly the worsened economic conditions that are leading to strain and that the poorest families with children, and particularly single parents, are getting it even worse.
It is clear that the government knows this. It simply chooses not to listen enough to that ear. Instead, it chooses another economic policy that benefits high-income earners and especially the very wealthiest through large tax cuts.
One wonders how many more evictions with children involved need to be carried out before the government acts. How much poorer do single mothers need to become before the government thinks it becomes embarrassing even for a right-wing government?
Since the government has actively chosen not to listen to the signals showing that it is its own economic policy that is the problem, I would like to provide some information.
The Swedish Enforcement Authority's latest report is well worth reading. The reports from Majblomman, Save the Children, the Tenants' Association, and the Red Cross are also particularly important to read right now. It also concerns the association Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrars alarm reports that parents cannot afford to put food on the table, and reports from civil society organizations showing increased queues for the most basic things one needs to give their children a dignified upbringing.
What advice does the Minister now want to give to those families who are economically on the edge of such vulnerability that they risk being evicted?
Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)
Madam Speaker! There are several debates on almost the same subject here in the chamber this afternoon. A short while ago, it was debated how the government can ensure that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is complied with when children are evicted from their homes. Now we are debating how policy can contribute to reducing the number of evictions of children, and in a little while, there will be a debate on how the economic situation for single parents can be improved.
These issues are indications of something very alarming. It is that the economic situation for Sweden's families with children is acute. During 2024, 711 children were evicted from their homes across Sweden, and we know that the primary reason is the parents' inability to pay the rent.
According to a new report from Majblomman, Rädda Barnen, Röda Korset, and Hyresgästföreningen, over a quarter of single parents with low incomes, and almost as many cohabiting parents, have had difficulty paying costs linked to the housing. Even more have had difficulty affording healthy food or leisure activities for the children. It is in a situation where rents and food prices have risen much faster than wages have, which means that not even people with secure and permanent employment can be sure that the money lasts the whole month.
Despite this, the government and the Sweden Democrats have not chosen a path that supports precisely those families who are struggling. On the contrary, they have systematically prioritized tax cuts for high-income earners over providing support to the families who truly need it.
During the current parliamentary term, the Tidö parties have so far chosen to lower the temporary housing allowance for families with children, and this summer it will disappear completely. Recently, the government and Sverigedemokraterna announced that they will raise the limits in the high-cost protection for medicines, which will hit low-income earners, the elderly, and the chronically ill hardest.
Furthermore, they plan to introduce a cap on the social assistance, which, according to the government's own investigator, will make it extremely difficult for parents with the very lowest incomes to ensure that their children have a secure home, food on the table, and clothes on their backs.
I believe it is obvious to everyone that this quadruple-smock against the country's families with children and low-income earners will lead to more parents – regardless of whether they have income from wages, pensions, sickness insurance, or social assistance – having a worse economic situation. It will mean that more children are evicted, in sharp contrast to what the Convention on the Rights of the Child says and what pure decency requires. We cannot have it this way.
Madam Speaker! For me and for Miljöpartiet, it is clear that politics must act to support vulnerable households. We refuse to accept that children pay the price for bad politics. All children have the right to a safe home, food on the table, and a meaningful leisure time.
We therefore propose, among other things, that the temporary housing allowance for families with children be increased and made permanent, and that the regular housing allowance be increased and indexed in line with inflation, so that it is not eroded as food and rents rise. The allowance also needs to be broadened so that more people are entitled to receive it. The child allowance and maintenance support also need to be increased and indexed, so that the allowances actually cover the increased costs.
These are some of the Environment Party's proposals to support Sweden's families with children. My question to Minister Anna Tenje is whether the government will present any similar proposals in its spring budget amendment. What we have heard so far is simply not enough.
Caroline Högström (M)
Madam Speaker! That children are affected by economic difficulties at home is a serious societal problem. When a family risks losing their housing, it is required that society has functioning interventions in place long before the situation goes that far. The focus must be on prevention, not on managing the consequences afterwards. Therefore, for example, the government's focus on bringing down inflation was crucial.
Madam Speaker! The vast majority of evictions of families with children do not occur without prior contact with social services, landlords, and support measures. But we need to become better at acting earlier. It is about detecting economic vulnerability in time, offering guidance on household finances, and providing support so that people can return to the labor market.
Families with children often end up in the risk zone when parents have insecure incomes, live on social assistance, or have become stuck in benefit dependency. Therefore, it is our conviction that the way forward must begin with more jobs, clear incentives to work, and targeted measures that support people's path back to self-sufficiency.
Madam Speaker! We also need stronger preventive work at the municipal level, where school, social services, and civil society collaborate to quickly identify and support families at risk. This could involve debt and budget counseling and flexible rental solutions, but also clear follow-up to ensure that problems do not grow into something insurmountable.
At the same time, it is important to remember that a functioning housing market is built on the fact that agreements are respected. There, we must maintain the balance: protecting children from being affected but without undermining the accountability upon which the entire housing market rests.
Madam Speaker! Children should not get caught in the crossfire because of adults' mistakes. But the solution does not lie in banning consequences, but in creating the conditions for people to stand on their own feet. Early, accurate, and coordinated interventions are our most important tool to secure children's upbringing and prevent families from needing to stand without a roof over their heads.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the member for the interpellation and the other members for their participation in the debate. These are pressing and important questions about how we can reduce the risk of eviction of households, and particularly with a focus on households that include children.
Regardless of what the members argue regarding analyses and unnecessary investigations, it is important to emphasize that it is about cooperation. It is a cooperation between different institutions, authorities, and agencies in our society precisely in order to be able to prevent evictions and, in the long term, establish structures that ensure children do not need to be evicted.
As I explained in my response, a massive amount of work is underway, which I assess as very important in a number of areas involving several different authorities. The issue of eviction prevention spans many different fields. Therefore, precisely cooperation and measures in several areas is the most important way to address the issue.
The government has supported households in a difficult time. If one looks at the effects on the households' economic standard of the government's proposals and notifications during the mandate period, one clearly sees that the economic standard increases most in percentage terms in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and least of all in the top income groups.
With that said, I can understand that many now feel anxiety and wonder what the world's unrest will have for significance for one's own wallet and, in some cases, even for one's job. That is precisely why it is so important to emphasize that Sweden stands strong, not least compared to other countries. Our public finances are good, which means that we can act powerfully if that should be needed in the future. The Government is, of course, following the issue very closely.
At the same time, we know that it is work and own income that is the best guarantee to avoid both poverty and evictions. It is uncommon to have a low economic standard in households where both parents are in employment. During 2023, it was only 2 percent of cohabiting households with two employed parents that had a low economic standard. Among households where parents are not in employment, however, the proportion with a low economic standard is very high.
That is why the government has adjusted the policy and taken several measures specifically to get more people from benefits to work. For these households, this will be of absolutely decisive importance to reduce poverty and vulnerability and reduce the risk of evictions. But at least equally important is that the children in these families see their parents go to work, given that otherwise it is an exclusion and a poverty that risks being passed on to the children.
We know that research shows that long benefit periods contribute to increased risks for, among other things, ill health, poverty, and exclusion. It obviously makes it even more difficult for people to enter the labor market and become self-sufficient. For a single person, a good income is extra important to manage the finances. It is therefore positive that the employment rate has increased slightly among single women with children since 2021.
To lift these families from a tough economic standard, the most important thing is to tackle the source of the problem and not just the symptoms, and that is what this government is doing.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the supplementary comments!
Right now, there are many single mothers who have waited for three months or more to receive a decision from Försäkringskassan regarding their housing allowance. The pressure on the agency is very heavy because they have received diminished resources and have longer processing times.
The rent increases that have occurred recently are now breaking many already quite fragile economies, and the situation has become desperate for many. That is how reality looks. At the same time, there are many who have done exactly everything they can to lower their costs. People shop for clothes secondhand. They cut back on leisure activities or abolish them entirely for their children. They hunt for the cheapest options when they shop. They reduce their living spaces. They work every extra shift they can get. They simply do everything they can.
That is why it is directly offensive when the advice to cook food from leftovers comes when the leftovers are already cooked, or when one receives the advice to set aside a little every month when it is the case every month that the salary is finished when there are still very many days left in the month.
It is offensive when the country's Finance Minister, who herself receives 3,000 kronor more per month from the Moderaterna in reduced tax, says that she does not know what to do with the extra money. Instead, she gives advice to others to compare prices and shop where it is cheapest. The Finance Minister seems, just like various types of "know-it-alls" across general Sweden, to believe that it is those who are most economically vulnerable who are not doing everything to improve their situation.
Let us be in agreement, and I actually believe we are, that the most economically vulnerable are doing everything they can. It is instead the government that neglects to do what the government can.
We Social Democrats, Madam Speaker, are happy to map out and analyze various developments in society, just as the government does through the assignments the Minister enumerated. It is important. But the reasons why the evictions are increasing are completely obvious!
The government cannot have missed the warning signs that have come from the Swedish Enforcement Authority, civil society organizations, Save the Children, the Red Cross, the Tenants' Association, and the Majblomman national association that it is now the economic conditions that have become so straining for many of the country's families with children, especially single mothers. It is they that make one fall over the edge and no longer manage to do what one wants to do most, namely pay the rent.
In our budget proposal, we have presented other alternatives for the country's families with children. We have proposed an increase of the child allowance by 200 kronor. We want to make permanent the extra supplement to the housing allowance that the government is removing on July 1, precisely when anxiety in the world is increasing and it becomes harder to see a bright future. Even the country's Minister of Finance said as recently as today in the Finance Committee that there is probably reason to consider whether we do not need to revise down our growth forecasts. It could therefore become tougher on the country's labor market. Precisely then, when it becomes at its worst, the government cuts with precision the extra support that has kept many above water.
I want to ask the Minister: What does the government's medicine look like now? I do not want to wait for the answer until 2027, when the investigation that the National Board of Health and Welfare has been commissioned to conduct on what could be done is to be completed. What does the Minister want to give as a statement to the vulnerable families with children now?
Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)
Madam Speaker! We heard both the Minister for Social Insurance and Caroline Högström in their speeches highlight that employment and a salary are the best ways to break out of vulnerability and reduce the risk of evictions of children and families with children. It is important, and it might have been enough if Swedish workers had been fairly compensated and had a good salary that corresponded to the work they did. It might have been enough if the rents in Sweden had been reasonable and if the wages had increased faster than the rents.
But that is not the society we have today. Many of the most vulnerable families with children consist of guardians with permanent employment. The Minister spoke a lot about cohabiting parents. But according to the organization Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrar, 3,029 kronor is missing every month for a single parent with two children and a monthly income of 25,000 kronor, which is an average member of theirs.
As I mentioned in my previous speech, over a quarter of single parents with low incomes, and almost as many cohabiting parents, have had difficulty paying costs linked to the housing.
If we are to reduce the number of children being taken into care, we therefore need a child allowance that covers the actual costs of having children. We need a housing allowance that covers high rents, so that every child in Sweden, regardless of whether their parents have a job or not and regardless of where in Sweden they live, shall have a secure home to live in.
It is not the contribution we have today. The number of families with children who receive housing allowance decreases every year because the income limits are not adjusted upwards. Fewer are entitled to housing allowance. The size of the housing allowance is decreasing.
My question to Minister Tenje is: Why is the government not willing to strengthen the child allowance and the housing allowance in the way that is obviously necessary?
Caroline Högström (M)
Madam Speaker! I share the view that it is deeply serious when children are affected by economic vulnerability. We are also living in a restless time, as the Minister has pointed out. But if we are to take the issue seriously, we must also dare to speak about where the responsibility also lies.
Malmö, which is governed by the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet, is the municipality where the most children are evicted. It is a strong reminder that the municipalities have a great responsibility, a responsibility they must take. It is about working preventatively, catching economically vulnerable families in time, and having better cooperation between social services, schools, and landlords.
In Stockholm, which is also governed by the Social Democrats with the support of the same parties, they are raising the tax. They are raising the tax in the region, the tax that hits those with low incomes the hardest – methodically, accurately.
Madam Speaker! The Government is taking its responsibility. Some of the tax cuts we have made have been mentioned. We have extended the temporary additional amount within the housing allowance. We have appointed the investigation that has been referred to several times to map out the causes behind families with children being evicted, this in order to be able to direct the measures where they are needed most. We have also raised the norm for social assistance with regard to inflation – quite historical increases in recent years, if one is to be honest. Above all, we have lowered the tax on labor so that more families can move from benefits to self-sufficiency.
It is this way we build security – not with symbolic politics but with measures that truly make a difference for children and families in vulnerable situations.
(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I intend to let this interpellation debate conclude before the break, unless there is anyone who has a first item on their group meeting.)
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for that, even though I have three interpellation debates left after the group meeting. I will therefore be back.
Madam Speaker! When the Social Democrats and the Green Party seriously want to break exclusion and child poverty, they are warmly welcome to join the government's policy for increased incentives for work, to make it more profitable to work and move from benefits to jobs and for full-time activation of benefit seekers. If they stand behind those proposals, people can come closer to a job and more children can see their parents go to work. That is how you break the destructive spiral and minimize the risk of exclusion being inherited, which has been the Social Democrats' hallmark for several decades.
It is very clear that it is the government that stands behind the hard-working Swedes. We stand on their side. We also stand behind those who want to move from benefits to work and want to make it possible for them to do so. We have given the most to those who have the least. We have also lowered the tax for an average household, which now gets to keep over 9,000 kronor more of what they have earned – money that in expensive times definitely does better in the households' wallets than in the state's pocket.
What do the Social Democrats do when they get into power and often rule together with the Green Party? Well, then they raise the tax instead. Just as Member of Parliament Högström showed, the tax in Malmö is high, and it is there that the most families with children are evicted. We can also look at Stockholm. If such a family, for whom the government has lowered the tax by over 9,000 kronor, happens to live in Stockholm, it instead receives a tax increase from the Social Democrats, both in the region and in the municipality. Then 7,000 kronor of our tax cuts of 9,000 kronor disappear.
When the members speak about tough economic times, expensive food, increased rent, higher interest rates and so on, I wonder if the members believe that these families are better off or worse off when their party comrades in Stockholm at the local and regional level remove these 7,000 kronor.
If the Social Democrats, and for that matter also the Green Party, are truly committed to ensuring that household finances are strengthened, why do they consistently raise taxes every time they get the chance? As some wise person has said – I have previously reproduced this in the chamber: In the Social Democrats' Sweden, everyone shall receive subsidies, but no one shall be able to live on their wages.
That is not the case for us Moderates. Nor is it the case for the government. Instead, we see to it that taxes are lowered so that households can keep more of their money. We also make it more profitable to move from benefits to work so that more households, especially families with children, can stand on a better and more stable foundation and do not risk ending up in a situation where, for example, one is evicted.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for further comments!
My point with the interpellation, to use the fact that the number of evictions of households with children is increasing as a symbol that something is very skewed in our society, is to try to show that economic policy and priorities in economic policy matter.
That is why I think it is reasonable that a minister responsible for these types of issues takes note of the information that came in the Swedish Enforcement Authority's latest report. It is stated there that what is now particularly highlighted is that the economic conditions have become a greater driver for the number of evictions of households with children increasing. Previously, it might have been more social problems, rowdy home conditions, substance abuse and other things, but now it is the economic parameters that are playing a role to an ever greater extent.
Then one must as a minister and as a government, I think, in a welfare society that claims to be decent, ask oneself: Is there anything that we as a government can do to avoid those families who are now right on the edge – who have received these rent increases, who are in a very difficult situation and who have stretched every krona – falling over the edge, ending up with the Enforcement Authority and then gradually perhaps risking being evicted?
One can investigate a great deal. One can cooperate much more. I completely agree with that. But it is now that it is happening. It is now that the government is removing the temporary additional amount to the housing allowance. With surgical precision, this is happening at the same time as the anxiety in the world around us increases, growth in Sweden worsens, and the economy declines. It is not the right economic policy at the current moment.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Yes, priorities matter and they also have consequences. Raising taxes to finance increased benefits only risks locking people into poverty and exclusion, an exclusion that we know is passed down between generations. In this way, large parts of the exclusion we see today have been created.
That is exactly why the government thinks it is so important that it becomes more profitable to move from benefits to work. We are setting higher requirements for the municipalities and ensuring that they have a larger toolbox so that more children can see their parents go to work, precisely to minimize the risk of the exclusion that could otherwise occur.
We will continue to work to break exclusion, strengthen household finances and get more people into work and able to live on their own wages. It creates empowerment, faith in the future and hope even for the next generation.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.