Response to interpellations 2025/26:93 and 110 on child poverty in Sweden

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! Arber Gashi has asked me what measures I and the government intend to take to reverse the development of increased child poverty and ensure that the family economy in Sweden provides all children with a reasonable standard of living in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the responsibility that rests with the state.

Agneta Nilsson has asked the Minister for Social Services whether she, within her area of responsibility, and the government intend to take measures to reduce child poverty in Sweden so that children's right to an adequate standard of living is not eroded. The work within the government is distributed such that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.

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 2023. For the period thereafter, there are no data yet.

The economic situation in Sweden is – regardless of this, I want to point out – strained. We are in a recession. Even though inflation has now begun to decrease significantly, the high inflation we have had has affected household finances negatively through, among other things, increased food prices and rising housing costs.

The government has therefore taken a number of different measures to support households, and we see it as important to continue doing so. In the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1), a number of measures are proposed and announced to lower food prices and increase households' disposable incomes, including reduced food VAT, reduced childcare fees, and raised limits for housing costs in the housing allowance. This particularly benefits families with children with low incomes, which often are single women with children. The government's proposals and announcements during the mandate period have collectively, in percentage terms, increased the economic standard most in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and least in the two top income groups.

In order to help economically vulnerable households in the long term and reduce child poverty, it is incredibly important to get more people into work. The Government is therefore implementing a number of different measures that collectively aim to strengthen the work principle and make it more profitable to move from benefits to work. More parents going 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, above all, security.

Finally, I want to point out that it is not true that the social assistance has not followed the price development, as Arber Gashi claims in his interpellation. The national standard for social assistance has been raised by record amounts during recent years to compensate precisely for the high inflation. For example, the national standard was raised by almost 9 percent both in 2023 and 2024. Over a longer period, the national standard has risen more than the price development specifically for families with children.

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Social Insurance for the answer. The Minister had many ways she could have opened this debate, but she chose a particular one, namely to state that child poverty is not increasing at all in Sweden and that it may even have decreased. It sounds as if the Minister is quite satisfied with how the situation looks, which is strange – in the government's own budget, it is written that the finances of households with children have shown a clear decline in recent years, especially 2021–2023. Those who have it the toughest are single parents. This therefore appears to be out of touch with reality to me.

When the minister stares blindly at statistics, I instead lift my gaze and look out over our country. There I see single parents who borrow money for the most basic expenses, such as rent and food. I see mothers who know exactly what everything costs to the penny because the margins are so small. I see children who have stopped asking for things themselves because they know it hurts in their mother's heart to have to say no. I see children who forgo extracurricular activities and outings so as not to burden their parents and who instead run a constant risk of being snatched up by criminal gangs.

In recent days, I have read about a preschool in Gothenburg where the preschool yard is empty on rainy days because the children do not have rain clothes. It is possible to read about over 100 applications to Majblomman from families with children in poverty. It concerns everything from clothes and shoes to glasses, bus cards, and bicycles. That is the reality. The latest report from Rädda Barnen shows that 276,000 children, i.e., almost one in eight, live in economic vulnerability. The report also states that previous statistics have underestimated child poverty and that the trend has moved upwards during the years that this government has been in power.

All of us parties who claim to stand for equality have a duty to listen to the warning signs. I want to see a policy that reflects reality, not just in the formal statistics. To downplay the situation, which I perceive the Minister for Social Insurance is doing in this case, is to close the door for the children who are already furthest out.

How could it have become like this? Well, this government has chosen to take the wrong side. While single mothers have received lower housing allowances, even tighter margins, more expensive food, and increased rents, high-income earners have received thousands more per month. The government has made specific tax cuts for those who earn over 66,000 kronor a month, while families with children who are already struggling have received less support and higher costs. It is clear that the gaps are widening when those who already have it good get even more and those who have the least are left to fend for themselves. It is the result of a policy that rewards strength and punishes vulnerability. And it is the children who pay the highest price.

What could one have done instead? Well, one could have increased the child allowance, like most other Nordic countries, and skipped the reduction of the housing allowance. One could also have abolished the sick pay deduction, which today ensures that childcare workers, nurses, bus drivers, and others who cannot take their work home instead go to work while sick because the cost of staying home is too high.

I therefore want to ask the Minister how she explains Rädda Barnens, Majblomman's and Sveriges Stadsmissioners reports if it is not the case that child poverty has increased.

(Applause)

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

Agneta Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been Swedish law since 2020. This means that the rights in the Convention on the Rights of the Child have the same status as other laws and that the wording of the original texts shall apply as Swedish law.

In Article 27 on standard of living in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it states: "States Parties recognize the right of the child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. ... States Parties shall, in accordance with their national conditions and within the limits of their available resources, take appropriate measures to assist parents and other persons responsible for the child in ensuring this right and shall, where necessary, provide material assistance and support programs, particularly in regard to food, clothing and housing."

This law is not being fulfilled by Sweden and the government. The number of poor children is increasing, despite the fact that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has pointed out that Sweden should do more for families with children living in poverty. The Committee is clear: "Growing up in relative poverty undermines children's well-being, social integration and self-esteem, and reduces opportunities for learning and development."

Madam Speaker! Current figures from Save the Children's latest report show that there are 276,000 children living in poverty in Sweden. This figure has increased significantly. Between 2019 and 2022, during the Social Democrats' time in government, child poverty decreased. In 2023, the trend broke – child poverty began to increase and has consistently increased since then.

I met Makalösa Föräldrar when they hosted oatmeal here outside at Mynttorget last spring. I spoke with parents living on the margins. What they witnessed should not have to exist in our country. Parents with low incomes, such as childcare workers, local cleaners, nursing assistants, and retail employees, cannot make the finances work even if they work full-time. It is about food, clothes for the children, and other completely basic things that they cannot afford.

One has to sacrifice activities together. Parents are worried about not being able to provide enough food for the children during school holidays. Food expenses and rent for housing have taken a larger share of the income and still do. The pressure increases on families who already have it tight on income when the economy becomes even more limited.

A survey conducted on behalf of Majblomman, Hyresgästföreningen, Rädda Barnen, and Röda Korset shows that one in three single parents with a low income, under 30,000 kronor per month, do not have the possibility to eat enough to be able to provide food for their children.

My question is: How does the Minister and the Government view the importance of following the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is Swedish law, and that the Government has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the law is followed?

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the interpellants for raising the debate once again and, above all, the Minister for patiently taking on the task of answering this important question.

Children's living situation is extremely important. Breaking the exclusion is one of the Moderaternas most prioritized issues. The Government is working methodically to do just that, to re-establish the work principle, just as Minister Anna Tenje has previously described.

Eight years of Social Democratic rule left Sweden in an incredibly vulnerable situation. It was an inflation that spiraled out of control, which meant painful interest rate and cost increases.

The government has now reversed that development. Many families in Sweden have had to undergo a cold shower after what the Social Democrats left behind. But now we see that it is slowly beginning to brighten on the horizon.

In the upcoming budget, there will also be important reliefs, such as lower preschool fees and reduced food VAT. These are measures that strengthen people's own finances instead of scattering subsidies.

The best insurance against future exclusion is to see one's parents go to work. Therefore, we must continue the work of making it profitable to work. But we must also ensure that companies can, want to, and dare to invest and that their companies grow. That is how we create jobs in Sweden.

The Moderate-led government has also ensured that an ordinary family with children, with a police officer and a nurse, has been able to keep over 5,000 kronor more per month since we took over in 2022. This has obviously also benefited single parents and, above all, families with low incomes.

Madam Speaker! I also want to flag the risk of stretching the concept of relative poverty too far. It does not mean in practice that we will always have poor children in Sweden. It also means that during growth, every time a company expands and every time someone gets the chance for a new position that increases the salary, some others become relatively poorer. So that is obviously not the case.

Social democratic envy must not become a punching bag in the debate. The principle is that it is not good enough if the Social Democrats are not the ones who are good, the ones who take with one hand and give with the other.

We shall help children living in real vulnerability. But we shall not call people poor just because others have become richer. Children deserve better than symbolic politics.

(Applause)

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

Dzenan Cisija (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, who will potentially answer my question! Thanks also to my party colleagues Agneta and Arber who raise the question of children's right to a decent standard of living. It is one of the most fundamental rights issues in a welfare state.

When the current government took office, approximately one tenth of Sweden's children lived in economic deprivation. Today, three years later, Save the Children's poverty report shows that 276,000 children, almost 13 percent, live in economic deprivation. This concerns perhaps 100,000 more children in three years.

It means that Sweden, one of the world's richest countries, has the highest child poverty over more than a decade. This is happening at the same time as child poverty is decreasing in other Nordic countries. Child poverty is increasing because the economic basic security in Sweden has been dismantled step by step.

Child poverty is also increasing because the child allowance has not been increased since the Social Democrats ruled the country and because the temporary housing allowance supplement has been removed, while food prices, housing prices, and various fees have risen sharply.

We can also observe that unemployment has increased since this government took office. It hits particularly hard single parents, often women, and foreign-born Swedes who are already in a more vulnerable position on the labor market.

Unemployment and low incomes, in combination with rising living costs, are now driving families with children straight into an economic reality where every month becomes an emergency. To cover food, rent, and electricity, many are forced to borrow, and more and more are getting stuck, as the media reports, in debt traps that they find difficult to escape.

Madam Speaker! I live in Angered in Gothenburg. In my district, child poverty is over 35 percent, while in affluent parts of Gothenburg it is around 7, maybe 8 percent. It is the same city and the same country, but two completely different realities. It is a shame for Sweden, which wants to call itself equal.

When children grow up in poverty, everything is affected. This applies to the opportunity to participate in leisure activities and the children's health, school results, security, as well as faith in the future. Poverty can also drive children into crime.

Reports from Majblomman, Hyresgästföreningen, Röda Korset, and Makalösa Föräldrar show that a growing group of children do not receive the food, the clothes, the winter equipment, or the leisure time they need. Parents testify that they skip their own meals so that the children can eat until they are full. It is not worthy of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been Swedish law since 2020. Article 27 says that every child has the right to a reasonable standard of living. That right is now being weakened in practice through the government's decisions and the government's deliberate non-decisions.

I want to ask the minister: Will the government consider increasing the child allowance and the student grant?

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Pensions and Social Insurance for the answers to these interpellations. The interpellants highlight important issues regarding child poverty.

Both interpellants have questions that in some sense are based on Rädda Barnens child poverty report from 2025. The report concerns the years 2019–2023. The interpellants claim that child poverty is increasing. The increase is due to the fact that the child poverty measure has been revised. It is something that the interpellating Social Democrats do not mention.

For 2023, a revised calculation model is used. That results in 276,000 children living in economic precariousness. With that calculation model, the number of children living in economic precariousness was 321,000 in 2022. To 2023, it is a decrease of 45,000 children. But there is a certain increase from 2022 to 2023 according to the new model, with 16,000 children.

If the previous calculation model had been used, the figure for children living in economic vulnerability would have been 175,000 for 2023. The previous calculation model shows that economic vulnerability among children decreased during the years 2019–2022. Had the previous calculation model been used in 2023, it would have shown a continued decrease. If one, as the Socialdemokraterna claim, asserts that child poverty is increasing, one should nevertheless nuance the picture. But regardless of which calculation model one uses, there are children living in economic vulnerability; we will not get away from that.

Madam Speaker! Reading further in the child poverty report, one sees that there is a strong variation between and within Sweden's municipalities. The lowest proportion of children in economic hardship is in Vellinge municipality, at 3.1 percent. The municipality that has 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. The report states that among children with a foreign background, child poverty stands at 33.6 percent, to be compared with children with a Swedish background where child poverty stands at 5.8 percent.

This is rooted in the mass migration we have had in Sweden under the Social Democrats' rule – a Europe that does not build walls. We are now seeing the consequences of the Social Democrats' policy. It was an irresponsible and demand-free migration policy. Dependency on benefits has increased significantly, and unemployment among foreign-born individuals is high. We have a segregation that has split our country.

Madam Speaker! It is only during this parliamentary term that we are reforming the migration policy. There are clear requirements, and self-sufficiency is the goal. We are shifting labor immigration from low-wage jobs 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 to work actively with voluntary return for those who have not succeeded in integrating into 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.

(Applause)

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

Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)

Madam Speaker! My colleagues Arber and Agneta have asked what measures the Minister and the Government intend to take so that children can have a reasonable standard of living and to reduce child poverty.

Child poverty is unfortunately something that I have debated several times with several government representatives. The answers have often sounded well-intentioned, but we can see that the result has turned out to be something completely different. Instead of strengthening the finances of families with children, the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have worsened the conditions for the most vulnerable by making it more expensive to pick up medicines, by worsening the housing allowance, and by remaining passive while the child allowance has been eroded.

Families with children have had to take the economic hit while high-income earners have received large tax cuts. This is a prioritization that is not only unfair; it has also proven to be harmful to growth.

Previously, we Social Democrats have presented several proposals to support ordinary families in Sweden. Among others, we have wanted to increase the child allowance, stop the deterioration of the high-cost protection, which makes medicines more expensive, and keep the housing supplement for families with children. To get more people into work, the Social Democrats have presented proposals to put a stop to the cuts at the Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen). We have proposed a doubling of the number of places in labor market training and a temporary driving license lift for young unemployed people, as well as increased investments in infrastructure and housing construction. But the government has said no to all of this.

In economic crises, it is always those with the smallest margins who are hit hardest. The consequences are clearly felt for families with children, where the inequality between families unfortunately increases. We can also see that the worst-off pensioners have more difficulty managing the most basic tasks of everyday life.

Single parents with low income are particularly hard hit. Almost six out of ten of these parents have experienced difficulties paying for leisure activities for their children. Almost one-third of the parents state that they have had difficulty eating enough to be full. This is an increase from 2024. During 2024, debts also increased by 52 million kronor per day, and the number of evictions has increased by almost 50 percent in three years. Of these, 231 cases concern families with children.

Every child affected by an eviction finds themselves in a very vulnerable situation. This can have far-reaching consequences regarding both safety, schooling, and health. For us Social Democrats, it is a self-evident matter that children should not have to pay for crises. But that ambition unfortunately does not seem to be shared by the government. Sweden is today the only one of the Nordic countries that has not increased the child allowance. The value of the child allowance is, due to the government's passivity, the lowest in 50 years.

This is a policy that has bitter consequences. Child poverty has increased to the highest level in the Nordic countries, regardless of what the minister and her colleagues say. This is a development that is truly unworthy of a welfare state. I wonder again: What does the government intend to do to reverse the development?

(Applause)

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! During the autumn, I met with Majblomman, Stadsmissionen, and the Church of Sweden. All of these say that it is new groups that are seeking them out to get help with the most basic things, such as a birthday present. They have to take on greater responsibility when the family economic policy stands back and does not do enough.

The Moderates often assert the work line in this chamber. It is a line that we Social Democrats also consider very important. We do not think that grants should simply be sprinkled out. But for the single nursing assistant with two children, the situation can still be completely impossible. It is too expensive with clothes for growing children. The rent is sky-high. One cannot afford to visit an amusement park in the summer and even less to go away for a week on vacation. The ice cream is too expensive, and shopping for food causes anxiety. Two mothers told me that they have duct-taped their sinks because they simply cannot afford new ones. Many are forced to borrow from their parents who are pensioners, and then you get anxiety because you have taken from mom's already meager pension.

Let us call what we see what it really is: child poverty in Sweden in 2025. Then one must let the family economic policy step forward and do something properly. One must not pull additions to the housing allowance, not refuse to increase the child allowance, and not have coffee with the food giants.

There is a great deal of family economic policy that we Social Democrats have presented in recent years and which really could have made a difference for these people. But first and foremost, I want to dive deep into people of flesh and blood, who have sought help from Majblomman, because their voices deserve to be heard in the Swedish Riksdag.

A mother writes: We live in a tough situation, and we are having a very hard time making ends meet. We receive no support from outside. I am a sole guardian. The money is supposed to go towards clothes for the boys, and the children also need money for their extracurricular activities. They need bus passes for the summer, but the money is not enough for this. We need money for transport to visit the father. We cannot do that today, because we cannot afford it.

It is unworthy of a welfare country like Sweden that children's opportunities should be so limited by how much money the parents have in their bank account and depend so much on whether the parents live together or not. This debate is not about that, but there are obviously great risks with, for example, staying too long in a violent relationship because one cannot afford to leave it and be single.

We Social Democrats want to see a proper increase in the supplement to the housing allowance so that single-person households can have a more manageable everyday life. It is not worthy to play in the way that has been done with the supplement to the housing allowance. We also want to increase the child allowance. All our Nordic neighboring countries have made different types of investments of this kind, but our Swedish government has not done so.

It is about 2,400 kronor per child per year which, for example, could have provided shoes for the season, a visit to a summer land, a cinema trip around Christmas, or something else that would have improved the quality of life for these families with children.

I have read the government's budget, so I am not interested in hearing about investments in it. I would, however, like to know why the government refuses to increase the child allowance despite the need existing and all countries in the Nordic region have made similar investments.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by particularly welcoming the visitors from Råslätts fritidsgård, who are sitting in the gallery and listening to this very important debate on children and children's poverty.

Madam Speaker! We have had a hundred thousand more unemployed with this government, and we have not finished counting. We have had worsened benefits, and that deterioration will furthermore hit women even harder. We are now also receiving reports from Försäkringskassan that 86,000 long-term unemployed will receive a significantly reduced activity support, by several thousand kronor a month after tax.

In what way does the government mean that this would lead to a reduction in child poverty with this reality?

We have stood here several times. We have stood here before the summer holidays and described how, literally in the stomach, mothers and fathers have felt anxiety about how they will manage to provide meaningful activities for their children or for the children to be able to get food throughout the summer holidays. Now we stand here with a Christmas break in the near future, and by then people already have wallets that have been emptied and savings accounts that have been drained for a long time with this government. That is the reality.

Child poverty is being driven by this government's policy. We must also be fully aware that the government intends to continue with this policy.

When it comes to the subsidy reform, I would like to ask the Minister if she can ensure, Madam Speaker, that it will not affect children and their living conditions and that it will not increase child poverty in this country. If the Minister believes that there would be a risk of it increasing child poverty, one should consider the reality we receive from Rädda Barnen, Stadsmissionen, Majblomman and so on, the reality that the Minister does not raise or comment on in her answer. Rather, she does the opposite and tries to show that child poverty is not increasing despite all these reports and all these descriptions.

What is the answer to all these mothers and fathers who seek job after job, several a day, but do not get jobs, all those who want to try to secure an income to live on but do not get that opportunity with this government's policy? That is my question to the Minister. What is the answer to those who actually want to improve their economic situation, who want to get a job but who cannot get it in this SD-government's Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! At the beginning of the 90s, I did my first internship as a social work student in Gothenburg. At that time, I met many people who were having a very tough time, because it was a period of economic recession. Inflation was high, and the cuts in welfare were affecting people's everyday lives.

Then I decided that I would become politically engaged. What matters is that people have jobs, that you have a school that works and that all children get good conditions for a good upbringing.

Throughout all the years I have worked, I have also continued to promise myself that I will never forget their stories about what it was and what it is like to live in economic vulnerability.

This, Caroline Högström, is not about Swedish envy. It is about children who do not dare to ask their parents if they can get new football boots when the old ones have become too small and tight, but continue to run anyway to be able to participate. It is about children who cannot eat themselves full but who see parents who struggle and toil.

The whole time, it is said that this is about whether the statistics are correct. No, maybe they are not. However, we can only state that the policy that this government pursues favors people who already have and makes it tough for people who do not have. More children feel anxiety every day about their parents' finances. More children are not given the opportunity to do what they dream of and love because the economy sets obstacles for it.

This is what it is about. That is why I stand here. I have promised all the children and young people I have met during my nearly 18 years as a social worker, whose stories I have heard about how tough it is, that I will never give up the fight for increased equality in Sweden.

Unfortunately, that is not the case today. Today, inequalities are increasing. It is not about envy; it is about the right for all children in Sweden, regardless of background. They are our children, and they have a right to a good upbringing if we are to be able to continue talking about Sweden as a pioneering country, a country for all children, and a country that has a welfare model to speak of.

(Applause)

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Madam Speaker! I had not actually intended to jump into this debate, but I still felt compelled to do so when I heard the Sverigedemokratiska member's contribution earlier.

Here in, we are a few Social Democratic members who choose to debate an urgent issue: that there are children in our country who are worried that there is no food on the table when they come home or because the parents cannot pay the rent. They might feel an anxiety that Christmas Eve might not be so fun and see that the other children in the class get nice presents.

Then I think it is a bit absurd to stand at the rostrum of the Swedish Parliament and point out that the figures presented by the Social Democrats might not be quite correct. It might not be exactly that many children who are actually poor. It might be somewhat fewer.

Madam Speaker! For me, it does not matter whether it is ten children, ten thousand children, one hundred thousand children, or one million children living in child poverty. Regardless, that figure must go down. That is the important political point to make, I think. Then we can talk about exactly how one measures child poverty. We can absolutely have a theoretical discussion about that. But what we are having a political conversation about is how we get that figure down.

Since I have now taken the floor, I thought I would comment on the Minister's answer. The overarching political task for us is to ensure that children have a bearable life and a bearable standard of living. I naturally took note of the Minister's answer, and there she highlights the work line and the importance of all people in this country having a job to go to. On that, we are all in agreement in this chamber. All people who can work shall work, and the absolute majority in this country who can work do work.

They are trying to paint a picture of that there is a large group of people who do not want to work and therefore do not work but live on some form of benefit. That is not true. There are those who want to work but do not get a job, and that is due to the government's lack of growth policy. There are no jobs in this country. There are absolutely some vacant jobs – the Prime Minister said not so long ago in a party leader debate that there are 70,000 jobs – but last I checked there were more than half a million unemployed.

But even those who have a job to go to are in an extremely difficult situation, and it affects their children. Single mothers working in home care have a tough economic situation, which means they have difficulty paying the rent and putting food on the table.

At the same time, we cannot see that the government's policy is stopping development. There are actually 100,000 more unemployed. Instead, taxes have been lowered for those who earn the most. Furthermore, the allowance has worsened, and the extra supplement in the housing allowance has been removed.

Where is the sense of crisis? When will the large and important reforms come that can turn the development around, so that more children notice that the economy is sustainable in the family? When will more parents have a job to go to, instead of the development we see today?

(Applause)

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Madam Speaker! The Government sees, and we are acting to support households in a very tough time. There is no doubt that we have had a tough time behind us, but now we see that it is brightening on the horizon.

With this said, the government is not lying down and waiting, but we have just presented a very expansive budget that truly paves the way for households and their economy. It will be a very strange order of debate, Madam Speaker, when one, on the one hand, is not expected to account for the proposals that are in the budget, which the parties in the government and the Sverigedemokraterna recently presented, and the Socialdemokraterna, on the other hand, present their proposals. I am not allowed to highlight our proposals, but they present theirs.

I thought, Madam Speaker, that the politics and the upcoming election year were about us presenting our proposals to alleviate the economic situation of vulnerable families with children and you presenting your proposals. Then the voters themselves can decide who has the most credible politics.

We are now leaving a worrying time behind regarding inflation, but we are still in a tough time. A prolonged recession definitely affects household finances. There is war in our immediate vicinity, and our world otherwise is restless where free trade and growth have taken a backseat to tariffs. This hits a small and open economy like the one in Sweden particularly hard.

During this time, and also for the future, the government has taken powerful measures to support households. If we look again at the effects on the households' economic standard as a result of the government's policy and the proposals and notifications that we have presented during the mandate period, it is clear that the economic standard, in percentage terms, increases most in the tenth of the population that has the lowest incomes, that is, the lowest economic standard. It has the least impact on the two top income groups. One cannot get away from this. Then one can talk as much as one wants about how this is still not the right way. One has the right to think that, but facts still speak for themselves.

To strengthen households' purchasing power, the government has eased the tax burden for the Swedish people, among other things through reduced tax on labor – which is so important for it to pay more to work. But we are also lowering the tax on pension. It should pay to have worked. We are also lowering the tax on savings, entrepreneurship, and transport. That, my friends, is of great importance for economically vulnerable families with children, not least in the countryside.

The government's reinforcements, which Caroline Högström was touching upon, have had a great effect. Look at the example of the family with a police officer and a nurse. They will get 5,000 kronor more in their wallet every month thanks to our policy. This also means something for those who are single.

To support the economy's recovery, we have placed a very expansive budget on the Riksdag's table amounting to 80 billion. It is a few billion more than what the Social Democrats have presented, and it is money that has helped families with children in general and poor families with children in particular.

We have supported families with children, and we continue to support them even in next year's budget. Food is expensive, and therefore we are lowering the food VAT. Leisure activities are difficult to afford, and so we are introducing the leisure card. This means 500 kronor per child for ordinary families with children, but for families receiving housing allowance, it is about 2,000 kronor per child.

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! It is becoming clearer and clearer for everyone listening to the debate and hearing proponents for the government parties speak why things look the way they do in Sweden regarding child poverty. When we mention the importance of increasing the child allowance, it is reduced to that one wants to sprinkle out benefits. When we talk about child poverty and reality, one spends two minutes of their speech talking about revised measures. When we criticize that high-income earners, persons who earn more than 66,000 kronor, receive an extra tax cut, it is called Social Democratic envy. It is a mockery of all those who turn every krona over and over, above all single mothers. It is their cause that I am trying to advocate for here.

If the so-called work line had functioned, as it may sound from government representatives and the minister himself, more families with children would not end up in financial distress. Then more would not be dependent on support during this very government. But how has it gone for the work line?

There are 500,000 unemployed, and that is 100,000 more since the government took office. Youth unemployment is the highest in the EU. Half a million are unemployed, but 6,000 people are undergoing labor market training. A work principle that does not lead to more people working is not a principle, it is a worn-out slogan.

Let us speak plainly. The work line will only work if people's work actually suffices for a dignified life. It does not today. I meet children who say that mom works all the time but that they still cannot afford it. Single mothers work full-time but still cannot make ends meet for the rent. That is the reality, and it is the consequence of wages not having kept pace with costs while the support for families with children has been eroded.

The work line is strong when families with children can afford to live, when taxes are fair, and when the safety nets support people and do not push them down. We cannot have a development in society where those who earn over 66,000 kronor a month get several thousand more in their wallets and families with children with small incomes get reduced housing allowances. When the security for those who have it toughest has become weaker, not stronger, it is no work line for me, but rather a reverse redistribution that only benefits those who already have it good.

When it comes to the work principle, the government forgets one clear thing: that children's upbringing does not wait. A child living in poverty today will not get their childhood back in five years, when the labor market curves might point upwards or when these situations have resolved themselves. It is obvious that it is that which the government is waiting for, because they do not clothe this work principle in any specific reforms.

So it is not enough. For those families with children who have one or more parents who work but who still live on the margin, the policy must ensure that the incomes are worth something and that society's support functions. That is what is failing. We are given no information at all on how it is to be solved.

(Applause)

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

Agneta Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you once again for the answer, Minister!

Today there are 700 billionaires in Sweden while the proportion living in poverty is increasing. In Skåne alone, the difference regarding child poverty can be from 3.1 percent in the richest municipalities up to 30 percent in other municipalities. It is the same region but completely different worlds.

Equality is decreasing, and inequality is becoming greater. It feels like when a zipper breaks. At first, it is whole and holds together, but when it splits, the gap becomes larger and larger. Cohesion is lost.

In H.C. Andersen's tale The Little Match Girl, a poor girl stands barefoot out in the cold and looks into the houses where people with money have it warm and comfortable. The tale is about poverty and vulnerability, about how no one cares about those who are having a hard time and that society neglects the most vulnerable. The tale is just as relevant today.

Madam Speaker! I read this week the book about the applications for Majblomman from families with children in poverty. It was published in 2025. I shall read out some excerpts from it:

My child needs clothes for the winter, a jacket and shoes.

Need for winter clothes now that it has become colder.

They need winter clothes, warm jackets, sweaters, hats, mittens, rainwear and thermal trousers, as the boys are growing.

It is only three excerpts from 121 pages of applications. All have equivalent needs. Every page shows what child poverty in Sweden looks like. There is also a testimony of a desire to be like everyone else.

According to Majblomman, the pressure has increased on families with children with low incomes. Majblomman is distributing more money than ever for children's needs because it, as Majblomman writes, is hard to be poor.

In the concluding remarks in Majblomman's book, it states, among other things: Civil society has come to take over more of the welfare society's obligations. Important societal puzzle pieces such as the child allowance have lost compensatory capacity. We are concerned about the social development and call for welfare reforms that truly help children in economically vulnerable situations.

The order could not be more striking regarding Sweden today, 2025. We really need to address child poverty in our country, so that it falls again and does not increase, which is currently the case.

I would like to ask a question to the Minister. Majblomman writes that the child allowance has lost in its capacity. We Social Democrats have long proposed that the child allowance should be increased, as has been done in our neighboring countries. Why do SD and the government not want this?

I also wish to receive an answer to my first question, regarding the Convention on the Rights of the Child as law.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! We have now heard examples from Gothenburg from several debaters. In previous debates with a similar theme, we have heard examples from Stockholm. I completely agree that these are heartbreaking stories.

The Social Democratic members, however, forget to mention that these are Social Democrat-governed municipalities. And not only that, Madam Speaker. They are also municipalities that have methodically raised the tax. I read in Göteborgsposten that one or two years ago they made the largest increase in nine years. It is a very accurate way to strike at the finances of low-income earners. It is a hard blow against the women who carry our welfare. They pay, above all, municipal tax.

When the Social Democrats are in power, they methodically raise taxes. Then they turn to the Council of State here and demand accountability for the policy they pursue at home.

I would like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of the figures. We have now heard several members highlight the statistics. Finally, I think that the Social Democratic members must also listen to the answers they are receiving. From the Minister's answers, it is clearly evident what the statistics look like.

Just as I said and as the member from Sverigedemokraterna pointed out, there are certain problems with the concept of relative poverty. They refuse to see it. Instead, they want to demand accountability. They refuse to listen to the answer. They do not even want to hear the answer. That is not taking responsibility.

To break the exclusion and ensure that single mothers can keep more of their wages, we will do what the government is doing. We lower the tax, we introduce a leisure card, and we ensure that it becomes sustainable for hard-working people, so that they can keep more of their wages. It is about making a sustainable and long-term difference.

(Applause)

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

Dzenan Cisija (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by responding to Member Caroline Högströms statement that the municipal tax has been raised in Gothenburg. That is absolutely not true.

I want to continue with the reports that the government dismisses but which clearly point out what is actually needed. The government should increase the child allowance. The government should also increase the housing allowance permanently and repair the national standard for social assistance, so that it corresponds to children's actual living costs.

Furthermore, the government should work to break down housing and school segregation through targeted state investments in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas and by strengthening the economic security for single parents and newly arrived families.

I wondered whether I should say this or not, but I heard several times from the politicians on the right that hungry wolves hunt best. Children are not wolves.

I ask the Minister: Why does the government not at least want to increase the child allowance and the student grant?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

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

It is a lie that there are 100,000 more children in economic vulnerability. Different models point to different results. The old measure points to a decrease between 2019 and 2023. The revised measure also shows a decrease if one looks at the years 2020–2023.

We know that the Social Democrats want to increase the child allowance by 200 kronor to combat child poverty, at a cost of 4.5 billion. The increase affects everyone, even children of high-income earners. I would get 400 kronor more per month. It is an expensive reform that will not contribute to combating child poverty. Benefits will not combat child poverty in the long term.

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned in my previous speech, the proportion of children living in economic vulnerability is six times greater among children with a foreign background compared to among children born in Sweden. If one also looks at the unemployment during 2024, one sees that the figure among those born in Sweden is 5.7 percent. Among those born abroad, the figure is 16.2 percent. If we are to tackle child poverty, the long-term solution is that more people born abroad enter the workforce. It does not solve the entire problem, but it will have a major effect on the whole.

The Tidö parties are now presenting a benefit reform that includes a benefit ceiling, activity requirements, and a time-limited job premium to make it more profitable to take a job. We are increasing the incentives to move from benefits to work. These are important steps that we are now taking so that more people can become self-sufficient. It is the opposite of the socialists' benefit line.

(Applause)

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

Ida Ekeroth Clausson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister and I agree that work is best for self-sufficiency. But making deteriorations in the security system, as has now been done, when unemployment is increasing, sounds to me like a very moderate way to protect children from a low economic standard or, in other words, poverty.

A clear receipt of the government's failed economic policy is the high unemployment. The government often claims that they inherited a high unemployment, but what they actually inherited was an unemployment that was on the way down. Under the SD government's rule, the trend has unfortunately reversed. Today, over half a million people are unemployed, an increase of 100,000 people.

Unemployment also affects groups that have traditionally had a strong foothold in the labor market. Among the unemployed, the group with post-secondary education has grown the fastest. In addition, youth unemployment is at very high levels. With the government's policy, many are therefore forced to begin their lives in long-term unemployment, and this risks becoming very expensive for Sweden in the long run.

During the SD government's mandate period, the number of people dependent on benefits has also increased. The result of the government's policy is therefore fewer companies, more unemployed, and more people on benefits, as the Moderaterna like to describe it.

We Social Democrats want to give our children and young people hope for the future. Sweden should be a country where everyone can afford a good home, can take responsibility for their family, and can treat themselves to that vacation. It would be regrettable if the government did not share this vision.

(Applause)

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Mr. Speaker! I had also intended to read the closing words from the book, but another member beat me to it. Instead, I choose to respond to Member Högströms earlier contribution. It is, in fact, very important that it comes out in this chamber that the problem is not that Social Democrats refuse to see statistics, but the problem is that the government refuses to see the single individuals – the reason why my colleagues here have called for the debate today.

We have a receipt for this. You in the government parties refused to meet the single parents, Makalösa Föräldrar, when they stood here outside. When we spoke with them and asked if any representatives from the government parties had come out to meet them, they said that no one had come. Is it really plausible that no one in this chamber had the opportunity to go and meet them? I saw plenty of C members, S members, V members and MP members. I believe there were 30 of us while I stood there. It is a receipt that the family economic policy is too poor – that they needed to be there and offer porridge and tell about how they drink tea instead of eating food because they cannot afford food for themselves.

But I still want to return to the closing remarks that were read out, because it is very important. I mentioned earlier that we have met the Church of Sweden, Majblomman, and others. The natural question to the Minister becomes: Is it really the intention that civil society should pull an ever heavier load in the fight against child poverty, or can the Minister admit that more investments are needed within economic family policy and that the government has de facto done far too little?

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by stating that we have just heard in the debate that there is a lack of incentives to enter employment. But that is something I mostly only hear in this chamber. The Fiscal Policy Council has stated with all clarity that there is absolutely no lack of incentives; there is a lack of jobs to go to. This is what the government should focus on. There are those who seek jobs every day, month in and month out, without entering employment but who want nothing other than to have a job. Then this government chooses to talk about the work line and benefit reforms to create incentives, despite recognized reports and institutes showing that it is absolutely not that which is needed.

Perhaps a growth policy is needed, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps a consumption needs to be created in this country that drives growth and creates jobs. It would be pleasant if we could hear something about that from this government instead of having to state once again that 100,000 more are unemployed with this government. In what way do you fight child poverty by making parents unemployed? That is my question.

Then I would very much like to have an answer to the question of whether the upcoming subsidy reform will lead to increased child poverty or not. The Minister may be welcome to answer that.

(Applause)

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Often when we stand here in the House, the right-wing politicians talk about the work principle, and we agree that everyone who can work should work. But what do the right-wing politicians fill this work principle with? What currently feels like the flagship reform from the government's side is the so-called benefit reform with a benefit ceiling. That it should be the flagship in the entire work principle policy makes me quite concerned. I see that this affects an extremely small group in our society, and I do not quite see how it would have the large effects that I believe the government hopes for.

In addition to that, we see in practice cuts to labor market and education policy. It is by no means evidenced in any way that this could contribute to increased employment in the country.

The Minister mentions that the government has presented a very expansive budget. That is correct – it is a very large budget that the government has placed on the table of the Riksdag. The problem is that it is not filled with policies that actually lead to more people entering employment and achieving a better economic standard.

The absolute biggest thing in that budget is tax cuts, and the absolute biggest tax cut goes to those who earn the most. It does not go to those who earn the least and are tight at the end of the month. I think we should still remember that.

If we Social Democrats had been in power, the prioritization would have looked different. We would have made a more just tax cut. We would have increased child and student grants. We would have ensured that there were cheaper medicines for people in this country. We would have ensured that we had free public transport for many young people around the country. So I still want to take the chance and ask the Minister: When will there be anything other than caps on grants and cuts on labor market and education policy?

(Applause)

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Mr. Speaker! Living in economic vulnerability and in exclusion is terrifying. It is precisely why we are so determined to break the exclusion that has grown wide, strong, and large, but above all deep, in Sweden in recent years – not least during the eight years when the Social Democrats were in power and received over 300,000 asylum seekers without any plan whatsoever for how they could become a part of our society.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that the best way out of poverty and exclusion is simply to move from benefits to work. That the parents in the family work is clearly the best insurance against the children ending up in poverty. This is also reflected in the statistics. In SCB's statistics, which is the statistics I am basing this on, it is only 2 percent of the children who have two parents who are cohabiting and working who live in economic vulnerability.

That is exactly why the work line is so important. I often and frequently dwell on this, because it is important. It is, in fact, the answer to very many of Sweden's problems. It is the path to growth. It is the path to empowerment. It is the path to community at work, and it is the path to integration for those who have come to Sweden a bit later in life. It is also the path out of poverty.

Together with education and language skills, it is the key to social mobility. In our Sweden, it should matter less where you come from. The most important thing should be where you are headed. For this to become a reality, we must break down the exclusion and make it possible for children to grow up in families where they see their parents go to work and where, above all, they avoid inheriting the exclusion and the deep dependency on benefits that has grown so strong in Sweden. In that case, the work line is the answer.

The answer is that we need to set increased requirements but also provide more opportunities for families and parents who live in exclusion and who can work today but do not do so for various reasons.

I interpret it as a message from the Social Democrats here today that the funding line we have now presented regarding full-time activation in the social assistance with a funding cap and, furthermore, a qualification for the social insurance is something that the Social Democrats are saying no to. I can only regret that.

Mr. Speaker! Supporting families with children in difficult times is simply right. That is what this government has done. I have also accounted for that. It is important to break the exclusion and long-term lead people out of poverty. In that case, no grants in the world help. Then the answer is to get people into work – work that also pays off. It pays off to make an effort and set the clock every morning, and that one then also to a greater extent gets to keep the fruits of their hard work is both right and fair. Therefore, it is right and fair to lower the tax.

The Social Democrats appear to be quite good at spinning things when one looks at how they govern in municipalities and regions. But perhaps we should not only look at 2024, but let us go further back in time, so we get the final result.

(Applause)

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have almost finished this debate. Now we are on our final speeches.

We have submitted interpellations and wanted to debate child poverty. We have been met with answers that have more or less stated or attempted to downplay the issue.

One would like to give the impression that child poverty is not a real problem. Not a single question of those that have been asked here in the speaker's chair has been addressed, for example, the question of whether all the benefit reforms will lead to an increase in child poverty. Not a single word is said about it.

Instead, time has been spent in the speaker's chair trying to define child poverty, looking at which different figures apply, or reviewing others' speeches on whether the government should include initiatives in the budget or not.

But ultimately, it is about a child's childhood being filled with play, security, and faith in the future – not worry about finances. We know that politics can make a difference. It is not predestined that one in eight children should live in economic vulnerability, but it is something that the Tidöregeringen has decided.

Breaking child poverty requires will, prioritization, and courage. Today we see that children's opportunities differ depending on where they live, what the family looks like, and whether the parents have a secure income or not. But I would have thought it would be appropriate that the government actually, if the government is serious about breaking child poverty, produces, for example, a national strategy and not just a mass of piecemeal measures – that one does not only show how to strike against those who already have it tough but also explains how we are to get people into work. That cannot be answered.

I count, in any case, on us being able to agree that children's rights should not be subject to statistical manipulation, but should instead be a fundamental societal mission.

(Applause)

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

Agneta Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I did not receive an answer to my question regarding the child allowance. Therefore, I say now that an increase in the child allowance would have directly supported low-income families with children. They would have had a greater opportunity to buy clothes for their children. It would not have had to be as it is now, when preschool areas in Sweden have to introduce loan clothes because they see that child poverty is increasing and that children cannot come to preschool because they lack outdoor clothing.

Let me return to my first point in the debate. There I said: Parents with low income, such as childcare workers, local cleaners, nursing assistants and retail employees who also work full-time, cannot make ends meet.

Mr. Speaker! In a country like ours, where there are large income inequalities, the children's different circumstances also become clearer. Schools in the countryside have had to start with school breakfast and lunch during the holidays to ensure that children get food even outside of school hours. The facts presented by Rädda Barnen and Majblomman are clear evidence that the trend must be broken.

It is necessary that SD and the government take the fact that child poverty is widespread in our society seriously and that they do something about child poverty that truly makes a difference. Following the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and ensuring equality in children's standard of living based on Swedish law should be a matter of course. It is this government's and SD's responsibility. One cannot blame it on people with low income.

(Applause)

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

Äldre- och socialförsäkringsministern Anna Tenje (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would, of course, like to start by thanking the members for the debate and for the many questions I have received. I believe it has become very clear for everyone who has listened here today. It has been very informative to take part in both the government's and the opposition's solutions to the fact that there are children growing up in exclusion, quite regardless of what numerical gymnastics we engage in. I believe there still needs to be a common line.

For the opposition, it is more of the same: increased benefits and increased taxes. That is the mantra that the Social Democrats have repeated for decades. That is what has led to most of the problems we see today. It is a social democratic ideal society where no one should get more benefits but no one should be able to live on their own wage. So that is how they describe the great social democratic state, where the system becomes more important than the people who live in it.

The alternative is to take inspiration from the government's policy with a work line for and by people, where it matters less where you come from and society instead places all weight on where you are headed. It is a society where class mobility is everyday and long-term benefit dependency is the exception, and where self-efficacy and self-sufficiency replace passivization and a dependence on the state's goodwill in terms of constantly raising benefits.

Against this background, I thank the members again. I look forward to meeting the Swedish people during the upcoming election year and the election campaign that we now have ahead of us to hammer out these issues and, ultimately, see who it is that has the support of the Swedish people.

(Applause)

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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