Response to interpellation 2025/26:358 on poverty in Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns poverty in Sweden and the government's measures. M argues that the government has lowered food VAT and raised housing cost limits to strengthen household finances 1. M emphasizes that the work principle is the key to breaking exclusion and that the benefit reforms shall make it more profitable to work than to live on benefits 2 3. M believes that the reform makes a difference by ensuring more children have parents who work 3 and that the municipalities have an obligation to provide citizens with full work capacity with the conditions for work 4. S argues that poverty is increasing and that the government does not see reality 5. S criticizes the benefit reforms as risking an increase in poverty 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.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Arber Gashi has asked me what measures I intend to take within my area of responsibility to combat increasing poverty.
Sweden is in a prolonged recession. Even though inflation has now decreased, the previously high inflation has affected households' finances negatively. The government has therefore taken a number of different measures to support households.
Through the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1), the government has submitted proposals and the Riksdag has decided on a number of measures specifically to strengthen household finances. This includes, among other things, a reduced food VAT – which begins to apply on April 1, Mr. Speaker – and a reduced childcare fee and raised housing cost limits for families with children within the housing allowance.
To help economically vulnerable households in the long term, it is however important that more people enter employment. The Government is therefore implementing a number of different measures, for example the various parts of the government's benefit reform. They collectively aim to strengthen the work principle and make it more profitable to move from benefits to work.
The government's policy has, viewed over the entire mandate period, given most to those who earn the least. The effects on household finances as a result of the government's proposals and notifications during the mandate period show that the economy has been strengthened most, in percentage terms, in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and least in the two highest income groups.
The statistics that Arber Gashi refers to are based on individuals' own assessment of their economic situation – so-called self-assessment. It is true that the number of people who perceive that they live in serious material and social poverty has increased since 2021. It should at the same time be noted that economic vulnerability has decreased since 2021 according to other established measures, for example SCB's measure for low income standard and the proportion who have an economic standard below 60 percent of the median.
According to Eurostat, the proportion of the population living in material poverty was low in Sweden in comparison with other European countries.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Minister Tenje for the answer.
I have debated poverty with the Minister a few times. Sometimes it has occurred in light of new reports from Majblomman, Rädda Barnen, Röda Korset, or Makalösa Föräldrar. Many people who, through organizations or voluntary commitment, work to reduce poverty, perhaps especially child poverty, repeatedly provide various reports. The Minister has a habit, I would like to say, of referring to SCB's statistics and brushing away all other criticism. Therefore, I have chosen to call for a debate based on precisely SCB.
I must say that I am concerned about how the government chooses to describe the development in Sweden. The Minister speaks of reforms and percentage improvements according to certain statistical measures, but by all accounts, poverty is increasing in Sweden. I am genuinely concerned that the Minister does not seem to be able to see it.
The number of people living in serious material and social poverty has doubled since 2021. It concerns people who cannot afford things that many of us take for granted, such as being able to pay an unexpected bill, replace torn clothes, or go away for a week a year. Behind these figures are real people sitting at the kitchen table wondering how they will make ends meet.
The Minister said that the statistics I refer to are based on people's own experience of their finances. Yes, they are. That is exactly why the statistics are so important. Poverty is not just about figures in some statistical sheets. It is about people's actual opportunities to live an ordinary life. When more and more people in Sweden experience that they cannot afford the most basic things, it is probably because that is the case. Then policy must be able to act.
Let us be honest: It is possible to find different indicators that point in different directions. But when more and more people lack financial margin and material poverty increases so rapidly, we cannot, like this government, lean back and say that everything else is actually going in the right direction. The reality that people face out there says something completely different; that is what I base this entire interpellation on.
Much of the statistics that the Minister refers to, and which she usually leans on when she debates poverty here in the chamber, have not been updated since 2024. We are now at 2026. This is the last half-year that this government has to govern Sweden. One cannot turn a blind eye to the situation that prevailed in 2024 or use it as an alibi for 2026. It is like saying "It wasn't burning here two years ago" if it were to burn in this room.
We cannot build long-term policy in that manner. Nor can we use it to clarify what needs to happen here and now.
More and more people in Sweden are no longer able to make ends meet. I ask the Minister again: What does the government intend to do about it?
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I must say that I am genuinely concerned about the member's ability to listen and comprehend. All the measures that I detailed in my response are measures for 2026, and they are included in the budget for 2026.
I am not surprised that more people judge that the economy has become worse. We have had a global pandemic, high inflation and high interest rates. We have seen a restless world, and it seems to be becoming even more restless. In addition, we have had a prolonged recession. Many hard-working families have had it significantly tougher.
That is exactly why the government has a clear strategy to push back inflation. It is that which has dug the large holes in the wallets and in the households' economy. Through the reduction of the food VAT, which will come in just a few weeks, and the other proposals that I previously detailed, we ensure that we support the households and get the economy moving.
Absolutely, regardless of which measure one chooses to use to assess people's finances – Arber Gashi chose to use people's own assessments of their finances and their circumstances – and absolutely regardless of how one measures low economic standard, it is clear that Sweden needs higher growth and more of the work line. That is, after all, the answer to very many of Sweden's problems. It is the path to growth. It is the path to empowerment. It is the path to community and integration for those who come to our country. It is also the path out of poverty – together with education and language skills, it is the key to a class journey.
In our Sweden, it definitely should not matter where you come from. What should count instead is where you are headed, and in that case, the work line is the key to success. It is this that determines whether integration becomes successful or not. It is this that determines whether more children can make the social climb that both Arber Gashi and I speak very warmly about, and whether they can grow up in a family with a positive image of their future. In all these cases, it is the work line that is the answer.
It is right to support families and households in difficult times, and the government has also done so. I have explained this, Mr. Speaker, both in this interpellation debate and in previous interpellation debates that I and the member have had the great pleasure of having.
To truly break the exclusion and long-term get people out of poverty, however, no amount of benefits in the world is enough. It is a matter of getting more people into work and getting more to move from benefits to work. Furthermore, work must pay off. It must pay off more to take a job than to continue living on benefits. It is both right and just that the person who works and makes an effort gets to keep more of the money themselves.
On the other hand, people talk about workers, but the policy being proposed is more about increased benefits, increased asylum migration, and increased taxes for ordinary working people. It is, therefore, more of the Social Democratic policy that has created the vast majority of the problems that we often stand here in the chamber and discuss and which I and my government colleagues, step by step and reform by reform, have had to clean up after.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! Minister Tenje questioned my hearing and, perhaps, my reading ability. Let us go through the answer we received.
The Minister for Social Insurance correctly mentions the reduced food VAT, which we agree on and which we hope will make a difference for ordinary people's wallets. She also mentions increased housing cost limits for families with children within the housing allowance. It is somewhat of a Black Friday policy, which we have seen this government engage in many times. You remove the support that gave more money and replace it with a new initiative that you call historic but which only amounts to half of the temporary supplement to families with children that we wanted to make permanent.
Mr. Speaker! Even more remarkable is that the Minister for Social Insurance points to a number of these benefit reforms as the key out of poverty. Read the over 70 referral statements that have been submitted regarding qualification for social insurance! Read what is written by the investigator himself, who emphasizes significant risks of increased poverty, increased criminality, and increased crime! But it is apparently I who have difficulty reading and understanding, according to the Minister.
I do not really know who it is that has difficulty reading or understanding. Obviously, there is no one in the world that this government wants to listen to on these issues, not a single organization, whether it is Save the Children, the Red Cross, Majblomman, or any other. None of the people with great knowledge who engage in these issues have been able to reach the government. I have not succeeded in doing so during my many interpellation debates and do not seem to be doing so now either. Nor do any of the referral bodies or the government's own investigators succeed with this. Who is it that manages to reach this government? That is what I genuinely wonder.
If you look up the newspaper today, you can read that Bris is now alarming that children are calling because they are taking greater responsibility for the economy. The calls regarding economic vulnerability among children have increased drastically. But it is probably not something that the Minister will take to heart either. Maybe she will in two years, but by then this government will not be in power. It sounds as if this government were in its first or second week when one speaks about everything that is to be done. Thank goodness there is an election soon.
What will the Tidö government's CV be? What will it say on the receipt when the Tidö government's work with these issues is summarized? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is increased poverty, increased unemployment – over 100,000 more people – and increased vulnerability. The work line, which we actually largely agree on, is what the government and the cabinet are absolutely worst at.
What is to happen now is that people are being moved from state economic support to municipal ones. You are going to make poverty even more widespread – according to everyone else, except for this government. In that way, you are apparently going to solve something.
The economy of families with children needs to be strengthened. The work principle must be about real jobs. We also need to strengthen the welfare, because we know that creates both growth and more job opportunities. You are breaking all three pieces. It is completely incomprehensible to me.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I wish I had many more minutes of speaking time in this debate and discussion. It is clear that Member Gashi raises many very important questions. Not least, I would love to discuss the subsidy reforms with the Member.
It is obvious that Arber Gashi has not read and understood what it is we are moving forward with regarding qualification for social insurance. It is therefore not about qualification for financial assistance, which the investigator had also looked at but which we chose not to proceed with. Had the member looked at what the 70 referral bodies had commented on, he would have seen that it was primarily about qualification for financial assistance, which we chose not to introduce.
Mr. Speaker! The benefit reforms must be seen from a holistic perspective. It is not just about qualification for social insurance. One should not be able to take part in the entire buffet that the welfare offers from day one when arriving in Sweden, but one should qualify progressively by working and behaving correctly. When one has behaved correctly and been resident here for at least five years, one should be able to take part in all the welfare benefits that exist. That is the first part.
The second part is the benefit ceiling. It should pay more to take a job than to continue living on benefits. I think that is right and fair. A family where the parents set the alarm every morning, ensure the children get to preschool and school, rush off to work, and then take the bus home and continue to exert themselves, receives in some cases less money in their wallet than the family just upstairs who choose to continue living on benefits even though they can work. I do not think that is right and fair. I think it should pay to work. I think it should pay to exert oneself. That is what builds Sweden strong.
The third part, Mr. Speaker, is the activity requirement in the social assistance. One must do everything one can as an individual to approach the labor market, take a job, stand on one's own feet and support oneself and one's family. The municipality, on its part, is obliged to do what it can so that its citizens have the right conditions to enter the labor market. I think that is right and proper.
Above all, this will make a huge difference in the sense that more children will see their parents go to work and themselves end up in Swedish preschool and learn Swedish. When they then come to preschool class, they speak Swedish. Then they do not have that heavy backpack to carry at all, but they can feel hope and faith in the future and make that class journey that we are passionate about more children in Sweden should get to make. It is true justice. It is also how you eradicate poverty and get more families to be able to stand on their own feet and support themselves.
If this had been the case today, significantly more people than in SCB's survey, which we are now debating, would have been able to do the self-assessment: I can manage that, and I can also manage that.
That is how you truly achieve both growth and better prosperity in a country. It is also actually how you ensure that fewer families are poor. It is the work line.
Arber Gashi (S)
Mr. Speaker! This is my final speech in the debate, and I agree with the Minister that it would be desirable to have more speaking time. I believe we will have to return to this issue more times during the spring.
When it comes to the qualification, I just want to say briefly: Yes, I have read this very carefully, and I have noted that the qualification requirement has been removed when it comes to financial assistance. The intention is, therefore, to move people from state support and dump the costs on the municipalities – to a lower compensation than it could be in some cases. More people will thus receive financial assistance and social assistance, and the municipalities shall pay for it.
If one has never met anyone who receives social assistance – which I would almost question – one might not really know what it means in practice. I represent Sveriges arbetarparti, and I know exactly what it means to represent people who set their alarm clock for an early wake-up. That is what the movement I am involved in was founded on. But it is not about knocking away security. People can end up in a situation where they need the society's strong support, and then it must be there.
What this government is doing is sending people into support while simultaneously lowering them. You strike them down and ensure they stay there. No matter what beautiful words the Minister uses, there are obviously 100,000 more unemployed and more people going on these supports. Judging by everything, there will also be even more if this government is allowed to continue.
This debate is actually about a very simple question: What kind of country should Sweden be? Should we be a country where people feel security and know that there is a society that steps up if life takes a turn? Or should we accept that more and more people live without any economic margin?
Behind every figure we have talked about today there is a life – a child who is worried about the school trip or a parent who is worried about the next bill. I would have wished that it became clearer in Swedish politics.
Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! The member claims that he represents the Swedish Workers' Party. No, he does not; he represents Sweden's contribution party. It becomes very clear here.
What becomes even clearer is that one does not see the whole picture in the subsidy reform that the government is now proposing. It entails that qualification for the social insurance shall occur through work or by being resident here for five years. It is therefore not about more people ending up on financial assistance, but about more people ending up in work. It shall go significantly faster from the time one arrives in Sweden until one ends up in work.
The good thing about the "crow's song" is that those who come to Sweden and are in the process of qualifying, either through work or for that matter by being resident, are met with full-time activation in the social assistance. The municipalities have an obligation to ensure that those citizens who have one hundred percent work capacity are given the conditions and opportunities to simply end up in work. People shall learn Swedish, enter work training or internship or for that matter study up and validate their knowledge via a vocational education, so that they can end up in work.
So, requirements are not only placed on the individual, but requirements are also placed on the municipalities. They must, in fact, do what they can so that people get the right conditions to enter employment and self-sufficiency and thus move away from poverty and the great exclusion that has spread in Sweden and which has become deeper. It is that development we are now breaking. That exclusion shall now be erased. That is what this government does, and we will continue to do it even after the election.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.