Response to interpellations 2024/25:526, 546 and 568 on the extension of the temporary housing allowance

Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)

Madam President! Malte Tängmark Roos has asked me if I and the government intend to extend the temporary housing allowance and if I and the government intend to implement any other measures to make it easier for families with children to manage their rental costs.

Isabell Mixter has asked me whether I consider it the right time to completely phase out the temporary supplementary housing allowance in June 2025, and whether I intend to take the initiative to extend the temporary supplementary housing allowance after June 2025.

Arber Gashi has asked me how I and the government justify that the housing allowance is being reduced at the same time as housing and living costs are increasing.

Madam President! Due to the introduction of trade tariffs by the USA, the global economy is in a state of great uncertainty. The Government is following the issue very closely. We are ready to support the Swedish economy if needed. Sweden has strong public finances which provide good conditions to handle a potentially deepened recession.

In the autumn budget, the government is investing in direct economic stimuli of 5.8 billion kronor to support the economy's recovery. This includes targeted labor market and education initiatives to get more people into jobs, a temporary increased rot deduction, as well as investments in road maintenance and housing. To strengthen household purchasing power, the government in the budget bill for 2025 has eased the tax burden for the Swedish people through reduced taxes on, among other things, work, pension, savings, entrepreneurship, and transport. The government's reinforcements of the job tax credit are primarily aimed at people with low and medium incomes and make it more profitable to work.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam President! Thank you to the Minister for Social Insurance for being here and answering today!

When I submitted the interpellation one and a half months ago, SCB had just released figures showing that rising food prices and increased rents had driven up inflation in January.

Hyresgästföreningen had just released a new report showing that 31 percent of families with children in rental apartments had been forced to borrow money to cover extra expenses during December and January and that 71 percent had needed to take from their savings.

The organization Makalösa Föräldrar had recently released a report showing that an average member of theirs – a single parent with two children and a monthly income of 25,000 kronor – goes into debt by more than 3,000 kronor every month.

Swedbank had just announced that according to their calculations, the unemployed, students, and families with children in rental housing would be in a financial deficit during 2025.

Even after the interpellation was submitted, we have seen evidence that the economic situation for Sweden's families with children is acute. 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 struggled to afford costs related to housing. Even more have struggled to afford nutritious food or leisure activities for the children. City missions and aid organizations report how more and more families are turning to them for help with food, clothes, and toys.

When the government and the Sweden Democrats presented their spring budget amendment last week, one could have hoped for some form of respite for Sweden's families with children, but that was in vain. The temporary housing allowance for families with children is instead removed entirely from July 1 without anything replacing it. There will be higher deductions for high-income earners' renovations and smaller grants for families with children's rents.

Madam Speaker! Nor do the government's answers here today provide any positive news. In addition to the question regarding the housing allowance, I would like to ask if the government intends to implement any other measures to facilitate things for families with children so that they can manage to pay their rent costs. But as so often is the case with this government, the answer shows a lack of understanding for the situation of vulnerable people.

The Minister for Social Insurance presents no other measures to facilitate for families with children to manage their rental costs, but refers solely to the tax cuts and job tax credits that were implemented at the turn of the year. According to the government's own figures, the job tax credit gives the average earner about 200 kronor more in the wallet every month – less for those with the lowest incomes – while the temporary housing allowance provides several hundred kronor to a bit over 1,000 kronor every month directly to a group that truly needs it. These parents will therefore receive a large income reduction every month as a direct consequence of the government's policy.

Madam Speaker! On April 10, during the Prime Minister's question time, I asked the Prime Minister about the temporary housing allowance. His answer then was that one must dare to stand for the fact that temporary reinforcements exist for a limited time and therefore will cease. But when the problem is permanent over time and the situation even becomes worse instead of getting better, should a brave politician not dare to increase the reinforcement and make it permanent? Is it not time for the government to realize that the temporary housing allowance for families with children is a necessary part of the Swedish welfare and therefore make it permanent?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! When I submitted my interpellation, I still had a certain hope for this debate. When the debate was then postponed, I thought that perhaps there was a certain chance that the government would present an amended plan regarding the housing allowance and the supplement to it, which we are debating here today.

It is, in fact, completely obvious that the economic situation for single parents, especially those with lower incomes, is extremely serious right now. The government as well as Anna Tenje should have read, seen, and heard this. They have, just like we in the opposition, met Save the Children, the Red Cross, Majblomman, and the Tenants' Association when they presented this year's survey, which shows that the economy for single parents has worsened during the last year. There are more who cannot afford to eat until they are full, who cannot afford leisure activities for the children, and who cannot afford the most basic things for themselves and the children.

We have received statistics on how evictions are increasing, and we see how food prices are soaring upwards again. Nevertheless, the government is now proceeding with completely phasing out the increased housing allowance. For an average parent with a housing allowance, this means 750 kronor less in the wallet every month after June.

Madam President! In her response, Anna Tenje refers to the fact that the government is focusing on stimulating the economy and that they have lowered taxes for those who work. I want to bring to the record that a nursing assistant who earns 29,000 kronor a month has thus received 2,000 kronor in reduced tax over an entire year with the government's policy – 167 kronor a month. The person who has a monthly salary of 150,000 kronor – we can call him Jimmie Åkesson – has received a tax reduction of 40,000 kronor over a year, i.e., over 3,000 kronor per month.

To say that tax cuts benefit everyone who works is not in itself a lie. But it is a lie to claim that they primarily benefit those with low and medium incomes. It is not true.

The withheld housing allowance, which thus means 750 kronor less in the wallet, is in no way offset by the tax cuts for average earners that the government has implemented. Furthermore, this small tax cut is quickly eaten up now that we see how prices are skyrocketing. It is almost enough to look at a bag of coffee to see that that hundred kronor is gone.

A couple of weeks ago, Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrar, the association for single parents, hosted a porridge lunch here outside the Riksdag. They wanted to speak with us about their economic situation and convey how important the housing allowance is for their finances. There, I met Caroline, who often goes hungry herself to afford food for her children. I would have wished that someone from the government parties was there and met these parents, but they were absent, according to the parents I met.

Maybe it is the case that the government parties are following the motto "If you have nothing nice to say, it is better to be silent." Because who wants to tell a person who can hardly afford food that I would rather prioritize increased tax deductions for those who are going to renovate their kitchen than ensure that you can still put food on the table? That is the truth when it comes to how this government now chooses to prioritize.

I might be dim-witted, but I actually don't understand how a higher deduction at source or lower taxes for the very richest is going to fill anyone's stomach. Soon summer vacation will also arrive, which means one has to serve more meals a day. Already today, one cannot afford to fill oneself. How is one then supposed to manage to lose an additional 750 kronor?

Madam Speaker! Does Anna Tenje still consider it the right time to phase out the temporary housing allowance?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer! I hope that the Minister has had a nice Easter and perhaps had the opportunity to go home to Småland and buy Easter eggs, eat sweets and indulge in such things as one does during Easter.

Those Easter bags have become significantly smaller for many families with children. One can witness that just by going out and shopping. I honestly find it difficult to understand that the government, in the economic situation that Sweden finds itself in, chooses to lower the housing allowance – not because people have fared better and the support is therefore not needed. In a time when families turn over every krona, in a time when children grow up in homes where the finances do not stretch to the most essential things, one chooses to deliver this hard blow to many families with children.

Let me quote the minister: ”Due to the introduction of trade tariffs by the USA, the global economy is in a state of great uncertainty. The government is following the issue closely. We are ready to support the Swedish economy if needed. Sweden has strong public finances.”

That is what the Minister just said. I am unsure if the Minister even believes it himself. The economic situation for the country's families with children was difficult long before these tariffs came. It does not only depend on Trump. It also depends on Kristersson and also on Åkesson. It actually also depends on Tenje.

Let me explain why. We live in a time when food prices continue to increase. In today's newspaper, one can read that the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden) warns that more people are being put into debt because they cannot pay their food costs. Unemployment continues to rise, and the work principle that the government many times says it represents therefore turns out to actually be a benefit line. More people are, in fact, being put on benefits.

Electricity costs have been high, especially in southern Sweden. In that case, the government has raised the tax on electricity twice. This summer, the high-cost protection is being raised, thereby making medicines more expensive, especially for those groups who have the hardest time paying for themselves.

We have seen the largest rent increases in ten years for those who live in rented apartments.

The child allowance has been left untouched despite the levels being the lowest in 50 years. It was thus 50 years since one last received so little for the child allowance. It is not strange then that we read about children who go to school with rumbling stomachs and overeat because they cannot always eat until they are full at home.

The list could have been longer. But it is in this reality that you are now also lowering the housing allowance – which goes to the households with the worst finances, most often working single mothers – by almost 700 kronor a month, Anna Tenje. It is with precision that you are cutting the legs out from under ordinary people in our country.

The government is instead investing heavily in increasing the rotavdrag. It is a tax deduction that can be made when renovating a kitchen, for example. But one might wonder how many of those who receive housing benefits are thinking about renovations. I can answer that question; I don't think it is any at all. Still, it is the rotavdrag, among other things, that the minister refers to in his answer.

I have a specific question for the Minister. We have just heard that you are monitoring the economy and this issue closely. How much worse must the situation become before you take action?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! When Sweden was hit by the pandemic and subsequently by one of the worst inflation shocks in modern times, the state acted. We Moderates stood behind and extended the temporary additional grant for families with children. It was completely right. But it was also stated that the support was to be precisely temporary. Sweden cannot build long-term security on temporary crisis measures.

Our policy is clear. We are lowering taxes for low- and middle-income earners so that you keep more of your salary and gain more autonomy. We have also raised the social assistance and the sickness and activity allowance to quite historical levels. We are strengthening the incentives for work. These are not cuts. It is a shift from uncertainty to long-term perspective, from passivity to autonomy.

Madam President! I would like to take this opportunity now to address some of the objections that we have heard and will surely hear during this debate, especially from the Left. They say that the government is failing child families. No, we have prioritized precisely them. We have directed our measures where they do the most good. It is about broad tax cuts, especially for those with small and medium incomes. That is because it is long-term sustainable. It is what actually makes it possible to manage to pay one's rent year after year and not just half-year after half-year.

The supplement is no longer temporary. Therefore, it was necessary for responsibility to be taken. That is why we propose that it be phased out. The support should not depend on every half-year budget, because that makes it difficult for households to plan.

There is also a discussion about making the increase permanent in different ways. In that case, one must know that this is an income-tested benefit. We know that many benefits in the long run reduce the incentives to work. That is also not sustainable.

We know that there are families with children who are still struggling. We see them. But we do not solve their problems by extending the temporary support year after year. Furthermore, the Swedish National Audit Office has shown that today's housing allowance risks leading to incorrect payments and clawbacks. This actually hits families with children particularly hard. We must therefore ensure that the allowance becomes fairer, simpler, and more secure. It is not about giving less, but about giving correctly from the start.

Just as Minister Anna Tenje has been, we are monitoring the economy closely. The government is prepared to act if the economy deteriorates again, and that has been demonstrated time and again. But to build a strong society, it is required that one sticks to principles. It is about long-term security. It is about the work line. It is about taking responsibility. That is how we strengthen Sweden and the families with children who need it the most.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam President! We see organizations and associations that have been sounding the alarm for several years. They stand at Mynttorget. We read headline after headline signaling how serious the situation is for very many families with children. Are we to interpret that as the government is investing a lot in them and that they feel they are surviving and managing this? Is that how the government and the right-wing parties see reality? I do not think so, given the reality that is actually unfolding.

It is not the first time we stand here in the chamber and point out exactly this problem. We have done so a number of times. There are reports from, for example, Majblomman, Hyresgästföreningen, and Makalösa Föräldrar. We can make that list very long. The reports are many. It was the same last year and the year before that. Now we receive even more. More and more families are affected, but the government chooses to remove the supplementary grant and says that it is no longer needed. I find that remarkable, because it does not align with reality. It is quite out of touch with reality.

The Minister replied that she will follow this issue and take measures if necessary. I wonder if the government has listened to any of the organizations or read any single report or headline regarding the state of the Swedish economy and Swedish household finances. The child allowance is being eroded, for example, when it perhaps should have been increased. The government should have taken some of this into consideration; they have not done so. They choose to cut the legs out even harder.

More reports will come this autumn regarding those who need it most when the grant is completely gone. These are people who have no margins. We have listened to many brave, single mothers who have told us that they have sold what they own on Blocket, do not eat nutritious food, do not pay for any leisure activities, and yet are still down by thousands of kronor. But the government chooses to remove the targeted grant that is supposed to help when things are financially tough. This government actually also thought it would do so, as the grant was included in their first and second budgets – but not now. Now it is not needed, they believe.

What is required for the government to change its mind? How poor should Swedish families with children become? I am talking about them, because those are the testimonies we have. These are mothers who work. These are nursing assistants. These are healthcare assistants. Furthermore, they have many times calculated for those who are actually working full-time but still cannot make it work.

I wonder what is required for the government to reintroduce the subsidy and support those who risk becoming even poorer so that they can make ends meet and be able to pay the rent? How much poorer do single mothers need to become in this country before the government chooses to look, listen, and act?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answers to these interpellations.

How does one justify the reduction of the temporary supplementary contribution from 40 percent to 25 percent? Historically, the temporary support has been at 25 percent, that is from the year 2020 to July 1, 2023. From July 1, 2023, and during 2024, the level was 40 percent, with reference to that high inflation pressured households – in particular households with children.

Madam President! The level that prevailed under the Social Democratic-led government was 25 percent, and it is also the level that applies now. It is worth pointing out the reason why the temporary supplementary grant arose. The reason was the pandemic and the economic situation that arose when many households received or risked receiving significantly reduced disposable incomes. The grant was quickly put in place, and it was a good solution to support those who were economically affected by the pandemic. Then we received high inflation which justified an extension of the temporary support.

The temporary supplementary grant has been accurate, but at the same time, it has not had an optimal design. For example, it is not included in the final reconciliation of the housing allowance. For the government and Sverigedemokraterna, it is crucial to counteract incorrect payments. Benefits should only be granted to those who have a need for and are entitled to them.

The Social Democrats and the Green Party propose that the temporary supplementary grant should be made permanent at 40 percent of the original level. My question to them is: Should the temporary supplementary grant continue to not be included in the final settlement of the housing allowance?

Madam Speaker! There are several reports and forecasts regarding household finances during 2025, but there are two reports that focus more on families' finances and which many refer to. One report comes from Länsförsäkringar, and in it, it is written that lower costs, tax cuts, and real wage increases await families with children during 2025. Altogether, it is expected to provide nearly 4,600 kronor more in the wallet per month for a typical family with children with two adults and two children. The costs for Swedish families with children vary regionally as a result of Sweden's electricity price areas. Even housing prices vary locally. These, in turn, can affect mortgages and thus the interest costs.

There is also a report that the opposition has referred to, namely Children's Families' Economic Difficulties 2025, which Majblomman, Rädda Barnen, Röda Korset, and Hyresgästföreningen stand behind. It appears there that the economy is a concern, particularly among single parents.

Madam Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats want to continue working to strengthen the economy for households. The best way is to ensure that more people have a job to go to, to ensure that more can move from part-time to full-time, and to ensure that people can keep more of their own salary. The effect of the government's proposals and notifications on the economic standard of households is very clear: Percentually, the standard has increased most in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and least in the upper income groups. This is worth taking away.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! It becomes the same debate time and again about this, and we are told that the abolished supplement will result in many more people getting jobs and how much better it will be when one can use that hundred kronor exactly as one wants, something which is surely incredibly pleasant.

Principles and ideology be damned, but we do not agree on these things, which is quite obvious. Let us, however, set aside the ideology and principles for a little while and consider what happens in practice.

Madam President! This week, Mikael Eskilandersson thought the deduction for renovation was great for single mothers with low incomes, because they could then perhaps replace a socket in the kitchen. This is said at a time when we have seen food prices skyrocket and know that very much of what one cannot choose to opt out of has become more expensive.

I have heard in this chamber time and again that inflation is being held back. But what the overall inflation looks like has quite little to do with the reality for a family that needs to buy clothes and food. Food prices have increased a lot, much more than inflation has. The question then is whether one should eat contacts for dinner. Can one use the tax deduction to put food on the table? Does one have any use at all from a lowered fuel tax if one still cannot afford a car? Does one have any joy at all from a lowered aviation tax if one cannot afford to go on holiday? Can one buy food for that money? And does one have any joy from a tax deduction if one does not own their house? It is simply not possible to use it.

I have some concrete questions for Minister Anna Tenje. How much more than 100 percent is a single mother with several children expected to work? If she is a childcare worker, she loses approximately 500 kronor a month at the half-year mark. In the middle of summer when the children have summer holidays, she will lose 500 kronor net. That is the tax reduction she has factored in. The question then is how much more than 100 percent it is expected that she will be stimulated to work to support her family.

My second question is: Can the government point to a single measure in the autumn budget that will help single parents with low incomes to put food on the table when they lose the temporary housing allowance? Is there any measure at all that helps them put food on the table when the supplement disappears and they, due to the government's budget, go backwards by over 500 kronor a month?

The leisure card is a pleasant reform, but it is the same thing there. You cannot eat a football fee, and that is the only thing one can use the reform for. Is there any reform that Minister Anna Tenje can tell us about today that these families can rejoice over because it will help them put food on the table? Or is it more oatmeal for everyone that applies?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! After 28 minutes of standing, I now have the floor. I am in the habit of standing when I listen to my fellow debaters, and I intend to continue doing so, regardless of how many there are on the list. I simply think it is pleasant that several are participating in the debate.

We are clearly living in uncertain times. This has probably escaped no one. There is war in our vicinity, which affects us daily. The USA's introduction of trade tariffs and a weak recovery in important export markets such as Germany and the United Kingdom affect us. All of this, of course, affects the Swedish economy and, in the long run, also the Swedish households. In what way this will crystallize will we not yet know. Therefore, we also do not quite know how we are to counter this. But that it will affect growth is still quite certain.

Actually, we had it exactly like this during the pandemic. At first, we could not predict what would happen and how it would affect Swedish companies, employment, and households, but we know that now. There was a very high inflation. It was not only due to the pandemic but also to the politics that were pursued then. This government inherited this, and it is something we have had to struggle with from day one.

Even the high interest rates have had a very negative effect on Swedish households. As Daniel Persson pointed out, fuel prices and electricity prices have also affected households very negatively. We have seen all of this and have been willing to address it.

The government has, in a difficult time, been willing to support households in several different ways. If one looks at what effect the policies and the proposals that the government has put forward during the mandate period have had for households, it becomes very clear that the economic standard, in percentage terms, has increased most in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and that it has increased least in the two upper income groups. That is the case, and that is seen if one looks at the outcome. It is difficult to argue against that.

In the budget amendment, the government invests an additional 5.8 billion in direct economic stimulus to support the recovery of the economy. This is done to strengthen the Swedish economy but also to strengthen Swedish households. This includes both labor market measures, to get people into work, and educational measures, so that people can get closer to the labor market and be able to take a job.

We have also temporarily increased the root deductions to stimulate a market where very many are now unemployed, to get more people into work and so that more men and women within this industry can get a salary of their own to live on so that they can put food on the table for their families. We have also invested heavily in both road maintenance and housing.

To strengthen households' purchasing power, the government has also announced in the budget for 2025 a reduction in tax on work, pension, savings, entrepreneurship, and transport. Fuel is, in fact, something that is still incredibly significant, not least for families with children in rural areas – to be able to travel to and from work and, above all, also to and from various activities.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam President! The number of children evicted from their homes has increased every year since 2017 and by a full 58 percent since 2020, when the temporary housing allowance was introduced for the first time. The number of single parents with low incomes who cannot afford to eat their fill is increasing. The number of people with payment debts is increasing. The number of families with children with low incomes who cannot cope with increased expenses is increasing. Many families with children move to smaller apartments and live in very cramped conditions to afford the rent, which worsens the living situation for the children.

It is simply not possible to claim that the strained finances of families with children were a temporary problem that has now been handled. It is a persistent and growing problem that the government and Sverigedemokraterna completely ignore.

Making the housing allowance for families with children permanent will not alone solve the economic vulnerability. It has grown during the time the supplementary allowance has existed. But removing the allowance entirely will only worsen an already very serious situation and make thousands of children and parents even more vulnerable.

This also highlights a very important detail in the government's and the Sweden Democrats' priorities. Raising the temporary housing allowance for families with children to 40 percent and making it permanent would cost approximately half a billion kronor for the remainder of 2025, according to the Riksdag's investigation service. That is one-tenth of the cost of the government's increase of the rotavdrag, which was the major reform in the autumn budget. For one-tenth of the cost of subsidizing high-income earners' kitchen renovations, we could have instead strengthened the finances of vulnerable families with children and helped them pay for rent, food, and leisure activities. The government chooses instead to undermine them. It is a clear indication of which groups the government considers to be prioritized today.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party's priorities are also clear. There are actually things that can be done to improve the situation. As we have said, we want to increase and make the housing allowance for families with children permanent; that is a matter of course. Another proposal is to reform the regular housing allowance. The number of families with children who receive housing allowance is decreasing every year because the income limits are not being adjusted upwards, which means that fewer are entitled to housing allowance even though more have a need. The size of the allowance has also not been increased in line with inflation, which has caused it to be eroded.

We simply want more people to be able to receive the housing allowance and for the allowance itself to be increased and indexed to cover the cost increases. The government also says no to this, as far as I know.

We also propose that the child allowance be increased and that it is also indexed so that it is not eroded by the cost increases, which we have seen happen in recent years. It has surely not escaped Anna Tenje that Swedbank showed last week that for over 50 years, the child allowance has not been lower in relation to the cost of living for a child. But not even this is something the government stands behind, as far as I know.

So, Madam President of the Ageing Committee, I wonder again: Does the government and Anna Tenje intend to implement any measures whatsoever to make it easier for families with children to manage their rent costs?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam President! Moderate politicians usually speak of left-wing politics in terms of bread lines and say that is what it will be like with the Left Party's policy. The truth is that it is this Sweden that this government has now created: a society with bread lines. It is Sweden 2025.

There is an old quote that is appropriate for describing the government's current policy: If they cannot afford bread, let them eat cake. That is how this government is governing this country right now.

The government parties and Anna Tenje are now trying to defend themselves by arguing that the grant was temporary and that the construction was such that it would eventually cease. The single parents who will now lose an average of 750 kronor a month do not care whether the construction was temporary or not. This will mean that they will have even less food to put on the table for themselves and their children and that stomachs will growl even more. I actually believe that they do not care whether the grant was temporary or not and whether it was a Social Democratic government that introduced it at 25 or 40 percent from the beginning.

The Minister must approach his mandate with incredible ease. We know that as the responsible Minister for Social Insurance, one has certain guidelines to adhere to regarding economic family policy: to level the differences between households with children and other households and to ensure that as few people as possible live with a low economic standard.

Anna Tenje spoke about how it is difficult to predict what will happen with the economy, US tariffs and so on. That is true. But what we know is that the economy for single parents worsened during 2024 and that many mothers go hungry to be able to feed their children. The government knows this. Yet, one chooses to now remove a part of their livelihood. There is talk that the tax cuts will compensate for this, which we also know they do not. It is about a significantly lower amount.

I wonder what the government is going to do now that we see the bread lines growing. Will Stadsmissionen get more money? Will the church get more money? Will the school serve school lunch during the summer? Who will ensure that we do not have hungry children in this country? Somewhere, Madam Speaker, the government must still care whether we have children and mothers who go hungry in Sweden in 2025 or not.

Now, perhaps someone will object and think that one should just get a job. And why did they have children in the first place if they cannot afford to support them? The problem is that it concerns completely ordinary people who have a job they go to every day – they work and toil hard. If you are a single parent, you cannot take as many jobs as you want. You cannot work around the clock. At some point, you also have to take care of your children. At least I think that is reasonable.

The question then becomes: What is the government going to do when single mothers working full-time still cannot afford rent, leisure activities, and food on the table for their children? What does the government intend to do, other than referring to some paragraph stating that this was temporary?

Vänsterpartiet has proposed increased child allowance and increased housing allowance. We want to ensure that something is done about food prices and that electricity prices are pushed down. The government is doing nothing. They are prioritizing tax deductions for renovating kitchens.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! There is a clear dividing line in Swedish politics, particularly when it comes to the economy. These are issues that are repeated in several debates, where we clearly see a distance between right and left. I believe it is good for the voters out there to become aware of this.

The Minister just spoke about the uncertainty in the global situation. I share that view. We are heading towards increasingly uncertain times. It makes it even stranger that this prioritization is being made in this situation, here and now, when the government has the opportunity to postpone the decision a bit.

The government is very clear that this is a temporary reform, that is to say that the increase in the housing allowance has been temporary. That is quite true, but the government owns the issue and decides for itself when it should be phased out. It is precisely that we are so questioning. Why in this situation, when the minister himself means that we are heading towards increasingly uncertain times and when the economy is actually not turning at all in the way that has been talked about so many times in these speaker's chairs?

It is incomprehensible to me that one can say that times are changing and the future outlook is brightening when the Enforcement Authority as recently as today told the Swedish people that more and more people are being put into debt because they cannot manage to pay for the food they have bought. Food belongs to the basic costs, so it is not as if it lies low in the priority order for Swedish households to pay for their food. When they cannot do so, the alarm bells should be ringing for this government. I am very surprised that they do not.

In the budget that currently prevails, the government chose to lower taxes for practically half of the money bag – 30 billion, a little more. Most of it was spent on tax cuts. We proposed an increased child allowance and a continued increased housing allowance. The government chose to focus on the very richest.

Now we have seen the autumn budget. There, as has been said, there was a choice to be made again. What did one choose to prioritize then? Yes, to make the bathroom renovation a bit cheaper. I really wonder if it is more important to help villa owners renovate their bathrooms than to help families with children pay the rent. It is so incredibly clear here that this government is unable to see, or does not want to see, what situation it is that prevails out there.

Today, we Social Democrats have presented a proposal for a holiday lunch – that children should be able to come to school during school holidays and summer holidays and eat until they are full. We would have wished that it was not necessary, but that is the state of the country right now.

Today we have also proposed a temporary increased maintenance support for single parents.

Madam Speaker! I pose the question to the Minister once again. How poor must one have to be as a single person before the government considers changing its position on these issues? How far does it need to go? What needs to happen before the government reconsiders the decision to remove the temporary increase of the housing allowance?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! We have heard demands to continue with the temporary, preferably forever. But that is not political leadership. It is to push the problems ahead of oneself while people get stuck in a system that does not lead them forward.

We have heard the representative from Miljöpartiet say: We are abandoning the principles! But one is closing their eyes to the whole. Parallels are drawn to lowering the tax for the richest people's bathroom renovations and completely forgetting that the families with children and the single mothers do not live in a vacuum. They live in our society where we must achieve an economy that works, which ensures that their jobs remain, which ensures that they receive a salary and can put food on the table.

The solution is not just subsidies. There is a big difference, a fundamental difference, between right and left in Swedish politics. In that regard, Arber Gashi is completely right. The left only looks at subsidies. That is the solution. One forgets to look at the whole. One forgets the long-term, the sustainable, that which actually provides empowerment. It is not sustainable.

To provide support that lasts over time is to take responsibility. We lower the tax. We strengthen security. We build a housing allowance that works better to help more people stand on their own feet. It is not to back down from responsibility. It is to take it seriously.

Madam Speaker! Real security is not about staying put, but about being able to take the next step. It is about people gaining the power and opportunity to shape their own lives. That is how we build empowerment. That is how we build Sweden stronger. Then one must also dare to make tough decisions sometimes and see the whole picture, not buy into the idea that if we just give more and more grants, we have solved it. We must dare to empower people for longer than that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam President! I want to assert that a deduction is also a subsidy, even if this government has difficulty saying those words out loud. But it is not directed at those we are talking about here in the chamber. It is directed at those who already have large margins and are to receive even larger margins.

We have seen the economic development. When this supplementary grant was added, it was due to the tough economic situation in the world. Whether it was the pandemic or if it is now war or trade tariffs that is the reason, I think we can set that aside. We can see that the situation is still incredibly tough. The reports are many. We witness this in the chamber. It is witnessed daily in the media. It is witnessed from incredibly many sides. It is not possible to ignore.

Despite that, the Prime Minister stood here at the beginning of the autumn and said, before the budget for the current year, that things are brightening on the horizon. Then the Finance Minister stood here some weeks ago, when the autumn budget was presented, and said that it does not do so at all. We must write down the forecasts, because it does not look so bright for the economy.

So that is how the situation can be. We mean that it can be so, but what it is about and what requires political leadership is to take the consequences into account. How do you handle the consequences of this?

This government chooses to look away and, in this situation, place an incredibly large number of families with children in an even tougher economic situation. Those who had very small margins and now have none left will have it even tougher. Why should they become even poorer, according to the Minister?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is my final contribution in this debate, so I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and everyone else who has participated.

The government and the Sweden Democrats are working to strengthen households. We have implemented tax cuts that hit broadly. Households' costs for interest and electricity are decreasing. The government and the Sweden Democrats prioritize keeping fuel prices at a continued low level – an important issue for the countryside and the families who live there.

The leisure card will soon be in place as a support for families with children and one of the largest public health reforms in several years, aimed at promoting the conditions for children and young people to participate in leisure activities.

Madam Speaker! In the long term, we strengthen the households' economy and steer away from subsidy dependency. That is the great difference between our blocs. The red-greens want to raise taxes and raise subsidies and preferably introduce more subsidies. The Government and the Sweden Democrats argue that everyone can contribute based on their own ability and that the work line is what finances our welfare, and that people must be allowed to keep more of their salary.

We must ensure that we get growth moving so that jobs are created. The construction sector views the year-end budget positively. Svenskt Näringsliv considers that the budget for 2025 contains necessary investments to accelerate the growth that strengthens Sweden's competitiveness and the conditions for more people to get a job.

In the long term, the government and the Sweden Democrats are strengthening the economy for households in a time of uncertainty in our global environment.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam President! It is difficult to debate Caroline Högström because she cannot answer, but she raised a substantial issue in this. She says that the government wants to strengthen economically vulnerable families with children in the long term. Then one really has to ask: Exactly how do you do that?

Children in our country do not get nutritious food. Parents cannot afford to eat lunch, they cannot afford to pick up their medicines, they definitely cannot afford to have a car and they absolutely cannot afford to have a holiday. They might be able to pay the fee for an extracurricular activity, but they cannot afford to buy shoes.

In such a situation, when we have families – single full-time working parents with children at home – who have weak finances while food prices are skyrocketing, the government withdraws money from them in the form of the housing supplement.

What is the government actually doing to make things easier for these families? Is it the hundred kronor in the job tax credit that is supposed to get them to get jobs even though they already have jobs? Will they get a new job? Will they get more jobs? How many hundred percent jobs should they have to be able to put food on the table? What does Caroline Högström actually mean? Perhaps the Minister Anna Tenje can answer through a very simple question.

I have been a minister. I know what it is like to stand there when there are this many interpellants up there. It takes a long time, and it is difficult to keep up with all the questions. I have all the respect for that, so I will make it super simple.

My question to the Minister is: What is the government doing to make it easier for a single person with low income to put food on the table? Point to a single reform in the autumn budget – that is all I ask.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)

Madam President! It is obvious here today that there is an ideological dividing line somewhere between the rows of benches between what the left-wing parties are interested in doing and what the government with the Sverigedemokraterna is interested in doing. I welcome that. Just as Arber Gashi, I also believe that it is good for the dividing lines to become clear for the Swedish people.

What I hear here now is that from the left side – in order to help families who find themselves in a tough economic situation – one does not attack the source but is rather interested in addressing the symptoms. When one looks from our perspective at what needs to be done, I think it was quite clearly stated in Daniel Persson's first speech what needs to be looked at, and what is already in place, so that more families can rise up from a tough economic situation.

It is primarily about having a job to go to and that the drivers to move from benefits to work are strong and are in place. They have not been for a long time. The work line has been dismantled for many years now, and it now needs to be re-established. We do that through an activity requirement in the social assistance. We do it through a benefit ceiling, and we do it through a qualification for welfare.

But above all, more people should be able to live on their wages. Once one has reached employment, more people must be able to stand firm and be able to live on their wages. That is done by lowering the tax on work. That is something I know you are against and have constantly and consistently also voted no to in this chamber.

Looking at the budget for 2025, a hard-working ordinary family with children, where the father is a police officer and the mother is a nurse, receives a tax cut of 9,000 kronor. Looking from a perspective that goes back a few years – from the year 2023 – one has therefore received 23,000 kronor more in the wallet. In that case, one has two hard-working parents in this. If you are a single mother and work full-time, you have also received a share of these tax cuts. These are tax cuts that you have constantly been against and which you continue to be.

What I hear here, Madam Speaker, when I listen, especially to the members from the Green Party, is that more and higher grants should be distributed to more people. Those are the solutions you have. Then I think that you are on board with the Social Democrats' motto that everyone should get higher grants, but no one should be able to live on their salary. That is not how you build a secure society, and it is not how you create growth and prosperity in a country. It is definitely not sustainable in the long term.

We have chosen to lower the tax on work so that more people can stand on their own feet and support themselves. It is important. It will continue to be very important. If we face a tougher economic period ahead, it will be important to also continue lowering the tax. It is also important that more people get into work. It is the benefit reform we are now working on so that more people will do just this.

It is also not insignificant that more people get the opportunity to move from part-time to full-time – to create better conditions and a better working environment, not least within several female-dominated occupations, so that more people have the strength and can move from part-time to full-time.

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that there is a large and broad ideological divide between the parties. I believe that it is beneficial, because if we are to build a strong society moving forward, increase growth, get more people into work and get more families with children to be able to stand on their own feet, it truly requires that we take these issues seriously.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Minister, and the members from M and SD, say that it is Sweden's low-income earners who, in percentage terms, have fared the best from their policy. But if that has escaped the government and SD, I would like to inform them that it is not possible to pay with percentages – only in kronor.

In kronor, costs have increased more than wages have for those with the lowest incomes. In kronor, families with children lose more money on the abolished supplementary allowance than they receive in reduced tax. Just as Anna Tenje, Caroline Högström and Daniel Persson say, higher allowances alone will not solve all the economic challenges for Sweden's families with children. But if the Moderaterna and your coalition parties do not have an innovative new proposal that will raise all low-income earners' wages by several thousand kronor every month – so that they actually correspond to people's hard work and the costs that families with children have – then the housing allowance and the child allowance are the most accurate supports we have to help those who need it.

It is here that the very clear ideological dividing line lies. Shall we help those who actually need our help? Shall we be in solidarity with the people who are in need of help and support, or shall we not be? Solidarity is the ideological dividing line here. It is clear which side we belong to and which side you belong to. I am happy to be on the side that says yes to more grants for those who need it. It is a very good way to build a strong society.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! The temporary housing allowance has previously been the answer this government has given when asked what measures they have taken to support households in the economic crisis. It has been precisely the housing allowance the government has pointed to and quite rightly also said is an accurate way to reach the weakest households.

Now this measure is being withdrawn. The question becomes what remains in support for the weakest households. As far as I can see, the answer is: nothing. Anna Tenje is welcome to answer if there is anything else.

I am not an economist, but Anna Tenje asked a question about what the source of this situation is. One can say as much as that you have a salary which is an income, you have child allowance and you perhaps have a certain part of housing allowance. On the other side, you have expenses. These exceed the incomes because the expenses have simply increased at a faster rate than the incomes.

Anna Tenje speaks warmly about how we should not have a subsidy dependency and that people should work. The truth is that these people do work. One might be a nursing assistant – a job we very much want more people to want because there is a shortage in those occupational categories. But a nursing assistant's salary is not enough for someone who is single and has to support two children. All calculations show that it does not add up.

Anna Tenje is held responsible. Does Anna Tenje want to raise the wages for the nursing assistants, or should she press down the prices? It is one of the two alternatives that remain if one does not want there to be subsidies. What does the government want to do?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that we at least received a half-answer to a question. The more uncertain the economy becomes and the tougher it gets, the more tax cuts we will see. That was roughly the message Anna Tenje could give.

We also heard Member Högström speak earlier about the subsidy line and that the left stands for it. But you have a fine way of embellishing your proposals. A raised tax deduction is actually just a subsidy. But you call it a deduction, so that it looks better for your own voters.

We Social Democrats have a simple starting point. It is that politics is about people and about the reality behind the figures we stand here and speak about. It is about the child who has anxiety over the school trip, about the family that moves so often that the children do not have time to settle down, and about all those who struggle every month, not to become rich but just to make ends meet.

When the government chooses to lower the housing allowance here and now, in a time of increasing costs, it is a clear signal: You can manage on your own. But we Social Democrats stand for something else. We believe in a society that holds together, a society where children are not punished for their parents' finances, where the public sector is there when life hits a crisis, and where security is not a privilege but a self-evident fact and a right.

A society's strength is not measured by how we treat the strong, but in how we take care of the weak. That is where politics is tested. That is where humanity is seen. I lack that in what we have heard from the right side in this debate.

I want to conclude with an appeal, not only to the minister but also to the other members debating in the chamber: Look up from these tables! See the people! See the children! And ask yourselves: Is it reasonable that it is their support that we are cutting back on right now?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the interpellations, for the questions and for the debate. I would also like to thank the others who have also joined the debate.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by stating once again that the government's direction is very clear. More people shall be helped into work and into self-sufficiency, and more shall be able to live on their wages. If one cannot live on one's wages in the current situation, the solution is not that we raise the tax on labor. The solution is rather to do exactly as the government has done, to lower the tax on labor. Then the conditions are increased for one to be able to live on one's own wage and get more money in the wallet to be able to decide for oneself what one wants to do with the money.

I mention it again: A family with a hard-working police officer and a hard-working nurse will have 9,000 kronor more in their wallet with this year's budget. Compared to 2023, it is about 23,000 kronor more in the wallet. This gives everyone who works better conditions to be able to stand on their own feet and support themselves, but above all to live on their salary.

Madam Speaker! Now the government's work continues at full speed to initiate a major benefit reform and re-establish the work principle, so that more can move from benefits to self-sufficiency but above all move away from economic vulnerability and poverty. It is a poverty that also risks being passed on to the children. More children need to see their parents go to work. But that is another debate, and we will certainly return to it.

Many thanks for today and for a great commitment to this issue!

(Applause)

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)