The standardized parental deduction

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! The basis for today's debate is a committee initiative taken by the Center Party which concerns the standardized parental deduction where measures need to be taken here and now. We have received signals that very few are granted personal assistance. That is why we are three parties who have submitted motions and why we have today's debate.

The Social Democratic-led government took the initiative for a major reform within the LSS area. Today's debate concerns one of the parts of this – a legislative change that would make it possible for parents to be parents, which would narrow the scope of parental responsibility when it concerns children with functional variations. This legislation entered into force on 1 January 2023.

The justification from our side is simple, and we choose to proceed with our motion and reservation, Madam Speaker. When we submitted this decision and the Riksdag adopted it, the political intent and will were crystal clear: More children and young people should be granted personal assistance based on the reduction of parental responsibility.

Madam Speaker! The basis is, of course, that all parents have a parental responsibility based on a child's normal needs and age, and we believe that we as parents fulfill this responsibility. Children with special needs, i.e., children with functional variations, often have greater needs, and in those cases, it is important that the parental responsibility is adapted based on the child's age and functional variation.

The fact is that the application of the reduced parental responsibility has been interpreted too narrowly by Försäkringskassan and the municipalities, I believe and we Social Democrats. This means that parents are forced to take an unreasonably large responsibility for their children's needs. Furthermore, there are differing opinions on how the law is actually to be interpreted.

ISF, the Inspection of Social Insurance, argues that there is a very wide range in the regulations that allows for greater consideration of parental responsibility. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal in Sundsvall is clear in a judgment that double parental deductions should not be made. On the other hand, Försäkringskassan, Madam Speaker, believes that the law and its intentions are interpreted correctly. This, taken together, results in a great legal uncertainty in the assessment of a child's right to personal assistance.

The whole idea was that guardians of children with functional variations should be allowed to be just parents and not spend time and effort managing the child based on the child's needs. We could all see the painful consequences for individual families who had to take on an unreasonably large responsibility. Parents were torn apart, and the workload had tedious aftereffects for many. Entire families were affected and still are today.

The standardized parental deduction

Part of the major reform that the S-led government initiated concerned parental responsibility. In total, it concerned various reforms where approximately 2,000 new people would be entitled to assistance. In this proposal, we are talking about about 400. According to current statistics from Försäkringskassan, it is a dozen extra who have received personal assistance during the whole of 2023, which is not at all the target we had.

Madam Speaker! The entire intention of the legislative change was that the number of children with personal assistance would increase and that those children who already have the intervention of personal assistance would receive more assistance hours. Did it happen? No, unfortunately not. We believe that the government must act more forcefully and that it is acting far too slowly right now.

Madam Speaker! I am somewhat surprised that the Sweden Democrats, the Liberals, the Moderates, and the Christian Democrats first reject the committee initiative and then reject our motions, when it is said at the table that we are in agreement on the substantive issue. One can then wonder, Madam Speaker, what the motive behind the motions to reject from these government parties is.

Furthermore, we know that these parties throughout the entire previous mandate period always loudly criticized us government representatives in the Riksdag and argued that the government did too little and too slowly. Now I must counter that question to the government's representatives in the chamber here today: Why do you not take the opportunity, while you are in the driver's seat, to work faster and more efficiently?

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have, in our committee motion, demanded that the right to assistance be restored. There is a great concern that previously decided reforms will not yield the expected results. We have an example of this here today. Among other things, we argue that Försäkringskassan's new interpretation of the so-called parental responsibility has meant that – contrary to the intention – it has become more difficult for children with disabilities to receive personal assistance. This must be corrected here and now.

We move for the approval of our committee motion 118. We also have a joint reservation.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear a motion on motion 118. We shall examine it and return if it should turn out to be any question mark there.)

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report SoU26 The standardized parental deduction. The report also contains three motions from the general motion period.

I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

Madam Speaker! I want to begin my speech with a small clarification. During the autumn, from September 12 to October 5, we members of Parliament had the opportunity to submit motions. It was during the so-called general motion period when members can submit proposals that are then processed in the committees and then debated. At a meeting on December 5, a member from the Centerpartiet proposed that the committee should take an initiative regarding the standardized parental deduction in LSS. That was, therefore, two months after the end of the general motion period.

Madam Speaker! On 1 January 2023, a new legislative amendment came into force which means that parental responsibility according to the Parental Code shall be taken into account when assessing a child's need for personal assistance. This is done through a flat-rate deduction, a so-called parental deduction, from the child's need for help with basic needs and other personal needs according to LSS.

The Inspectorate of Social Insurance, ISF, has reviewed the 2023 legislative amendment. There is a certain lack of clarity in the description in the legislative text and in the preparatory works regarding how a flat-rate deduction should be made. This can lead to problems in the application.

Försäkringskassan has been tasked with analyzing the rule change regarding a standardized parental deduction and the application of that rule to see how the right to assistance compensation has been affected. This assignment is to be reported on September 2 of this year.

At the end of February, the committee received information from the Minister for Social Services that the government, together with SKR and Försäkringskassan, is following this issue closely.

Madam Speaker! The purpose of introducing the standardized parental deduction was to increase legal certainty and predictability within personal assistance. The parental deduction was also expected to lead to children with large and permanent functional impairments gaining access to personal assistance to a greater extent.

The previous government chose, despite objections and concerns about the outcome from two parties in the Tidösamarbetet, to proceed with the proposal which is now law.

Madam Speaker! The current government has been keen to follow the development of the legislative changes that entered into force on 1 January 2023. The government will not sit still until Försäkringskassan's final report arrives on 2 September.

Madam Speaker! The Government Offices are now analyzing the parental deduction to see if the outcome has been as intended. The analysis covers both the assistance granted by Försäkringskassan and the assistance granted by the municipalities. This analysis work is being done so that proposals can be developed if there is a need and to ensure that the law is followed as intended. The Government will return to the matter.

Madam Speaker! Personal assistance is a freedom reform that we all cherish and want to develop. We are quite in agreement on that. It should be characterized by high quality and legal certainty. Everyone who is entitled to support shall receive it. It is important with long-term and stable solutions that provide predictability and security for those persons who have been granted assistance.

Madam Speaker! The question of the standardized parental deduction is connected to the overall collective work that is currently underway in the Government Offices. It continues with the objective of establishing a state headship and concrete measures against the emerging welfare crime.

Decisions on personal assistance must, just as I mentioned earlier, be legally secure and long-term sustainable. It is not sufficient to have such uncertainties as may have been created in connection with the proposal that the previous government put forward. It is better to now establish a system that works instead of us pushing forward something very quickly.

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

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your speech, member!

I am completely convinced that the parties in the Social Affairs Committee are quite in agreement regarding LSS and the intentions behind it. It is a wonderful freedom reform that has meant an enormous amount for many people.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, I am surprised. During the previous parliamentary term, for instance, I and several then-government representatives here in the Riksdag received massive criticism from a united opposition, including the Moderates. They felt that what we did all the time was too slow and wrong and that we did not take action against, for example, Försäkringskassan.

Here we have a proposal for an initiative that the member, together with their party and the rest of the majority in the committee, has chosen to reject. My question to Malin Höglund is therefore: What is the motive behind rejecting our proposal for an initiative to speed up the process? We know that children and families are suffering right now, today, because they are not receiving the support from society that they actually have a right to.

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not think that one should do anything quickly and thoughtlessly. This law entered into force on 1 January 2023, a little over a year ago. One needs to analyze and see what needs to be done instead of moving forward with something very quickly. I am not surprised that things take time. It takes time if it is to be good.

I cannot take responsibility for how it functioned in the Social Affairs Committee during the previous parliamentary term. At that time, I was a local politician in Mora.

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

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the member for the answer.

No, Malin Höglund absolutely cannot be guilty of what was said during the previous parliamentary term. But I think it is worth noting that we extended the hand in a, I believe, more open way. The government representatives did, in fact, agree to a number of committee initiatives that the opposition at the time proposed. We reasoned that this issue is so important for the individual.

We have exactly such a matter on the agenda today. It is a legal matter where the interpretation differs from the political will established here in the Riksdag. The intention with this preparation and our will is to accelerate the process, which, among other things, one of the government parties and Malin Höglund have rejected here from the rostrum.

Furthermore, we are now entering 15 months with the new legislation. These signals arrived as early as this summer. As I said in my speech, I believe it is between 10 and 20 extra people who have received this help for an entire year, Madam Speaker. We expected 400. It is clear that it is a crash and a tragedy.

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned in my speech, Försäkringskassan will provide a final report on September 2. The Government is, as I said, not sitting on its hands waiting for it.

Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall has visited the committee and reported and provided information. SKR and Försäkringskassan were also present. I still think we are taking responsibility. We are not sitting on our hands until September 2.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before Member Dahlqvist leaves the rostrum, I would like to make him aware that there is a decision point in the report, and there is a reservation there. One cannot have a reservation and then demand a specific point in it; the Member must, in that case, return in another speech and clarify how he intends to handle the issue.)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! There is actually an urgency regarding a change concerning the parental deduction within personal assistance. The reason is that assessments are made continuously by Försäkringskassan and, to some extent, also from the municipalities' side, which means that children do not receive the time they are actually entitled to based on the Riksdag's intention. Försäkringskassan applies a form of double deduction.

This was noticed very early during last year by assistance providers and disability organizations, and signals came continuously throughout the year. During the general motion period, we still had not received any official report confirming that it was so, but on October 23 we received it from Försäkringskassan. They stated that they are doing correctly and that the legislator is wrong – or rather said that if the legislator thinks otherwise, the legislation can be changed, hence the proposal for a committee initiative that Centerpartiet submitted.

The image that this is being handled incorrectly and that too large deductions are being made was confirmed by ISF in January this year. The question is how long we are to wait for action and how much is to be investigated. The Minister for Social Services gave a mandate to Försäkringskassan in December to investigate this once more. Now the Minister for Social Services has said that it should be analyzed and investigated one more time to find out if it actually is incorrect, and that changes should be made if necessary.

Madam Speaker! My question to the Moderates is whether they share the view that this legislation is being applied incorrectly. Is the answer yes or no?

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Madam Speaker! Rapid changes rarely yield good results. I still think we have received good information. The Government is following this issue and is not sitting on its hands. One does not wait until September 2 to then make a decision; instead, work is being done feverishly on the issue in the Government Offices.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I note that I did not receive an answer to the question of whether the Moderaterna share the view that this legislation is being applied in a different way than what was the Riksdag's intention.

Madam Speaker! Both I and the member have participated in many panel discussions, discussions, and debates with disability organizations and assistance providers. There have also been interviews and other things in various contexts. I have perhaps perceived the Moderaterna as the party that has been most unclear about whether they consider the handling to be incorrect or not from Försäkringskassan's side in relation to what was the Riksdag's intention when the law was established.

The member of Parliament referred to the renewed analysis to be conducted at the Ministry of Social Affairs, and in that assignment, it actually states that one shall investigate whether it is an incorrect handling in relation to the Parliament's intention. And we have already received report after report and signal after signal that this does not follow the intention that the Parliament had! Even the Liberals, Christian Democrats, and Sweden Democrats have been very clear that it is not what the Parliament meant. But I perceive that the Moderates are hedging a bit on that question. It might be connected to the fact that the Minister for Social Services has the same party affiliation as the member of Parliament that one now needs to investigate this once more in the Government Offices.

My question can be repeated. Do the Moderates consider that the handling of the parental allowance that is taking place today is in line with what the Riksdag's intention was?

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Madam Speaker! I must repeat myself once more. I believe that a deep analysis of this is needed. The law entered into force on 1 January 2023, and making major changes quickly is rarely good. I repeat myself here once again.

It was not our government that produced the proposal for the law that entered into force on 1 January 2023. I fully support that an analysis needs to be made. Rapid changes rarely yield good results.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! On 1 January 2023, the parental deduction within personal assistance was introduced. The idea was that the new standardized parental deduction would provide more uniform, predictable, and thus legally secure assessments. Previously, Försäkringskassan made an individual assessment of the parental responsibility for each child. In those cases, the assessments could vary greatly, and large deductions were made on the assistance need. Now, more children were to be granted assistance at younger ages and, furthermore, with more hours per week. But it became a fiasco, Madam Speaker. Consistent reports from the personal assistance world and disability organizations warn that Försäkringskassan and the municipalities have instead started making double or, in any case, too large deductions for the parental responsibility. We see this clearly.

Riksföreningen JAG has members who have applied for assistance for a period that extended over the turn of the year 2023. Försäkringskassan made two completely different assessments of the need in the same decision. Even the Inspectorate for Social Insurance, IFS, writes in the review of legislative changes within the assistance allowance that Försäkringskassan makes a deduction that is too large in relation to the total number of hours the child needs help. In December 2023, the Administrative Court of Appeal in Sundsvall stated that it is wrong to make double parental deductions in the way that Försäkringskassan does and that they are making a completely different interpretation than what the legislator's intention is.

During its visit to the Social Affairs Committee on February 13, Försäkringskassan stated that they consider the legal text to be clear. It is obvious that Försäkringskassan will not change its way of making assessments unless the law is changed.

The association JAG says that the municipalities' assessments are even more restrictive than Försäkringskassan's. Consistently, it is the case that the municipalities' investigations end up with significantly lower hour counts than Försäkringskassan's. This is very serious because most assistance users receive interventions from the municipality.

Madam Speaker! The Government must immediately reduce the parental deduction by amending the regulation specifying the number of hours to be deducted as a flat rate. If this is changed, the municipalities will probably follow suit, but now any changes are being further delayed. The Government wants to wait for more reports from, among others, Försäkringskassan and Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, with analyses of the parental deduction. Unfortunately, it looks like we will have to wait until that analysis is finished in early September 2024 before anything more can happen.

What is needed now is not more investigations but action from the government's side. In the Riksdag, there is even a majority to stop Försäkringskassan's deduction of children's assistance, but it requires the Sweden Democrats to stand behind their own policy and vote for the announcement to the government to change the scope of the deduction. But today, Madam Speaker, the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, will vote down the proposal and stop the solution to the problem that we already know about. They will vote down the proposal that would promptly remedy the problem that children receive too few hours or, in the worst case, no assistance at all.

Therefore, I want to ask the Sweden Democrats: When you said that you would be involved and take responsibility and govern Sweden together with the Liberals, Christian Democrats, and Moderates, was the intention that you would pursue a policy that hits hardest against the most vulnerable in our society? There are a number of examples that point to that.

You delayed the high-cost protection for high electricity prices for households and companies and did not give the poorest the largest share. You are eroding the unemployment insurance and the health insurance. You do not stop the banks' record profits to, for example, maintain the number of employees in welfare, such as in healthcare, elderly care, and schools. It is about the fact that food prices are increasing, and that housing construction has been buried. The over-indebtedness among people, you described as a ticking bomb.

Now you refuse to promptly stop Försäkringskassan's and the municipalities' deductions on the assistance for children with disabilities. Is that also immigration's fault? Tax cuts and subsidies for the rich, on the other hand, were a decision that could be made easily and promptly.

Madam Speaker! In summary, it has become more difficult for children and young people with disabilities to receive assistance. With every passing week, more and more are affected. The Government and the Sweden Democrats are coldly saving money by not providing the children with the support they need. They are thus not granted the right to the assistance that enables all people, regardless of functional variation, to have the same opportunity for full participation in society. Vänsterpartiet moves for approval of the reservation.

(Applause)

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

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to stick to the matter at hand. I might start by apologizing to the Swedish people for having seen to it that food prices are raised, which was stated in this bizarre post.

I will stick to the matter. If we are to be truly honest, the Sweden Democrats' proposal today means that the government should take the initiative to address this. The government has already returned before and said that they are now looking into it. It has now appointed an analysis group, which means that the proposal is already passé. The initiative has been taken. That is also why we choose not to stand behind a proposal that has basically already been implemented.

The government says that we are saving money. It would be very interesting to find out in what way we have saved some money that has led to this. It is quite interesting to find out. Perhaps one can be honest towards the Swedish people when one is standing here and speaking.

The member says that we are now delaying it very much. It would be interesting to hear the member's time perspective on whether we would have made an announcement today. When would it have been in place?

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not appreciate that the member and Sverigedemokraten Carina Ståhl Herrstedt is standing here and telling lies.

It is not the Sweden Democrats who ensure that the government acts. It is the Sweden Democrats who do not even stand up for their own policy and mark against the government to promptly push for a change in how Försäkringskassan and the municipalities make a deduction on the assistance for children with disabilities.

One procrastinates by appointing new investigations to analyze a problem that one already knows about, for which one already knows the solutions, and which must be solved promptly. Today, children are not receiving the assistance hours they are entitled to. That was not the intention of the legislation when the rights legislation was changed in 2023.

I can answer the question by asking a question back to the member. Why do you not stand up for your own policy? Is it again this with doing one thing before the election and doing another thing after the election? This was, in itself, the policy that the member and the Sverigedemokraterna put forward last year. It was dealt with in the rapid thinking.

What happened during those six months? It was said in your motion that it is a problem that deductions are made on the assistance for children with disabilities. Have you changed your mind? I would very much like the member to answer my question. Why are you not standing up for your own policy as you did about six months ago?

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

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, it concerns this matter of standing and telling falsehoods. I have at no time said that it was I who had done anything, but I said that the government was now acting. That may not have been quite correct.

It was said that we do not stand up for our policy. That is what we do to the highest degree. It is precisely what we are actually doing all together now via committee initiatives for which proposals have been submitted previously from C and via the debates we have had. We have seen that the government is acting. That is precisely what we do. We are putting it forward.

A government can actually do whatever it wants with an announcement. It is nothing that creates an obligation. We have seen that with previous governments. There are a lot of announcements that are still lying in the bureau and for which no one has taken responsibility.

What we are doing together now is ensuring that the government actually acts. Then it will also be a matter of getting to work. An analysis must be made and proposals must be developed on which measures need to be taken. It is not a mandate that Försäkringskassan has. One must look at how things look in the municipalities. It is not a mandate that Försäkringskassan has or can do. It is an important step in the whole process.

We can say today that we want to change it. Everyone wants that. Everyone still thinks that it is not going correctly. What we can do now is to ensure that the change is made in a good way. We cannot just rush off and say: Now we are going to change the law. Someone still must look at how it should take place.

How should we formulate the law so that it becomes right? How should we change the ordinance so that it becomes right? How does it affect the municipalities? No one has looked at those things. That is what must be done. That the government takes the initiative to take some measures is our proposal, and it is what we stand behind.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! We already know what the problem is. We already know what the solutions are. A committee initiative was presented before the turn of the year which the majority in the committee, and among them the Sweden Democrats, chose not to proceed with.

We have today a report stating that it is necessary to change the regulation regarding the number of hours for which a deduction is made concerning assistance for children with disabilities. They even want a legislative change to be made to fulfill the intention of the rights legislation.

The solutions exist. It is simply a matter of the Sweden Democrats following their own policy and joining in when the opposition parties today will vote for the motion in the report on changing the regulation and also in the legislation.

It is about the Sweden Democrats having pivoted yet again in their policy. They have done it regarding several other political measures to satisfy the government. What happened to standing up for the vulnerable in society and the most marginalized? It has been said that it has been a consequence of a mass of problems that immigration and Muslims have caused.

There are already proposals for solutions. I suggest that the Sweden Democrats vote for their own policy today and join in so that there is a majority in the Riksdag so that prompt changes can occur so that children with disabilities are entitled to the assistance they need.

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

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report.

Christian Democratic policy is anchored in a view of humanity that proceeds from the inviolable value of the human being and that we all humans are different. Everyone shall have the right to full participation in society based on their own conditions.

The goal of the disability policy is that persons with disabilities shall have equal living conditions with the rest of the population. The policy shall focus on improving accessibility, educational opportunities, and integration into the labor market.

The Christian Democrats want a society that sees, embraces, and includes all people. Therefore, knowledge about hidden disabilities must also increase, and the situation for persons with neuropsychiatric or intellectual disabilities must be strengthened.

The Christian Democrats believe that the state should have sole primary responsibility for personal assistance. This would provide a clear connection to the person and their need for assistance instead of to the registered address. Additionally, the conditions for equal and legally secure assessments throughout the country would increase. Therefore, we are pleased with the investigation into state primary responsibility, which contains many good proposals. The investigation is now being prepared within the Government Offices.

On 1 January 2023, a legislative amendment entered into force which means that parental responsibility according to the Parental Code shall be taken into account in the assessment of a child's need for personal assistance by making a standard deduction - a parental deduction - from the child's need for help with basic needs and other personal needs according to LSS.

Even though the Christian Democrats accepted the current government's proposal, we were not entirely convinced that the flat-rate deduction would be better than individual assessments. The purpose of a flat-rate was to simplify the application and increase predictability, and the Christian Democrats said it was important to follow the developments surrounding the legislative changes.

ISF conducted an initial review of the changes from 1 January 2023, and their recommendation was that the government should consider clarifying the regulatory framework regarding the flat-rate deduction for parental responsibility. ISF stated, among other things, that it is unclearly described in the legal text and the preparatory works how the flat-rate deduction should be made, and regardless of which interpretation is made, it leads to problems in the application.

Försäkringskassan was also commissioned last year to investigate the effect of the rule change regarding a standardized parental deduction. Försäkringskassan stated during the autumn of 2023 that there was insufficient data to fully know what impact the changes since 1 January 2023 have had on children's right to assistance allowance.

Försäkringskassan subsequently received a new assignment from the government in December 2023 to follow up and analyze how the rule change regarding a standardized parental deduction and the application thereof has affected the outcome of the right to assistance compensation. The basis shall contain both a quantitative and a qualitative follow-up and be reported by September 2, 2024, at the latest.

At the same time, since the legislative changes came into force, we have repeatedly received signals that the changes have not at all had the intended effects. It is not an acceptable development if children who have a right to support do not receive it.

Since there are these uncertainties regarding what applies, and many have reached out regarding precisely this issue, it is important with the government mandate that has now been given to review the issue further.

In the Committee on Social Affairs, we received information at the committee meeting on 29 February 2024 from the Minister for Social Affairs that the government is closely following this issue in dialogue with Försäkringskassan and Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner. Furthermore, the Government Offices are now conducting an analysis of the parental allowance to see if the outcome is in line with the legislator's intentions. This analysis covers both assistance allowance granted by Försäkringskassan and personal assistance granted by the municipalities. One step in this analysis work is to, if necessary, produce proposals to ensure that the legislator's intentions are followed. After that, the government intends to return to the issue.

We mean that important initiatives have now been taken. The government takes the situation very seriously, and we have also pointed out to the government the importance of acting.

We Christian Democrats also welcome that the government acts already now, that is, before Försäkringskassan's assignment is to be reported in September. It is important that the government, after the completed analysis work, as soon as possible takes the measures that are needed to ensure that the legislator's intentions are followed when it comes to the parental allowance.

Madam Speaker! In light of the work already underway within the Government Offices, the majority of the committee does not consider it necessary at this stage for the Riksdag to take any initiative of its own. We Christian Democrats are not satisfied, but we are doing everything we can to secure new measures so that the intention of the law shall be followed.

The Christian Democrats are a strong voice for persons with disabilities, and we have long pushed to reinstate the assistance. We will follow this issue closely to ensure that no fewer children are granted assistance.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Dan Hovskär, for the speech!

The Christian Democrats say that everything is being done to ensure that the intentions of the law are followed and that they are not satisfied with the current situation. That is good – words and no fuss! There is a clarity in that this needs to be changed.

When the members read out well-chosen parts from the reports that have arrived and from the considerations that the majority has made in the committee report, I do not nevertheless perceive that it is as clear how the Christian Democrats actually view the application of the legislation today. We have, as stated earlier, received signals throughout the year that the application made by Försäkringskassan does not follow the Riksdag's intentions. We have also received confirmation in the report from Försäkringskassan itself in October that they have interpreted the law in a different way than what was the Riksdag's intention. This is confirmed in January by ISF in their report, where they state that the law is unclear, which may have caused Försäkringskassan to make deductions that are too large.

Just now, however, we heard Malin Höglund of the Moderates say from the rostrum that she does not want to assert that Försäkringskassan is actually making any interpretation other than the one that was the Riksdag's intention, and that it is for that reason that the government is now giving the analysis assignment.

Against that background, I think it is a bit questionable where the government parties stand on this issue, and my question to the Christian Democrats is therefore: Do the Christian Democrats share the view that it is still unclear whether the handling is incorrect?

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

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Christofer Bergenblock!

I think I was relatively clear in my speech that the intentions in the legislation are not currently being followed in the way that was intended. Already when this legislation was adopted, we Kristdemokrater had certain concerns, and we continue to push for improvements. Kristdemokraterna have been clear about what we have thought, and when the press has raised these questions, I have said that we want to review them.

Then the question was how to do this. Now the government has shown that it will tackle the issue, and that is the fastest way to arrive at a good solution. The government has taken hold of this, and the Minister for Social Services has been in the committee and shown that one shall continue to work with the issues.

We Christian Democrats have been clear that we are not satisfied with how the legislation has turned out.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the clarity.

Given the clarity that the Christian Democrats perceive that the law is not being applied as was the Riksdag's intention, I wonder why it is considered sensible that the Government Offices should carry out an analysis of the parental deduction to see if the outcome is in line with the legislator's intention. One could have established in the majority text of the report that the application does not follow the legislator's intention and that the government must produce proposals for changes.

But this is not the first assignment. What the Government Offices shall do first of all is to look at whether the outcome is in line with the legislator's intention. If it is discovered that it is not, proposals shall be drawn up as necessary to ensure that the legislator's intention is followed.

But it is still a question of "if" from the government parties, in which the Christian Democrats are included. I find it difficult to see that a change will occur with the speed that the member says they want to see in the matter, when they are still not clear that there is a problem with the legislation not being followed.

It is gratifying if the member and the Christian Democrats have a different opinion than exactly what is stated in the report that they are now standing behind. But it will probably take some effort to push hard if any change is to occur in reality. Until now, one is just piling up investigation upon investigation.

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

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am confident in the cooperation we have in the government. Minister for Social Services Camilla Waltersson Grönvall has taken charge of the issue, and she is working together with the entire government to find a solution.

We have put forward a bill and have had the intention that it should result in a certain outcome. When the bill was written, the intention was that 400 children would get to take part in the template, and now it is approximately 100 children who have received part of it. This shows that one has not reached the intentions that existed when the law was written.

The government is now taking care of this and will act promptly, and I feel secure in this.

(cont. § 9)

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