Response to interpellations 2025/26:209 and 297 on increasing child poverty

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! Jytte Guteland has asked the Minister for Finance how she intends to reverse the trend of increasing child poverty. The work within the government is so distributed that it is I who will answer that interpellation. Furthermore, Sanne Lennström has asked me if I and the government could consider moving forward with any of the proposals in Majblomman's children's rights report for 2026.

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by pointing out that child poverty has not increased, according to the measure for low income standard developed by Statistics Sweden. The number of children living with a low income standard has instead decreased successively between 2019 and 2024. For the period thereafter, there is no data yet. Both the number and the proportion of children living in households receiving financial assistance have decreased sharply since 2017, and the levels in 2024 were the lowest since at least 1990. This could be a further indication that child poverty has not increased.

Sweden is, however, in a prolonged recession. Even though inflation has now decreased, the previously high inflation has affected household finances very negatively. The government has therefore taken a number of measures to support households, and we consider it important to continue doing so. 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 to increase households' disposable incomes, including lowered food VAT, lowered childcare fees, and raised limits for housing costs in the housing allowance. These reforms particularly benefit families with children with low incomes, which often concerns single women with children.

The economic vulnerability described in Save the Children's annual report on child poverty in Sweden, which the interpellator refers to, is said to be partly linked to the fact that the family policy supports available for families with children have been increasingly eroded. I would, however, like to point out that the families with children where the parents are in gainful employment retain more of their wages by the government having strengthened the job tax deduction. At the same time, those who are most vulnerable have been fully compensated for the high inflation of recent years. The national standard for social assistance was raised by almost 9 percent both in 2023 and 2024. Over a longer period, the national standard for families with children has risen more than the price development and therefore more than adequately compensated for inflation.

Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the government's proposals and notifications during the mandate period have collectively increased the economic standard, in percentage terms, most in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and least in the two top income groups. This has also led to the economic standard of the population increasing and the proportion with low income standard decreasing during the mandate period.

The welfare state is important for families that are struggling. Economic family policy should contribute to a good economic standard of living for all families with children. But the best tool to break economic vulnerability and counteract a low economic standard is own income from work. To help economically vulnerable households and reduce child poverty in the long term, it is incredibly important to get more people into work.

The government is implementing a number of different measures that collectively aim to strengthen the work line and make it more profitable to move from benefits to work. That more parents go to work means that children get a more stable economic situation and a potentially higher economic standard, which is beneficial for children's development and security. This is reflected in the fact that it is only 2 percent of cohabiting households with two working parents who have a low economic standard. Among cohabiting households where neither of the parents is working, the proportion with a low economic standard is instead 85 percent.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Social Insurance, for the answer!

I want to start by expressing my disappointment that the Minister for Finance does not want to answer this question, as we have previously had discussions about child poverty and the difficult situation that exists for many in Sweden. It is strange that the Minister for Finance does not want to discuss economic policy. This is so much about exactly that. It is about what type of policy one wants to pursue when inflation and subsequent cost increases remain. Then it is very much about broad investments in the budget – such as those we Social Democrats want to make to alleviate the situation for those who have it the hardest.

I do not really know what reality the Minister for Social Insurance, and also the Minister for Finance and the entire government, find themselves in. It is expensive to live in Sweden today. That feeling exists now very high up in the income groups. I do not think it actually requires any great capacity for empathy to understand how tough it is for a single person to make ends meet today, with the cost increases we are seeing.

A single mother expresses exactly this in Majblomman's report. She describes how it is: I would need money for winter clothes and other clothes for my children. I work a lot. I have tried to switch to a smaller apartment, but I am not succeeding. My last resort is to ask Majblomman for money.

She is not alone. The applications are more numerous than ever. Thousands of parents are begging for alms because the government lacks the competence to conduct an economic policy that balances in one of the most difficult times the Swedish people have experienced in modern times when it comes to economic policy.

Costs are increasing everywhere. Rents are higher, it is more expensive in the store, and leisure fees are extremely expensive for those who have children today. If you are also alone and perhaps live in a metropolitan region with sky-high rents, what do you do then? Then you are forced to go and beg for alms. This is what the government does not understand.

I am also disappointed by the answer that we interpellants received regarding what the welfare state should be. We are given the answer that the welfare state is for those who are most economically vulnerable. It is a very strange answer. I thought that we in Sweden were in agreement that welfare is for everyone – that the welfare state is about distributing among those who have needs right now but also distributing throughout life. When you are small, you need more. When you are older and working, you can contribute, and when you are even older and perhaps have a need for care, the welfare state helps again.

This has been a success model for Sweden – that we stand up for a general and universal welfare for everyone, so that people do not have to go with a hat in hand and beg to get that little extra so that the children can have a bearable existence. But if the view of the Moderate-led government is that we should have a means-tested welfare, where one only gives to those who truly ask the most, I understand that in difficult times one does not do their utmost for all Swedes to alleviate the economically tough time that we are forced to live in.

I want to conclude my first contribution by asking once again: Does the government really have no plans to level the economic policy for those who have it the toughest and invest, for example, in increased child allowance, in public transport, and in ensuring that those who are single parents receive more?

(Applause)

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! I too would like to begin by expressing disappointment over how this debate is starting. I am a Member of Parliament, and I am asking a question to a minister. But I am met with statistics intended to disprove me, as to whether child poverty is less than I believe or does not exist. I could stand here and try to defend myself by saying that Majblomman's distributions have increased by 17.1 million kronor over the last three years. I could tell you about all the single mothers who reach out and tell me that they cannot afford winter boots despite working. But that does not serve much purpose because I have heard this tune before; we have debated this issue quite many times in these speaker's chairs.

I ask a question. I am told that I am wrong and that the government's policy is very good in this area. I get no answer to the question I actually asked, but mostly just statistics. Then someone from Tidö comes, who has signed up for the debate, and says that our policy is not good in this area and perhaps plays a bit of bad cop while the minister can stand here and remain calm. In the minister's final remarks, there is something about S-municipalities not behaving themselves in this area either, and then the debate is over.

It feels in some way very unworthy for me as someone trying to practice parliamentarism. It feels unworthy towards Majblomman who has written this report – they see a major problem and want to try to seek solutions. It is unworthy towards those who are watching this debate in the hope that I will get an answer to the question I have asked.

But we continue the debate, so we shall see if the outcome becomes different from what I saw in the crystal ball.

Madam Speaker! Now it is 2026, an election year. Therefore, I want to devote this debate to child poverty and what we can do about that problem. Majblomman has several proposals, and I want to know what the Minister and the Government think about these. I think it could be good information to have with you in September when you are going behind an election screen.

We take it from the beginning. Proposal number one: Increase the child allowance! The child allowance in Sweden has not been increased since 2018, when we were in government, and it has been eroded since then. We are last in the Nordics to make this type of investment. We Social Democrats are on board with this and have therefore proposed an increase of the child allowance by 200 kronor. The government has refused so far. Does the Minister still consider that this is not needed, or is it something that one is willing to look further into?

Number two: single parent supplement. Children of single parents are more exposed to child poverty than others. Majblomman therefore proposes targeted support. The idea is that there should be no need for means-testing, which reduces the stigmatization and the number of expensive assessments, which my colleague Jytte Guteland just mentioned. We Social Democrats have said that we want to reform the housing allowance. We could also imagine reviewing the accuracy of the multi-child supplement. Perhaps these funds could have been used for a single parent support. But let me be clear: We do not have a proposal here yet, because we do not have Rosenbad behind us with money to be able to investigate this type of major change – but the minister does. We are once again last in the Nordic countries with this type of reform, so what does the minister think about this type of support?

Number three: public transport. Majblomman proposes free public transport for everyone between 12 and 18 years old on evenings, weekends, and holidays. This should be seen as part of the right to a meaningful leisure time. It should benefit the climate and also reduce transport poverty, which we see in our country. We Social Democrats stand behind this and also include 19-year-olds and younger students.

These are, therefore, three of Majblomman's five proposals, and my question to the Minister is: Which of these proposals can the Minister and the Government imagine, in some way, fully or partially, standing behind? I hope to receive an answer to that question.

(Applause)

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! We must be honest with the Swedish people and with the young people who are sitting here in the stands and listening to us right now: There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the claims that child poverty is not increasing because the statistics the government relies on do not capture children's actual everyday lives. While the government hides behind narrow measures of low income standards, Majblomman meets children every day who cannot afford winter jackets, football boots, or bus passes.

The government says that child poverty is decreasing. Majblomman says something completely different, as does Rädda Barnen. Municipalities all around our country say something completely different. Who should we believe then? Non-profit organizations that meet children every day and have expert knowledge in these matters, or a government that leans on statistics that lag several years behind reality?

Let me be very clear, Madam Speaker: Child poverty is not an unfortunate side effect – it is a consequence of the government's political priorities. The government proudly points to all the tax cuts, especially those that have gone to the very richest, but let us say it as it is: Job tax credits do not help children whose parents are already very far from the labor market. Unfortunately, it does not help the single mother who works part-time in elderly care. It does not help the child in the family that lives on social assistance. It does not help children whose parents are ill, unemployed, or stuck in insecure temporary jobs.

The government says that the most vulnerable are fully compensated. Let us be very honest once again: Living on social assistance or having low incomes today means poorer opportunities than just a few years ago despite nominal increases. The prices of food, electricity, clothes, and housing have risen very quickly, and the supports have not fully kept pace. Otherwise, we would not have seen the development that we have seen. When the government simultaneously makes it cheaper to be rich, the gaps widen.

Living on social assistance in Sweden in 2026 is not a dignified life. Here I know that we are in agreement. It is a life where every expense is questioned. It is a life where children learn early on that they are a cost.

The government says that the solution is work. Yes, work is directly crucial. I wonder if Anna Tenje can help us wake up the Minister for Employment, so that something happens. The Minister for Employment seems, in any case, to be completely paralyzed in the face of the situation.

Children are growing up right now. Children are going to school right now. At this very moment, they are comparing themselves with their classmates. When the government refuses to strengthen the child allowance and in practice lowers the housing allowance for single parents and furthermore refuses to take Majblomman's proposal seriously, it is a political choice – a choice that says it is more important to lower taxes for those who already have than to give children a secure upbringing.

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, this is very simple. Child poverty is not acceptable in one of the world's richest countries. When a united civil society and voluntary sector sound the alarm, the politics must listen, not offer excuses. The children do not have time to wait for the government's excuses. They need action, and they need it now.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Minister for Pensions and Social Insurance Anna Tenje for the answer to the interpellations.

Save the Children states in its child poverty report from 2025 that 276,000 children lived in economic vulnerability in 2023. The report concerns the period 2019–2023.

One of the interpellants has claimed that child poverty has increased by 100,000 children. That increase is, however, due to the fact that the measure of child poverty has been changed. For 2023, a revised calculation model was used, and that results in 276,000 children living in economic vulnerability.

The threshold for low income standard has been recalculated. Instead of basing it on SCB's level, which is lower, Rädda Barnen now bases it on Konsumentverket's calculations of actual costs for basic needs.

Madam Speaker! With the new calculation model, the number of children in economic hardship was 321,000 in the year 2020. By 2023, a decrease of 45,000 children has occurred. But at the same time, there is a slight increase with the new model from 2022 to 2023, with 16,000 children. It is therefore 16,000 – not 100,000, as is incorrectly claimed in the interpellation.

If the old calculation model for 2023 had been used, the figure for children in economic hardship would have been 175,000. With the previous calculation model, the economic hardship among children had decreased from 2019 to 2022, and in 2023, a continued decrease had occurred.

We can agree that Save the Children's report from 2025 concluded that there were 276,000 children living in economic deprivation in 2023, by the way it is measured. But that this should mean an increase of 100,000 children is a pure lie.

One cannot make a big deal out of the fact that the figures differ when different methods of measurement are used. For example, one cannot weigh something in pounds and then switch to kilograms and then point out the difference.

Madam Speaker! There is a strong variation between and within Sweden's municipalities when it comes to child poverty. The lowest proportion of children in economic hardship is in Vellinge municipality, at 3.1 percent. The municipality with the highest proportion of children in economic hardship is Perstorp, with 30.6 percent. One explanation is that the proportion of persons with a foreign background in Perstorp is 33.2 percent. In the report, it is stated that child poverty for persons with a foreign background is at 33.6 percent – to compare with persons with a Swedish background, where child poverty is at 5.8 percent.

This is a legacy from the Social Democrats' time in government. At that time, they advocated for a long time for mass immigration to Sweden, under the slogan "a Europe that does not build walls." We now see the consequences of the Social Democrats' migration policy – an irresponsible and demand-free migration policy. Dependency on benefits has increased significantly, and unemployment among foreign-born people is high. We have a segregation that creates tensions in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! During this parliamentary term, we are restructuring the migration policy so that there are clear requirements and incentives to enter employment and self-sufficiency. We are shifting labor immigration from low-wage occupations to high-skilled labor immigration. But it will take time to tackle the segregation that has built up over the years.

It is important to maintain a strict migration policy going forward and work actively with voluntary return for those who do not succeed in becoming a part of Swedish society. It is only with the Tidö parties that we get a responsible migration policy that can solve the problems with the segregation we see today.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that we can once again have a debate here in the chamber about the widespread child poverty in Sweden. It is, after all, one of the government's biggest and most serious failures during this parliamentary term. It is also a problem that has largely become worse as a direct result of the policy that this government has pursued.

I truly regret that the government and the Sweden Democrats refuse to acknowledge the problem and also do not want to acknowledge Save the Children's figures. According to Save the Children, there were 276,000 children in Sweden, i.e., every eighth child, who grew up in poverty in 2023. That corresponds to three children in an average Swedish school class.

The figures are therefore from 2023, but all civil society organizations agree that the situation has become even worse since then. More families with children go to Stadsmissionen and to the church to get help with food and clothes. More families with children apply for support from Majblomman to afford leisure activities.

Recently, the Swedish Enforcement Authority reported that the number of evictions of children has continued to increase every year. Now, they are 80 percent more than they were in 2020.

The development in Sweden is going in the completely wrong direction. What is the cause of this? The record-high unemployment, which the government has failed to manage, is part of the whole. It has resulted in more adults being without work, which makes it harder for them to cover everyday expenses.

In addition, there is the government's total unwillingness to strengthen the safety nets, which has made it even harder for parents who work full-time to afford the most basic expenses, such as food and rent. Despite the price increases, the government has refused to increase the child allowance, which means it has been eroded by a quarter since 2018 and is now worth less than ever in 50 years.

The maintenance support has been eroded in the same way, and the housing allowance was even lowered by the government last year by up to 2,100 kronor per month, before they then realized their mistake and raised it by barely half of what they took away.

The safety systems that we have built up together with the specific purpose of ensuring that all children can grow up in safety and prosperity are being systematically eroded year after year, with the result that very many families have found it much harder during this parliamentary term. In that case, it does not help that the government's tax cuts, in percentage terms, give more to those with the lowest incomes. In kronor and öre, which is what we trade with here in Sweden, they do not cover the price increases. In reality, they favor the very richest.

That is also why all organizations that support vulnerable households speak about the importance of strengthening the safety nets, not lowering taxes. That is what is actually needed. That is what would actually help.

As an example, I can mention that merely an increase of the child allowance to the same value level as it had in 2018, which we in Miljöpartiet propose, would have cost half as much as the government's job tax credit but still given more money in the pockets of both single low-income earners and cohabiting middle-income earners. A reinforcement of the housing allowance would have given an additional thousands of kronor in their pockets.

The safety nets and the welfare state are politics' best tools for reducing child poverty. But the government does not want to strengthen the safety nets. It is a question of priorities, and this government is prioritizing incorrectly.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Minister for an important debate and for the fact that we are once again standing here and talking about approximately the same issues, which is important. Children's upbringing conditions are not just a figure in a report, but it is the future of our country.

That is why I am a bit surprised, or perhaps I am not actually surprised, when Member Lennström remarks that more members are involved in the debate. That should be something positive. It should be good that both opposition members and Tidö members are involved in the debate. It should be good that we actually have this debate here in the chamber. Furthermore, one seems to be surprised that roughly the same questions receive similar answers. But that can be the case.

That children are living in vulnerability is always serious. And yes, many families have had it tough in recent years. But we must also dare to speak plainly about why the situation looks the way it does and what actually helps for real.

When the Moderate-led government took over after eight years of Social Democratic and Green Party rule, we inherited a Sweden with skyrocketing inflation, high interest rates, and rapidly rising living costs. It was not a natural disaster. It was an economic policy that weakened the resilience of households, and families with children paid the price.

Since then, the government has worked methodically to reverse the development. Just as Minister Anna Tenje has previously described, it is among other things about re-establishing the work line, for it is there that the real security lies – in self-sufficiency.

Madam Speaker! The best protective factor against child poverty is not a growing benefit system. It is that children see their parents go to work. A job does not only provide income; it provides stability, faith in the future, and role models.

That is why the government has prioritized making it more profitable to work. A typical family with children, for example with a police officer and a nurse, has since 2022 been able to keep over 5,000 kronor more per month. This strengthens household finances broadly, even for single parents and low-income earners. In this year's budget, we continue on that line. Lower preschool fees and reduced food VAT are just a couple of examples of measures that provide real relief in everyday life. It strengthens families in the long term without locking people into dependency on benefits.

At the same time, we must talk about how the concept of relative poverty is used in this debate. That measure implies that poverty can increase statistically even when people's actual standard of living improves, simply because someone else has fared even better. It risks turning an important social issue into a rhetorical cudgel. It does not mean that we turn a blind eye to vulnerability, on the contrary. Children living in economic vulnerability should receive support. But politics must be about lifting people into work and self-sufficiency, not about administering exclusion.

Madam Speaker! The difference between us and the opposition is clear. They want to meet every problem with new subsidies. We want to break the dependency. They measure equality in how equal incomes are. We measure success in how many can stand on their own two feet. That is how we turn the trend – through jobs, entrepreneurship, and a strong economy, not just symbolic politics. Children deserve more than debate points. They deserve a policy that gives their parents the power to stand on their own two feet. That is exactly what this government, with among others Minister Anna Tenje at the helm, actually does.

(Applause)

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! Let us take a minute to land on MP Lennström's view of democracy and the Social Democrats' view of what is worthy of this chamber and this debate and what parliamentarism actually is.

I must say that I am somewhat surprised when I am told that it is surprising that I stand here to account for the government's policies and reforms and defend them, and that members from the majority side sign up for the speaking list. It is those members who de facto are responsible for these issues within their respective parties.

That Social Democrats and even Environment Party members are protesting surprises no one. That they should have the right to stand here and criticize the government for what it does is the core of democracy for the Social Democrats. That is to say that when they do not get what they want and when the Council of State does not acknowledge – I was indeed wrong; I should have done differently and listened to the Social Democrats – then it is the wrong answer that is given. When the Council of State stands here and accounts for the policy we conduct and the reforms we put forward to reduce the vulnerability of households, then it is not worthy of this chamber. Something surprising – I thought that democracy was a bit deeper and sat a bit firmer in the Social Democrats.

Once again, Madam Speaker: The Government sees and acts to support households in a difficult time. A prolonged low-cycle, which we were in, war in our vicinity, and a restless world where free trade and growth are threatened hits a small, export-dependent country like Sweden very hard. And it is exactly as Member Högström explained earlier: Households have had to pay a high price.

That is exactly why the government has taken powerful measures to support households and the recovery of the Swedish economy. Most recently, we presented a very expansive budget, which the Riksdag recently voted through. It covers 80 billion kronor. These are funds and efforts that help families with children. The government has also previously supported families with children and continues now to support them with this year's budget.

When Member of Parliament Guteland brings up what has truly been a burden on households, she highlights the rents. We are raising the ceiling for the housing allowance to support those families with children who have had it the toughest. They will now receive an increase in their housing allowance that is the largest and highest in 30 years.

Another burden is food. Food prices have soared and are creating large holes in household finances. What does the government do then? Well, in response to that, we are lowering the food VAT.

Electricity prices, fuel prices and the like are highlighted, not least in the report we are discussing now, as incredibly burdensome, not least for families with children. What does the government do then? We lower the electricity tax, and we ensure that it is significantly cheaper to fuel the car so that one can get to and from leisure activities and ensure that the children get to school and other activities.

The leisure fee and the fact that it is expensive to be part of sports clubs and so on is another issue that has often been highlighted, not least by Member of Parliament Guteland. What does the government do then? Well, we ensure that the leisure card now becomes a reality. This means 500 kronor for a regular family with children, but de facto 2,000 kronor for a family with children that is particularly vulnerable.

What do we do for all the hard-working parents, often single parents, who have it extra tough? Well, we ensure that we lower the tax so that they keep more money in their pockets and in that way can stand on their own feet, support their own family and simply have a better economy and a more stable situation for their children.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by once again expressing disappointment over how the Minister for Social Insurance is attacking this debate. I find it strange.

I asked questions to Sweden's Minister for Finance Elisabeth Svantesson concerning broad policy and what is being done to alleviate the difficult economic situation that many in Sweden are currently suffering from. I was then told in response that it was the Minister for Social Insurance who would answer my question. Then the Minister for Social Insurance chooses to give a long speech about the Minister for Finance's, and possibly also the Minister for Enterprise's, areas instead of answering what the Minister for Social Insurance does within their portfolio to help all those families with children who are suffering from child poverty today.

Majblomman describes many terrible stories. With me, one sticks out about a mother who describes that she drinks tea to suppress her hunger. There are many parents who tell about what tips they have so that they themselves do not have to eat so that the food will suffice for the children.

We hear in this debate about all sorts of things concerning housing or industrial policy or things concerning economic policy. At the same time, the Minister for Social Insurance does not want to discuss it with us Social Democrats. But if one now opens up for that debate, I wonder: How is it that this government has not done several of the things that we Social Democrats have proposed?

We have proposed initiatives within the labor market policy, but this government has said no to them. At the same time, unemployment increased under this government, and it still ranks among the worst countries in the EU. Youth unemployment is the third highest, if I remember correctly. It is a major failure when it comes to labor market policy.

The number of bankruptcies is sky-high. It continues to be so. It has leveled off somewhat, but the figures regarding companies that do not survive the climate we have right now and this government were also sky-high in January 2026. We know that a huge amount would need to be done to ensure that Swedish companies can believe in the future with the moderate-led government. That is not being done.

There is also no strategy. A strategy could be to invest in innovation regarding green technology, but the Minister for Climate and the entire climate policy are failing. I have read many headlines just this week about how low the confidence in the Minister for Climate is.

I have also spoken about things that do not concern the Minister for Social Insurance's area. Now, however, we move on to things that concern the Minister's own area of responsibility, when it comes to children and child poverty. There are also a number of things that could be done. One could increase the child allowance as Majblomman suggests and as Nordic countries around us – our neighbors – have done. This is what the Swedish government chose not to do.

The last time the child allowance was increased was in 2018, when we Social Democrats led the government. We believe that the child allowance should also be increased now. We are also reviewing whether it would be necessary to invest in providing extra support for single parents. This needs to be investigated in the Government Offices, and it is something that the Moderate-led government has the opportunity to do.

We think that one should invest in public transport. Everywhere we govern, we try to do things, such as trying to reduce cost increases and that people are allowed to travel freely on public transport on holidays. However, support from the government would be needed, for example, to be able to have free public transport for young people, which is something that would make things much easier for single parents' wallets.

There is so much to do, but the Moderate-led government is sitting on its hands. The entire Tidögänget seems to be incredibly passive and content, but that is not the Swedish people – I promise you that.

(Applause)

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by being very clear that I did not hesitate regarding the number of members participating in this debate. You are all very welcome, regardless of whether you come from the government parties or the opposition.

What I did, however, was to express my disapproval of the government's and the governing parties' ability to answer a question, for I still perceive that you have not done so. I asked a question about how the government and the governing parties view this report. I have still not received any answer, so for the time being, the prediction from my crystal ball fits very well.

A lot of statistics and flashy formulations are coming here, but it still doesn't save the government parties from the fact that I didn't see any right-wing politicians at all when Makalösa Föräldrar were here and knocked on the doors of the Riksdag and demonstrated against child poverty in Sweden. I saw no minister and no Member of Parliament, but about 30 from Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and the Sossarna were there and listened to single mothers' stories about how hideous their everyday lives actually are.

I think this is a receipt that one does not have any politics that one is proud of. We have politics and proposals that we are proud of, and therefore we were there and met these people.

I move on to the proposals, as I want to keep the focus on them.

I come from a small coastal municipality called Östhammar. It is wonderful to see my children grow up in northern Roslagen among shores, rocks, and water. In our municipality, which is governed by among others the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna – it seems to be important in this context – there are few opportunities available when it is time for swimming instruction.

In the autumn, for example, it was time for my eldest, and then one didn't go at all. During the spring, one should go on a few occasions. I just hope that none of the teachers get sick so that these few occasions are cancelled. We may live by the water, but sometimes one has to take a bus to get to the beach, and in the winter it costs a pretty penny to go into the swimming hall. If you are single, perhaps you cannot go with two non-swimming children, because it doesn't feel so safe.

According to Majblomman, there are 53,000 children aged 10–16 who are not proficient swimmers. At the same time, we expect through goals in the curriculum that they should fulfill this. The conditions, however, depend very much on the parents, and it looks very different when it comes to whether one can reach that or not. Majblomman therefore proposes a national swimming proficiency guarantee. It could be targeted swimming instruction for older children or a collaboration with swimming clubs.

I was at the Majblomman seminar here in the Riksdag. There, it was also suggested that one could have swimming school outdoors with youth as instructors. My children have attended such a school, and I can therefore, by anecdotal evidence, say that it works very well.

In Uppsala, the red-green government has introduced free summer swimming school for everyone who has completed grade 2, and in 2019 we Social Democrats had a proposal regarding the swimming school in our budget, but the proposal fell.

Swimming school is important. It is about child poverty, and it is about the fact that the conditions look very different. Child poverty can have fatal consequences if the children do not learn to swim.

I wonder: Does the Minister see anything within their own or other ministers' areas that could counteract child poverty and increase swimming proficiency among children and young people?

(Applause)

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! When one debates child poverty with Minister for Social Insurance Anna Tenje or other members from the Tidö parties, one learns more from what they do not say than what they actually say – that is what I have begun to realize. It is rarely proposals concerning the Minister's area of responsibility that are raised when talking about child poverty. This time, it seems to be the same.

Not a single time has it been possible to address any of the proposals that Majblomman has presented – which is part of what this debate is about. Instead, we have heard just as much of what we have become used to hearing: that it is those who earn the most who should get a little better. Perhaps some crumbs fall down to those who are at the bottom of the hierarchies.

I do not think it is so strange that the Finance Minister does not appear in a debate concerning child poverty. When she herself claims that it must start to pay off to earn 125,000 kronor a month in Sweden, it is not so strange that she does not appear or that she perhaps does not fully see the problems that very many live in.

I have begun to realize that the government counts percentages, but the children count crowns. In practice, it is about not being able to join the school trip and not being able to afford leisure activities. The lunchbox is empty.

To ignore Majblomman's proposal here, or our proposals, is a political choice. Not to strengthen the general support for families with children is also a political choice. The consequences of these choices are not borne by the government and not by the cabinet, who have received several thousand kronor more per month with their tax policy. They are borne by the children.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is my final contribution, so I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Pensions and Social Insurance and all of you who have participated in this debate.

It is, as said, a lie that 100,000 more children are in economic vulnerability. Different calculation models point to different results over time. The old measure points to a decrease between the years 2019 and 2023. The revised measure also shows a decrease if one looks at 2020 to 2023. Child poverty increased with the new model, thus by 16,000 children from 2022 to 2023, to 276,000 children in total. When the Socialdemokraterna were in government, that figure was 321,000 in 2020. We see, therefore, that the trend is going in the right direction right now.

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned in my previous speech, the report notes, among other things, that child poverty is much higher among children with a foreign background. The proportion of children living in economic vulnerability is six times greater among children with a foreign background than among children born in Sweden. When it comes to unemployment, it is almost three times as high among those born abroad.

If we are to tackle child poverty, the long-term solution is therefore a strict migration policy and that more foreign-born people enter the workforce. This will not solve everything, but it will also have a great effect.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties are now presenting a benefit reform that includes a benefit ceiling, an activity requirement, and a time-limited job premium to increase the incentives to take a job. These are important steps we are now taking so that more people will become self-sufficient, and this is the exact opposite of the socialists' benefit line.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would have wished for a bit more intellectual honesty from the representatives of the Tidö parties in this debate.

Members of the committee Högström, Persson with several arguments argue that their parties want to solve child poverty by getting more people into work while we Green Party members want to solve everything with higher benefits. This is not true; the Green Party has several proposals for an active labor market policy while this government has presented vanishingly few propositions in that area. But above all, we do not want to raise benefits for the sake of benefits, but because we want safety nets that actually fulfill their purpose and meet the goals that have been set for them.

The child allowance exists to cover the child's basic costs and strengthen the family's finances, but the current government has allowed the child allowance to be eroded to its lowest level in 50 years. Just this year, the Swedish National Audit Office presented a review of the housing allowance where it was noted that the housing allowance does not fulfill its goal that all families with children should be able to demand a good and sufficiently large home, and that the reason for this is that the housing allowance has not been increased since the 90s.

What is the point of having security systems if we deliberately do not finance them sufficiently? I do not believe that M and SD want to abolish the child allowance and the housing allowance – they have at least not said it outright – so why are they so stubbornly ideologically opposed to ensuring that the allowances meet the goals that we here have collectively agreed should exist?

Miljöpartiet wants safety systems that ensure no children grow up in poverty. What do the Tidö parties want? I actually don't know at all what it is they want.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! This subject always creates very interesting debate.

The Social Democrats seem incredibly surprised that someone does not buy exactly their view on the matter and exactly their worldview. Above all, they are surprised if one does not buy exactly their proposal. It is a mockery and a threat, and a lot of words were spoken about how wrong it is that Anna Tenje is taking the debate. It becomes a very strange debate. They try to say that it is about policy and about child poverty, but in reality, it is about that one's own worldview is the only correct one. That is not the case, and that is not how it works.

We all have pre-written scripts for a debate, but I think one must be able to listen to what the Minister responds. In the pre-sent response to the interpellation, she describes measures that the government is taking, even in the Minister's own area of responsibility, to facilitate things for families with children. But those are not the proposals that the Social Democrats want, and therefore they are wrong. That is not how democracy works. Democracy works in such a way that we clash and clash.

Right now, we have the support of the Swedish people to implement important changes. We received a clear mandate from the voters to turn around the economic development, and that is what we are doing now. When it comes to growth, Sweden is moving from the bottom league to the top league. We are pursuing an important and real economic policy to turn around the development, because that is what helps families with children. It is when we get momentum in the economy and more and more jobs that we turn around the development and break the exclusion. But no – for the Social Democrats, their proposals are the only right ones.

(Applause)

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! I actually think that is the beauty in the crow's song – that it is sometimes Camilla Waltersson Grönvall who takes the debate on how we should counter child poverty and the many evictions we see, not least in the Social Democrat-governed cities of Gothenburg and Malmö, or for that matter that Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson sometimes discusses how to strengthen household finances to counter the economic vulnerability for not least families with children.

It is also good that I, for my part, can use this debate to show what we are doing in different areas to push back against exclusion and get more people to move from benefits to work. Above all, it is about making it more worthwhile to work. People should be able to stand on their own feet and support themselves, and therefore they need to be able to keep more of their hard-earned money.

This question is complex, and therefore many of us are involved in and want to debate it. Depending on how one poses the question, one also gets different answers – answers that it may fall to other cabinet ministers to provide – given that we do not have the same solutions to the problem. That is the beauty of democracy, and that is well the purpose of why there are different parties standing here at all, debating against one another. What Member Guteland highlighted as a weakness, I therefore see rather as a strength, that is to say, the importance of having several solutions to a problem.

It is also the case – thank goodness – that some solutions are actually better than others, and right now we have the mandate to implement the changes that we campaigned on. We have the Swedish people behind us to, among other things, ensure that more people move away from exclusion, leave the benefit line, and return to the work line.

If one looks at the effects on the households' economic standard of the government's proposals and our notifications during the mandate period, one clearly sees, regardless of how one calculates, that the economic standard increases by percentage most in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and least in the two top income groups. The government's policy has also led to the population's economic standard increasing and the proportion of just low-income earners decreasing.

Sanne Lennström has several times been involved in Majblomman's proposal; I did not manage to get there in my previous post. In its report, Majblomman proposes, above all, reinforcements of the child allowance. What is then not really taken into account, and what I might think the Social Democrats also do not take into account in their proposal, is that the majority of children in Sweden are not in the lowest income groups.

Is it those children one wants to focus on and support – the children of the hard-working single mothers, not least, who have a hard time making ends meet – one must keep in mind that not all children are in that group. According to public statistics, there are 125,000 children living with a low standard of income, compared to the 2.4 million children who would receive the increased child allowance or student grant. Many families have and have had a very difficult situation, and then it is a question of priorities. How do we support these families in the best way?

The government simply chooses to focus on significantly more accurate reforms, such as increased housing allowance and lower taxes on work – primarily for low- and middle-income earners – while simultaneously mitigating the effects for some of the families with children when it comes to the toughest expenses. This involves, for example, lower taxes on electricity and fuels and, not least, the halved food VAT.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Social Insurance, for this debate! It has been a lively debate.

It is always valuable to be able to discuss these important issues with the government and ministers. But that being said, the fact remains that more and more families with children and family breadwinners are turning to our aid organizations to ask for support in the difficult times we are seeing right now. We have received many reports, not least from Majblomman and Makalösa Föräldrar, which have shown that there are many desperate parents in our vast country who are currently suffering from the cost increases we have seen during the years that this government has ruled.

The Minister describes that the government has made efforts targeted at families with children, but we can state that this has not been enough. On the contrary, we see now, for example in today's news, that more and more families with children are being evicted as a result of not being able to manage to pay the rent.

We know that there are measures that would help families with children, not least the single parents – often mothers – who struggle to make everyday life work. We Social Democrats are presenting proposals in that direction. We know that the child allowance is targeted and that it means an enormous amount for being able to afford, for example, winter clothes or leisure activities. We know that investments so that municipalities can lower the fees for leisure activities mean very much. We know that public transport is important, and therefore we want to make measures to help not least young people to be able to move around without mothers being burdened too heavily by this.

It is also important that we achieve a new economic policy that equalizes and that invests in those who have the least instead of in those who have the most. It is more important that families with children get more than that the cabinet gets tax cuts.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister and the other members for the debate.

The last proposal in the Majblomman report, which we did not have time to discuss, is an age scale in the child allowance. I want to be clear that I have listened to what the members and the Minister have said in this debate. What frustrates me is that I have not received answers to what I have asked about. I have asked about the report but have been met with opinions on how the debate in the chamber has been, which Minister should take what and which members should be included. The minutes have just ticked on without us having focused on the report's five proposals. I would like to know what the Minister's position is on the proposals. That is what I asked.

Towards the end, we did at least hear some criticism from the Minister regarding the fact that the child allowance is not very targeted. I want to be very clear that Sweden can afford to both increase the child allowance and make more targeted investments if the right priorities are made from the political side. That can be afforded if one does not focus on, for example, tax cuts for wealthy individuals.

People talk about the importance of having a job. The Social Democrats wholeheartedly agree – more people should enter the workforce! But right now, we are in the EU's bottom of the barrel regarding unemployment, and it echoes with emptiness regarding proposals from the government on how we are to get out of this. I call for more proposals on how we should reduce unemployment in our country so that more children can see both of their parents go to work and so that more families get a sensible economy.

I thank you very much for today's debate.

(Applause)

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to all the debaters for the debate we have had in the chamber today! I would especially like to thank the interpellants.

To Sanne Lennström, I want to say the following: Next time, I will not combine your debates. I understand that your fellow member has disrupted the setup quite a bit. It becomes difficult to answer all the questions. Next time, it will just be you and I, at least initially.

It is above all work that is the path to growth and the path to empowerment, community and integration for all people who come here. It is also the path out of poverty. Together with education and other measures to reduce unemployment, which we have touched upon, as well as learning the Swedish language, it is the key to the social mobility that I believe everyone here in the chamber wants to enable for all children living in our country.

In our Sweden, it should not matter where you come from. What should count instead is where you are headed. If one wants to see more successful examples of integration, more social mobility, and more children growing up with a positive image of their future, it is the work line – and definitely not the benefit line – that is the answer.

It is right and proper to support families with children in difficult times. The government has done so and will continue to do so. At the same time, we will support hard-working people. They shall be able to keep more of their hard-earned money so that they can stand on their own feet and support themselves.

More children and young people should grow up in homes that are not affected by poverty but are characterized by hard-working parents who both earn and deserve a wage that they can keep more of.

(Applause)

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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