Economic family policy

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! This committee report deals with a number of different proposals in the area of economic family policy. The wish list can be long, while at the same time much of what we are dealing with today is sometimes almost taken for granted. The redistribution that occurs and the financing from taxpayers is easily forgotten in the debate about more, greater, and more generous rules and support for, among others, families with children. It is also a constant balancing act between facilitating finances for families with children and simultaneously being careful with the marginal effects. We must strengthen the incentives for work and re-establish the work principle, something that family policy has historically actually contributed to.

Sweden has a generous economic family policy - one of the world's most generous. I think we should be proud of that. A generous parental leave makes it possible for everyone to be at home with their newborn child and provides an important opportunity for bonding and a good start in life. We also have child allowance, temporary parental benefit, maintenance support, and housing allowance - all to create the best possible start for newly formed families. A total of 480 days are paid out in parental benefit for one child, while the parental leave act formally secures the right to leave for more days.

Mr. Speaker, the system is not perfect and continues to need improvements. The Moderate-led government, together with the Sweden Democrats, announced in April that they are, for example, doubling the number of double days, from 30 days to 60 days, while simultaneously extending the time to take out these days until the child is 15 months old. It is a small but so important freedom reform. Reports have shown that families who take out double days tend to have a more equal distribution of the parental leave days, but above all, one sees clear and positive effects on the health of women and mothers and the possibility of recovery after childbirth. That, furthermore, to have more self-determination over the parental leave days and plan based on what suits one's own little family is, of course, also important.

We Moderates see a continued need for changes in the parental leave system, not only to make the life puzzle easier but also to strengthen the connection to the labor market when one chooses to start a family. It could involve distributing parental days even to other important adults in the child's life or improving the possibility for self-employed individuals to take parental leave.

In this debate, we will have reason to return to the reserved days in the parental leave, both in one way and the other. The Moderates have landed on that the number of reserved days should be maintained. But above all, we say no today to the proposal to increase the number of reserved days. This is based not only on a strong belief in individuals' ability and families' opportunity for self-determination but also on safeguarding the flexibility that has served the parental leave well.

When the parental leave was introduced, it was an enabler for, above all, mothers to also participate in the labor market. We must not forget that history. An equal distribution is important, but we believe that in this case, a carrot is a more effective method than a whip for a more equal distribution.

With conscious choices, we can also strengthen equality. And sometimes I actually believe that we must also stop seeing women as victims in this context. Families look different and have different needs. With that said, our systems should encourage and simplify and, I believe, also make people aware of the choices one makes and what consequences they have. For example, a skewed distribution of parental leave and vab can have major consequences for future pensions. This must be clarified, and a discussion about it must continue to be held. It does not mean that we should force people to make different choices, but rather that we should make people aware of the consequences of the choices, especially in a system that is as generous as the Swedish system is.

Madam Speaker! The means-tested housing allowance is an effective benefit for reaching households with weak finances and for providing economically vulnerable households with children with extra resources. Housing costs are the largest individual expense for many households. And to reduce the risk that families with children cannot pay their housing costs, it is appropriate to, for a limited period, strengthen the housing allowance for families with children through an extension and also an increase of the temporary supplementary allowance.

Both in the government's autumn budget and in the year-end budget, important priorities are made for families living on the margin. The temporary increase of the housing allowance is accurate and reaches the families who have the greatest need for help. But we will probably have reason to return to that during upcoming debates with more focus on the budget. But this policy is truly accurate and often reaches single mothers who are really struggling with finances, while we carefully manage the economic crisis.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision. In some parts, work is already underway, but there are also investigations that may affect which positions and changes are appropriate to implement.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! Just as the member mentions, we in Sweden have a very generous parental leave that we are very proud of, a parental leave that other countries gladly study and are impressed by.

I have, however, wondered for a long time what the Tidö parties mean when they say that the parental leave should become more flexible. I perhaps received the answer when Minister Tenje was interviewed by the newspaper Mama last week and said that it should be possible to give days from the parental leave to "an acquaintance." We can start by tasting the word parental leave. It is an insurance that is for the parents so that they can spend time with their child. Naturally, for example, bonus parents can be included there. But "an acquaintance" feels like a very long step from the immediate family.

I therefore wonder if it is intended that the parental leave in Sweden should become a form of voucher system where one can hire a nanny or a nanny and give away days from our Swedish parental leave to someone else entirely - "an acquaintance".

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe we should be aware that families look different today. Family constellations are, in some cases, actually broader than just mother, father, and children. Sometimes there are important adults who do not have a formal biological kinship with the child but who can be important complements to the family and for the children's opportunity to have a bit more time at home in different contexts.

In this debate, I do not think we should narrow it down by saying one thing or the other, but I believe we must look at the possibilities for other important adults in the child's life to also take parental days. It could be a grandmother or a grandfather or another important adult in the child's life. But I do not intend to stand here and define exactly who it could be, because I believe that families look so different that it would be less desirable if we, in a parliamentary debate, began to define what families look like and which important adults can be in children's lives.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! I think the word "acquaintance" is so interesting in this context. For me, a grandmother or a grandmother is not an acquaintance. Then, one can, in fact, also question even them because the parental insurance is fundamentally intended for just parents as we have created it.

It is very interesting that the member and the government are talking themselves into a warm agreement regarding an equal uptake of the parental leave. And I believe we both agree that the unequal uptake that we see today creates major problems for creating equal wages on the Swedish labor market. That is the biggest obstacle, according to several of the labor market parties. To then in one breath say that we need a more equal uptake - one keeps this goal in the budget - and in the other breath say that it should be possible to give away days to "an acquaintance" I think is inconsistent, because the parental leave is for parents to get time together with their child. People who together have had a child should get time to spend getting to know their child and creating a relationship with it. I think it feels odd in that context to say that one can give away days to an acquaintance, because it is not a close part of the family. The word acquaintance itself implies that it is someone who stands further from the family.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is based on the fact that we know that families look different. I think wanting to set a definition of what a relative is speaks to the view on families. Families may not look the same today as they did historically.

I absolutely believe that the parental leave is extremely important and that an equal uptake is also so. But what methods do we have to reach that? There, I believe we differ significantly.

I believe in flexibility, I believe in the individual's ability to decide for themselves, and I believe that more decisions should be made at the family's kitchen table than here in the Riksdag chamber. I believe that is the basic attitude, and I think it would be unfortunate if the parental leave restricted the opportunity for families to build other constellations and other relationships that perhaps do not fall within the usual norm.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! The Member spoke about helping those who have it the hardest in the crisis and that the temporary housing allowance and the increase of the same is a part of that.

Then I wonder why it does not include those who have the smallest margins, that is to say those who receive social assistance. This measure is a temporary crisis measure. According to the Left Party, it would be very reasonable that those with social assistance also get to take part in this.

The standard for social assistance has been raised slightly this year, but it does not by far cover the high inflation rate that we currently have. Social assistance has also been eroded over time, which means that the support is very low. Families receiving social assistance live with very small margins, and the temporary housing allowance and its increase could mean the difference between being able to put food on the table or not.

The problem that the temporary housing allowance is deducted from the social assistance has been known for many years now, ever since it was introduced as a pandemic measure, and the situation for the most economically vulnerable has worsened significantly from the pandemic to the economic crisis we are in now. Still, the government does nothing to rectify this and ensure that people can afford to put food on the table.

I simply want to ask the member: Why do you not want to help the most economically vulnerable, whom you say you are protecting in the crisis, and ensure that they also get to share in the temporary increase of the housing allowance?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! All child households with housing allowance will receive the temporary supplementary allowance and thus a higher total allowance with this proposal. But just as Member Mixter pointed out, this means that they might not be fully covered through economic assistance and social assistance.

What I want to add here is that economic assistance consists of the national standard. That is what the social assistance follows and which is the minimum level for the needs that it is intended to cover. An increase of the social assistance standard occurred in 2023. It is now 8.6 percent higher, so to say that we have not done anything for families living on social assistance is not entirely true.

I believe that we must keep these separate. We have a national standard that reaches families who do not work and are very vulnerable. But the economic housing allowance formally reaches them as well.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! What the member says is both true and not true. They may receive the housing allowance to such an extent that the municipalities receive a supplement to their coffers, but it never reaches those people who are in greatest need of it.

There are thousands of people who testify that they have perhaps a hundred kronor left in their account when the bills are paid. These are people who receive social assistance and who, when the state does not cover it, need to go to Stadsmissionen or the Church of Sweden and say: "Can you help me with food? I cannot afford food for my children." It is a terrible situation, and I do not understand how the government cannot act in this situation.

It is very true, as the member is pointing out, that the norm has been raised for social assistance. But that does not compensate for the difficult economic situation we are currently in with the skyrocketing inflation.

I wonder why the problem is not addressed that the maintenance support is not adjusted upwards with supplements for housing allowance.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! As I have said, I do not agree with the entire picture that the member is painting. The government has raised the national standard for subsistence support. One has thus also made a boost in a particularly difficult time.

What I would like to say is that the solution for the families living on social assistance is the work line, that we get them into work. That is how we seriously help them out of the crisis, and then it may be other things that are needed in the context which the government also does.

I believe that one sometimes fixates too much on the subsidy. These people, whom I absolutely empathize with, must work. That is how we get them out of the economic crisis they find themselves in, sometimes far too permanently.

The answer to the question is therefore the work line, which I know that Vänsterpartiet has unfortunately been very opposed to.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Member Högström has now used the word the work line a couple of times. The Centre Party and the Moderates are often in agreement on the work line.

There are actually motions in this report that are based on how important the work line is - motions that the committee is now rejecting. They concern the economy, what is included in the calculation of a housing allowance.

It is about when children or young people – perhaps not so many children but young people; let us say a 15-year-old – get their first summer job, their first extra job, and break or are on their way to getting out of the economic difficulties that the family has and the exclusion that we commonly have to talk about. It is a matter of the young person who is in a family where the parents do not have work being able to get out of that.

But what happens in practice when we have the limits we have today is that the wage that this young person earns enters the calculation of the housing allowance, which causes the housing allowance to decrease for the family. What then is the incentive for this young person to take the step out onto the labor market, contribute to the family's economy and their own economy, break the exclusion and join the work principle? That is my question to the member.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Johansson, for the question and perhaps also for the support for the work line! One actually needs to re-establish it in order to seriously break the exclusion.

I do not have a very good answer regarding the entirety of the member's question. I know that there is an investigation, the BUMS investigation, which covers parts of what the member highlights. It is on the government's desk, and I do not want to precede any process linked to that investigation.

I can, however, agree with the problem description, especially regarding the calculation basis for the housing allowance, but it is perhaps a slightly different question than the one the member is focusing on.

It is a difficult question as to what should be counted as a household and so on. It is not a completely easy question to handle when one is to calculate various grants linked to the household's total income, so I will probably be indebted for the answer in the future. I am not prepared to support any motion at the current stage, but I know that work is ongoing at the Government Offices linked to the housing allowance and the calculation basis in light of the investigation that came earlier.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Of course, there must be limits on what should be included in a grant that the state contributes to a family's finances. But the fact that the limit is as low as it is today when it concerns young people's first jobs, which are so important in so many different aspects, means that the interest in taking that job might decrease. For the family's finances, it is to their disadvantage.

Now the member took up the BUMS investigation. There is a proposal there that both the previous government and this government should have been able to do something about already. It concerns the monthly reconciliation of the housing allowance.

The families we are talking about here, those who have the lowest incomes, risk actually ending up in debt to the state - not to some company because they took out a loan, but to the state.

Again: During the spring, I have no work. Then I am entitled to housing allowance. During the autumn, I get a job. Suddenly, my total income for the year is too high for the housing allowance, which results in me being put into debt. But there is a finished proposal to calculate the income every month so that we can ensure that these families do not end up in debt and that they take the available jobs that exist.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree regarding the problem. An overrepresentation of these families occurs among the repayment requirements. How this has persisted for a long time is incredibly problematic.

The investigation is, as said, on the government's desk; it will be presented in June. As I have mentioned before, I have high confidence in this government, so I believe that one will be able to find wise considerations when it comes to how this can be reviewed.

I am, however, not entirely convinced that what is presented in the BUMS investigation is fully the right path. Perhaps it needs to be another variant or something similar - what do I know. But I believe there are reasons to look at the issue, especially linked to the families who, as the member pointed out, are in need of housing allowance in the spring but not in the autumn, when they do not take it out either but still become liable for repayment. This is very problematic and something that we need to look further into.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In the exchange with Isabell Mixter earlier, Caroline Högström said that the solution for the families with children living on social assistance, who have not seen their support increased in line with the price increase for porridge and diapers, and who do not have money to buy food when the bills for rent, electricity, and insurance are paid, is the work principle. Families who today stand in line outside the Red Cross, Stadsmissionen, and the Church of Sweden to beg with a hat in their hands for the most basic thing, food for their children, shall therefore rely on the work principle giving them a job at some point in the future.

This is not an answer to the acute crisis that many families, especially single mothers, find themselves in here and now. In the long term, we will of course do everything we can so that everyone who can work also gets employment and a wage to live on. But now, in the acute economic crisis, the government has a responsibility.

The government has chosen to give me, who has a high salary, lower taxes instead of shortening the queues for food distribution at the Red Cross, where the very poorest now stand, because food prices have increased faster than the national standard for the subsistence support. The subsistence support is, in principle, there so that people do not have to beg for food for their children from charitable organizations.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that this in some way shows the abyssal difference between our two parties. The member speaks about providing jobs in the long term. At some point in the future, these people will be part of the labor market. But the solution is, as I touched upon earlier, about here and now. These people must get into work now. That is how they will emerge from the economic crisis, both in the short term and, above all, in the long term.

It is through labor market participation that one gains the self-determination one often needs. Then it is not about the long-term, giving someone a job at some point in the future, but about strengthening these people so that they can get a job. It is this that we must create incentives for. It is about education and activity requirements and also about a benefit reform and a benefit ceiling, which the Moderaterna often advocate for. That is how we get people into work, not by looking at them and saying: We give you more benefits, so we solve this. It is about something else.

I want once again, as I did previously, to strongly oppose the picture that is being painted. The government has raised the national standard by 8.6 percent for 2023. This can be compared with 2021 and 2022, when the figure was 1.6 percent. In one of these years, if I do not remember incorrectly, Miljöpartiet was also helping to run the country.

The national standard has thus been raised, which is important in the economic crisis, but the drivers for work are something else. The work principle is crucial for these people to actually achieve a more bearable existence.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I think there might be some confusion regarding what we are talking about in the short and long term. I am talking about here and now, today – about those who this week need to go and beg for food bags so that the children do not go to school hungry in the morning. If the Moderaterna can give people a job the same week or next month – very much so! That would be a dream. But when we talk about needing to obtain an education, it concerns a longer time horizon than that.

The acute economic crisis that we see now for the most vulnerable, who had no margins to begin with, we have not seen before. Inflation has increased so quickly that the automatic adjustment does not keep up. It is based on how things looked in the past. But when food prices have skyrocketed by more than the 8 percent that the supply support has been adjusted by, this leads to more children going to school hungry in Sweden 2023. Surely this cannot be the solution to get people into work, even from the Moderaternas side?

Madam Speaker! I would still like to ask the Moderates to nuance the reasoning. One cannot mean that the work line is that children should go hungry and parents should beg for food from voluntary organizations?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I actually believe that the misunderstanding might be about the work line and that the Green Party does not fully understand what it entails. It is about creating incentives. It is not about children going hungry – it is appalling to even suggest this. It may say something about the member's view of Moderates, but I cannot take responsibility for that.

We have made changes for this group, for example through an increase of the national standard (riksnormen). The supplementary grant and the housing allowance increases that are made in the year-end budget are other things, together with a number of other measures.

But what I am talking about is that the solution is not more benefits; the solution is work and how we motivate these people and enable them to work. It is about, for example, education, activity requirements and benefit reform.

In this chamber, we must also lift our gaze and look at the system, perhaps especially in this debate, which concerns the handling of a group of motions. None of these motions fully resolve what Hirvonen points out. Vänsterpartiet touches upon it somewhere – I will give them credit for that, nonetheless.

Grants are not the solution. We have a generous grant system and, above all, a generous family policy. Social assistance is absolutely something that helps vulnerable families. But the solution to getting these people out of exclusion is to get them into work. I believe we must dare to talk about it. There is no contradiction, I believe, in the description of those people who are obviously vulnerable and need help. But we also need to look at how we get these people out of exclusion. That is how we find the solution.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Social Insurance Committee's report SfU16 Economic Family Policy. I would first like to move for the approval of reservation 21.

The goal for the expenditure area framing this policy is that the economic family policy shall contribute to a good economic standard of living for all families with children and contribute to equal parenting. Today, there is more than one obstacle to overcome if we are to reach that goal.

Inflation is rising, electricity prices have skyrocketed, and both mortgage interest rates and rents are becoming higher and higher. It is tough for many, not least for families with children where there are many different needs to meet. And it is precisely the families with children's grocery bags that have increased most in price because it is just certain types of goods that have increased in price, such as porridge and diapers. All these costs are eating themselves deep into the families with children's bank accounts. The money is not enough. Even in families where both parents have jobs, one can go into the red by several thousand a month. Even worse, of course, it is for single parents.

The schools notice, as it is written, an avalanche-like demand for food on Mondays and Fridays, when the children have been home from school. Children stay home from school because their clothes are too small. Some parents have to walk long distances to pick up their children from preschool because they can only afford public transport for part of the distance. Young people say no to summer jobs because they cannot afford bus passes. And parents of small children seek money from Majblomman to buy a blanket for 200 kronor so that the child will not freeze because they have lowered the heat so much at home. When we know that all this is happening, we also know that the government allocated 13 billion kronor to tax cuts for high-income earners in its previous budget.

There will be no increased child benefit. Housing construction is being slowed down. Schools will be forced to make cuts, but those who earn over 70,000 will be well off. It is not the right prioritization. And what politics is about is precisely priorities.

This is unreasonable. And it is unreasonable that we have a government that, during the pandemic, shouted for help for the companies that needed it, and we delivered help to those who needed it. But now that the families with children are screaming for help, no one is coming. We hear statements about biting the bullet, buying base layers, and looking for bargain prices.

We Social Democrats will not give up. We will continue to present proposals for reforms that help those who have it hardest. Families and, above all, children should not have to take the hit because we have a government that is currently sitting on its hands.

We Social Democrats recently presented an alternative that actively meets today's challenges. Our budget is also tight in times of inflation, but the difference is that we also provide support to those who need it most. In our budget, we want to see summer activities with lunch across the entire country. We want to temporarily increase the child allowance by 200 kronor during the summer and the student grant and maintenance support by 500 kronor per month throughout the year. It is a policy that would make a difference for many families with children who currently feel they are stuck in a hopeless situation where the children have to act as a buffer for the crisis we find ourselves in.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to say something about the goal of equal parenting. Today, the mothers take 70 percent and the fathers take 30 percent. However, every third child has a father who takes zero days.

This leads to women having worse careers, worse wage development and ultimately also worse pensions. According to several experts and labor market partners, it is the biggest reason why we do not have equal wages in Sweden. The fact is that the wage gap is now increasing for the first time in 15 years. It has many desirable effects that the child has access to both parents in early years. But with today's system, we create unequal wages. Here, I wish that all parties in this chamber could work together to handle this problem.

We have said that we are willing, for example, to review the government's proposal regarding double days. We absolutely do not, however, want SD and KD to work towards abolishing the reserved months that exist in the parental insurance. We know that it would have an outright harmful effect on women's wages.

Equal parenting is desirable for the simple reason that one should share equally in what is good, that is, the time with one's children. But one must also share in the negative economic consequences of being on parental leave.

Madam Speaker! The country's families with children deserve better. They do not deserve tips on buying base layers or broken promises regarding electricity price subsidies. They deserve a government that recognizes the crisis and acts to solve the problems that we see today. They absolutely do not deserve a government that simply abdicates its responsibility.

With this, I therefore move for approval of reservation 21.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I recoiled a bit, perhaps also somewhat in the context of a previous interpellation debate about precisely the child allowance and the proposal that the Social Democrats are now returning to regarding raising it temporarily over the summer. The argument is that one gives child allowance to families with children instead of lowering the tax for high-income earners.

But it is also symbol politics in its most clear sense. I swear, even high-income earners receive child allowance, so it is a blunt tool. It is not an insurance that actually reaches the most vulnerable, which, for example, the housing allowance does.

I want to ask how the Social Democrats reason in this when one so actively, often and gladly wants to emphasize the importance that high-income earners - of which I don't really know if one of four midwives or three of ten police officers actually is - absolutely must not be given a higher threshold for state income tax, but instead should receive child allowance.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Högström, for the question! What is being discussed is that there are two different systems. There is general welfare, such as child allowance. We have raised it previously and are, as stated, interested in raising it again.

Targeted grants can also be very good. One might need to review targeted grants to, for example, people who are single parents.

But the problem with targeted grants is that they cost a lot, which is also stated in today's report. It is about administrative fees. One has to decide who should receive the grant and why. Sometimes it can be faster and more efficient to make a general increase of, for example, the child allowance.

We see that very many are having a hard time right now. Tax reliefs that, for example, benefit all persons in this chamber who earn over 70,000 kronor, we do not think is the right priority. An increased child allowance would help significantly more people.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer! I note, however – perhaps a bit ironically in this context – that it is not parents like myself or the member who need child allowance, but it is single parents. In this context, the housing allowance is perhaps one of the allowances that is most accurate. If I remember correctly, it is approximately 60 percent of those who receive housing allowance who are specifically single mothers.

This is, therefore, an accurate reform, in contrast to smearing a higher child allowance on everyone, including members of this chamber.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! There is very much we could do for the country's families with children. Raising the child allowance is just one such reform.

The report we are debating today is full of proposals from various investigations that I truly hope the government will proceed with, for example, the proposals from the so-called BUMS investigation, which could reduce indebtedness in vulnerable groups.

I find it very interesting that the Moderaterna are bringing up this issue regarding child allowance. I have never heard that you, for example, would want to abolish the child allowance, but it almost feels as if this discussion is heading in that direction.

I think that one must combine targeted efforts for those who need it most, which I do not see the government doing right now. It is, as said, very large problems that we see right now. Voluntary organizations such as Majblomman are screaming right now that they have a completely unreasonable situation. For the first time, people are having difficulty paying for a food bag or a blanket for their children. That has not been seen before.

It is important that the government meets these needs. Choose whichever model you want, but right now you are doing nothing, it feels like.

It is interesting to have a discussion about whether the child allowance is effective or not. We propose several initiatives that I mentioned in my speech. But the government would need to come back with more effective proposals.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! When I listened to Member Sanne Lennström, I could not help but reflect on some of the words that were included in the speech.

What I reacted most strongly to was that Sanne Lennström wanted to pretend that a completely free parental leave would have a harmful effect. I can promise the member that I, as a Christian Democrat, will continue to fight for a completely free parental leave. It is a deplorable social heritage to believe that anyone other than the child's parents would be more skilled and better at taking care of the parents' own child. For me, the parents will always be the primary and best at taking care of their own child.

Member Lennström said in his speech that the previous government delivered aid to those who were most economically vulnerable. I would like to ask the member how that aid was delivered.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! I made a comparison with how the previous government helped the companies during the pandemic. Later we can have a discussion about how one can also help families with children.

The issue with politics is that one must act here and now. We see these problems right now. One or two years ago, it was not as many families that had difficulty paying for food for their children.

I am very grateful that Member Rinaldo Miller took the floor on my behalf, because I had intended to take the floor on either the Christian Democrats or the Sweden Democrats regarding the parental leave.

I am fully aware that you are in favor of abolishing the reserved days that currently exist in the parental leave, but there is also an EU directive – the work-life-balance directive – which states that Sweden must have at least two months that are reserved. We have implemented that directive here in this chamber.

Does this mean that the Sweden Democrats and you in the Christian Democrats will work to overturn the directive and face the consequences from the EU? I would very much like to have an answer on how you intend to proceed here.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sanne Lennström, for the question!

I want to emphasize that the Christian Democrats will continue to push for a completely free parental leave. I believe that the parents themselves, regardless of what the family looks like and what constellation it involves, are best at deciding how the family should solve its everyday puzzle. I want to be careful not to place myself above this and decide for a mother or a father how they should solve their family puzzle. The state shall not rule, but rather the state shall support families so that they can put together their life puzzle. That is the most important thing for me.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe in a three-part parental leave, and I believe that because I also believe in equal pay. As I mentioned in my speech, the wages for women have retreated for the first time in 15 years, so one could say. There has been a slight positive effect, and the wage gap has decreased. Now, however, we see that the wage gap is increasing. This is very problematic, because it means that women get poorer career development, lower wages, and ultimately poorer pensions because they have been on parental leave and perhaps have taken out a lot of vab with several children.

During a seminar here in the Riksdag, the parties in the labor market were asked which individual change would close the wage gap between men and women. The parties in the labor market then answered: a more equal uptake of the parental leave.

I see it as a very large societal problem that women today earn much less than men, sometimes for exactly the same jobs. This is a tool that we have.

I must interpret Rinaldo Miller's response regarding the work-life balance directive as that KD and SD might be prepared to scrap it - the Christian Democrats do, after all, want to continue to pursue that line. We shall have to see what the Sweden Democrats say in their statement regarding this. To be continued.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to reject all motions and moving to approve the proposal in the committee's report.

Questions about the economy, family policy, and the connection between these two are close to my heart and the Christian Democrats'. Strong focus is placed on the family's role, but above all, focus is placed on the children's best interests.

Madam Speaker! One of my sisters lived in Northern Ireland with her family from 1993 and for a few years thereafter. During this time, her second child was born, and the maternity leave there was then a total of only 16 weeks. Yes, you heard correctly: maternity leave. At that time, it was definitely not an option for the father to be on parental leave at all.

This was now a few years ago, as you heard, and the possibility of parental leave in Northern Ireland had improved somewhat. My sister asked her then-employer if it would be okay for her to stay home a little longer than those 16 weeks. The answer she received was: "That's perfectly fine; there are very many others who want your job. Go ahead - stay home as long as you want!" If she had chosen to stay home a little longer, she would have, therefore, lost her job.

Madam Speaker! My intention with this story about my sister is to emphasize that we in Sweden have a fantastically good parental insurance. It is even so good that some benefits are forgotten and used to an all too small extent. One example of this is the possibility for a new parent to reduce working hours until the child is three years old. It is a very good and generous benefit.

We as politicians should be proud of and safeguard the Swedish model for parental leave, as some others have already said from this rostrum today. However, how it is used and distributed should lie with the parents and not be determined by us politicians or by the state. The state should support the families - not rule them. The state should, on the other hand, become better at informing and educating new parents about the fantastic opportunities that exist to be at home and let the child have time to bond with its parents.

Madam Speaker! I want to be very clear about my and my party's position regarding the parental leave: Kristdemokraterna will continue to fight for a completely free parental leave.

Another step in the right direction for a completely free parental leave is that the number of double days is now doubled from 30 to 60 days. Furthermore, the proposal is that these days can be used until the child is 15 months old. The double days were introduced by Kristdemokraterna during the Alliance government and have led to more fathers, who otherwise rarely take parental leave, now actually doing so. Research also shows that the double days have large positive effects on the physical and mental health of new mothers. It sounds like all parties can agree that this is very good.

The government is doing an enormous amount of good for the families' economic situation - this deserves to be repeated over and over again, and I will repeat it here in the chamber over and over again. One example is the double double-days, which I just touched upon. Other measures and decisions can be added, for example, the strengthened housing supplement for those families and single parents who have the smallest economic margins. This means concretely that the maximum amount is raised from 1,325 kronor per month to 2,100 kronor.

A special leisure card is introduced, so that all children can participate in sports, culture, and outdoor life. Additionally, children in economic hardship receive a higher amount.

The government is also making investments in sports in vulnerable areas. This is extremely important. Children and young people in vulnerable areas must be given better alternatives to the community that the street and gangs offer.

The family's economy has a strong impact on how children and young people manage in life. Children should not have to go to school hungry or feel stress over that mom's money is not enough to pay the bills.

The family is "the most important building block in society and the way of life that has the greatest possibility of being the small, close community needed for people to grow. If the family does not function as a base, neither does society." This is a direct quote from the Christian Democrats' principle program; it is on page 92, for those who wonder.

Safe and well-functioning families ensure that society as a whole functions and grows stronger. A good family policy is a means to solve many societal problems, such as economic vulnerability, falling school results, and youth crime. By supporting families early, we can prevent problems from escalating and instead prevent them. This is confirmed by research, time and again. As a Christian Democrat, I will never stop working for this.

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 4, which concerns the parental insurance. But we obviously stand behind all our reservations.

Compared to many countries, Sweden has a very generous parental leave, and that is how it shall continue to be. In the large whole, we are probably in agreement here in the chamber, but there are slightly different wills when it comes to what the parental leave should look like. Some want to tighten and regulate, and we want it the other way. Some are pushing for a 50-50 distribution between parents, while we see it from a child and family perspective.

When it comes to parental leave, I think that one should primarily look at the family's total finances. I also believe that most families want to try to achieve the best total monthly income during the time they have small children at home. Therefore, we want to task the government with conducting a review of the parental leave so that parents in the future can receive a larger portion of their income when taking out parental days.

The Sweden Democrats' family policy is largely based on voluntariness, choice and flexibility. We do not intend to complicate things for anyone. We know that family constellations look different and that everyone has different circumstances and starting points. That must always be taken into account.

With that said, I note that it is very positive that the number of double days is now to be increased to 60, something that the Sverigedemokraterna have included in their family policy for many years. It is about increasing flexibility for families with children. It has been shown that the double days contribute to an increased equal presence of both parents in the home and that they have had a positive effect on mothers' health. It is a great opportunity that is based on voluntariness rather than on compulsion and restrictions.

I think that we in the Sweden Democrats have a really good family policy. We have a number of good proposals that benefit families and children. We propose, among other things, an increased number of days at a child's birth, what is somewhat sloppily called "pappadagar" (daddy days). This would strengthen the family and enable it to form bonds during the first period after childbirth.

The temporary housing allowance for families with children with low incomes has been extended and also increased. It is a tool that is extremely important in the work of helping the families who are having it the hardest right now. However, we still see a problem with the current system for housing allowance, which is unnecessarily complicated and sometimes leads to clawbacks. This hits people with weak finances very hard and can mean that individuals refrain from applying for the allowance.

Instead of how it is today, that is, that one makes an estimate of their expected income when applying for housing allowance, the allowance should be calculated based on current income data. These are now reported individually to the tax authority every month. Sverigedemokraterna are keen that the government considers a modernized construction of the housing allowance to present to the Riksdag.

I also want to take the opportunity to mention a very important review that affects many separated parents in Sweden today, and that concerns the review of the maintenance support and the maintenance allowance. As the system is structured today, it is conflict-driving. We need to establish a modern and sustainable system. Today, it almost pays to not reach an agreement, and we cannot have that.

Regarding point 3 in the report, which concerns reserved days, I hereby wish to inform that the Sverigedemokraterna will primarily vote for our reservation number 8 in the preliminary votes. In the event that our reservation falls, we intend to support the committee's proposal in the main vote and thus vote green.

In the proposal that the Social Democrats and the Green Party jointly support, they want a more individualized parental leave, and the Green Party even wants to double the individual parental days. This goes in a completely opposite direction compared to what the Sweden Democrats want. We are keen that the child's best interests and every child's unique needs should be central in the design of the parental leave, and therefore want to abolish the reserved days in the parental leave to give the freedom of choice back to the families. Parents should be given the trust to fully decide how the parental leave should be allocated.

In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to the time before the family has become a family. Several issues regarding sickness benefit during pregnancy, pregnancy benefit and pregnancy days will be highlighted in the investigation to be reported in the beginning of June. It is our wish that the government carefully follows up on the conclusions of the same and implements necessary improvements.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! The government governs entirely and fully on the Sweden Democrats' mandate. Together they constitute a very passive camp.

The government members throw up their hands and say that nothing can be done to help the families with children who are now having a very tough time because it risks fueling inflation. It is a very meager consolation for the families who now cannot afford football boots for the children or even put food on the table - especially now as the summer holidays approach. The alarms are ringing loudly that the children eat more in school, and the food queues at Stadsmissionen and the Church of Sweden are growing. People are forced to go into debt to afford food. Konjunkturinstitutet also states that support to households has a negligible effect on inflation.

One can very well prioritize differently if one simply wants to, but this government and the Sweden Democrats seem to want very little. They could, for example, have prioritized not lowering the tax by more than 1,000 kronor for those who earn over 50,000 kronor and instead prioritized something else, but that is not what the Sweden Democrats and the government did.

The Left Party has proposed an increased child benefit, which would be financed through a paused general tax deduction. Why does the member want to prioritize tax cuts for the richest over support for ordinary families with children?

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

The Sweden Democrats have a very good cooperation with the Tidö parties. We agree on many issues, and no party weighs more heavily than any other in that cooperation. It is joint decisions that are made. I want everyone to know that.

When it comes to those who are hit hardest in these times, one must not only act to help them right now, but one must also ensure that everyone can support themselves even in the future. Giving an extra contribution now is putting a plaster on the wound, but it does not solve the problems that lie behind. We must try to see every individual who receives social assistance and help the individual to move forward and find their place on the labor market.

Furthermore, I see in your motions that you want to index child allowance and housing allowance. If the child allowance is indexed, it also applies to high-income earners, so what the member says about taxes and child allowance is somewhat contradictory.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Now it was not those who receive subsistence support that I was speaking about. Perhaps something was misunderstood from my previous remark to the member from the Moderaterna.

Now I am speaking about families with children in general. It is a very difficult situation for many. The tough economic situation is eating into completely ordinary families with children where both work but still cannot afford to put food on the table or pay all the bills. The price increase for an ordinary family with children amounts to 17 percent. There are quite a few people who did not have those margins before inflation arrived.

Then it is completely absurd that the government does nothing but says that families should look for extra prices at Ica. So a government should not act that way, and you, together with the government, are responsible for the policy being pursued.

Regarding the child allowance, I am very pleased that the member brings up the distribution profile. There seemed to be some confusion in the previous reply between the Moderates and the Social Democrats regarding the idea that an increase in the child allowance would not have a good distribution profile and would not be a good support.

I am very happy to be able to answer that question. Vänsterpartiet has, in fact, calculated our proposal for an increased child allowance, and it has a very good distribution profile. It is increased in all deciles, but most of all in the first decile, so it has a very good distribution effect.

If one also adds the Left Party's proposal that one should simultaneously pause the tax deduction that goes towards cleaning the pools for the very richest, one gets a fantastically good distribution profile on this. It would be a support that does not fuel inflation - the National Institute of Economic Research says it has a negligible effect - but which would still help people in crisis. Why do the Sweden Democrats not want to do that?

(Applause)

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! We would like to see that everyone can help all the families who are having a hard time now. It is a crisis now. Electricity costs are high - not because of our policy, but they have been driven up because of previous decisions from previous governments. Back then, people never spoke about it affecting families with children with sky-high electricity prices, but that is what it has done.

Fuel prices are extremely high, even if they are lower now than they were earlier. Had the old government remained in power, prices would have been even higher, and thus families with children would have had to shell out even more money for fuel.

I think it is unfair to say that we are doing nothing. We are fighting full out to make it better for the poor.

When it comes to our housing allowances, I actually believe that the municipalities themselves have the mandate to decide whether teenagers' summer jobs should be counted when applying for housing allowance or social assistance. It is the respective municipality's decision to make; they are free to do so.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and thereby rejection of all reservations.

Currently, intensive government work is underway regarding economic family policy, and several important investigations are in progress within this important area. Therefore, we will certainly have more opportunities to return in a more concrete way to a number of central family policy issues, and I am convinced that many of the proposals in the motions that we are debating today will be considered.

For that reason, I want to stick today to the more principled aspects of economic family policy and state the Liberals' long-term perspective on this area.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals' starting point is that Sweden shall be an equal, child-friendly and parent-friendly country. In that context, access to a well-developed childcare system that enables parents to combine work and parenthood during the children's upbringing is a decisive prerequisite.

Another cornerstone is the right to parental leave with compensation, i.e., the system consisting of the parental insurance together with the legislation on parental leave. It is regarding this that I will focus today.

For a feminist party like the Liberals, it is about issues that in an obvious way belong to politics' most important tasks. We Liberals are proud that Sweden has a generous parental insurance, and we have also fought the battle for a well-developed childcare. Our country shall also have that in the future.

For far too long, however, the public discussion on the parental leave has been about changes within the framework of today's system, despite its obvious shortcomings, not least regarding the aspect of equality. In our opinion, it is precisely for that reason important to achieve greater changes in the longer term that can lead to a more equal society.

Madam Speaker! The parental insurance was introduced in 1974 and has since remained unchanged in its basic structure. What has changed has been the duration of the insurance and the level of compensation, as well as that certain periods have been earmarked for each respective guardian. Otherwise, the basic components have remained constant, despite the gender equality deficiencies and the fact that major social changes have occurred since the introduction.

It is heard that the view on men's and women's responsibility for parenthood has changed fundamentally and that women's participation in the workforce has increased very significantly. Likewise, there is now, in principle, full coverage in childcare for children from one year of age and upwards, this in sharp contrast to when the parental insurance was introduced, when many parents were forced to stay home longer than that simply because alternatives were lacking.

However, this does not mean that women's and men's use of parental leave is similar. The withdrawal of parental leave is still strongly gender-divided. In 2022, women took approximately 70 percent of the parental leave days, converted to net days. While the long-term trend is moving in an equalizing direction, the development is slow. For children born in 2020, it was only one-fifth of the parents who shared the parental leave days somewhat equally – approximately 40 and 60 percent respectively. This is obviously much better than it was, for example, in 2005, when not even one-tenth of the parents did so, but it is still far from what should characterize a more equal society.

That the time spent at home with children is so unevenly distributed between women and men has significant consequences in many different ways. It affects parenting patterns within the family and can also affect the world's expectations, for example in relation to the school and the parents' employers. It affects the child's image of parenthood and the child's perceptions of how chores and responsibilities are associated with gender.

But even the parents' economic situation is affected in a highly significant way. Still, part-time work over a longer period is primarily something that women engage in. This pattern is usually established in connection with the children arriving, and long-term part-time work becomes a part-time trap for many women.

Today, 26 percent of employed women work part-time, but only 11 percent of men. The difference is large enough, but to this must be added that most men who work part-time do not do so as a consequence of parenthood. Instead, the men work part-time at the beginning of their adult lives, at the age of 20-24, and when retirement begins to approach, at the age of 55-64.

If, instead, only the figures for part-time work for parents with children at home are compared, the differences in part-time work become even greater.

It is also at this point that the wage differences between men and women begin to grow seriously. The difference in lifetime income affects women's economic conditions and thus their independence throughout their lives. Therefore, women have on average significantly lower pensions than men and an average old-age pension that only corresponds to 69 percent of the men's. It is an important explanation for why it is primarily women who become poor pensioners.

From this perspective, it is obvious that today's construction of the parental insurance has clear disadvantages that reinforce a traditional gender-divided division of labor and affect mothers in an unacceptable way.

Furthermore, today's parental leave is based on the traditional family where both parents live together. This means that the parental leave is poorly adapted to the fact that families look in many different ways. A modern parental leave is needed that fully includes all types of families and also families where the parents have entered into new relationships.

The parental leave insurance is also not adapted to the conditions of entrepreneurs. This results in that parents who are self-employed take out significantly fewer parental leave days than others, despite the fact that they are participating and contributing to the system.

Madam Speaker! There are, therefore, many reasons to think anew regarding the parental insurance.

We Liberals have already earlier in this chamber touched upon the ideas that could guide a long-term reform effort within this area.

In our committee motion from the parliamentary year 2021/22 Liberal principles for a modern, flexible and equal parental insurance, we highlight the following principles which could constitute a suitable starting point for a modernized parental insurance.

Firstly, the parental leave should be based on the child's need for security and attachment during the first important period. The parental leave exists to fundamentally make it possible for parents to stay home so that the child receives a secure attachment to the parents during the very first years.

Secondly, the parental leave should provide income protection when the parents are at home during the initial period and then facilitate a secure return to the labor market and gainful employment.

Thirdly, the parental leave should facilitate and stimulate equal parenting.

For the fourth, the parental leave should take into account the families' differences.

Last but not least, the parental leave should be flexible and adapted to a post-industrial economy where some are employed in a traditional way while many others are self-employed, freelancers or gig workers.

Madam Speaker! Based on these starting points, we have sketched out the foundations for a modernized parental leave where, instead of having a very long parental leave with partial income protection, one should focus on a shorter leave with much better income protection. We also want to open up possibilities for entirely new forms of flexibility and freedom of choice.

We also want to address the mechanisms that create a part-time trap and instead give parents new opportunities to adapt the length and level of the insurance based on their own wishes. According to the Norwegian model, one should be able to choose between a shorter parental insurance with full compensation for the loss of income and a longer one with a lower degree of compensation.

We also want to strengthen the drive for equal responsibility through a more generous vab-compensation.

Madam Speaker! These are the basic principles of the liberal path towards a reformed parental leave system that, in the long term, can contribute to a more equal society. We hope that this can lead to an open conversation about the necessity of a modernized parental leave system now that our old system is soon turning 50 years old.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! When I look through the report, I cannot find the motion that Mauricio Rojas refers to, but it may have been dealt with in some other report earlier.

I have some reflections.

I share the Liberals' analysis that today's parental leave leads to inequality. The Green Party therefore introduced, together with the Liberals, the Social Democrats, and the Left Party, a third father's month, or a reserved month, in the parental leave because we know that it is the most effective way to make parental leave, parenthood, and in the long run also the labor market, more equal.

An equal distribution of the parental leave is the most effective way we can work politically to achieve the goal of increased equality in both the working life and the unpaid home and care work.

I do not quite understand how the Liberals' proposal is supposed to have the same effect as more reserved days in the parental leave, which the People's Party and the Liberals previously pushed for, and which actually have achieved.

Different forms of incentive systems have been tested, such as bonuses for gender equality and the like, but they have not worked and have not resulted in increased gender equality.

Therefore, the conclusion of the Green Party is that one should continue with what works, namely earmarking more months in the insurance for each parent.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! No, we do not want to proceed in that direction. We politicians must be careful about how much we want to decide over families' important decisions. Vänsterpartiet has proposed that it should be divided 50/50, but I do not believe we should make such interventions.

What we should change, as can be read in the Liberals' motion from last parliamentary year, is to enable a shorter period where the parent can receive full compensation for the loss of income. This would make it profitable for both parents to stay home with the child, and one would not choose the one with the lower salary. We believe that this is a good way to go. It has been practiced in Norway for some years now with very good results. We choose another way to be flexible that still gives parents the freedom to design the parental leave - to a certain point, because we have reserved days - but we do not want to go any further in that direction.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the member for the answer to that question. I look forward to reviewing the previous motion, so we can certainly return to it.

I think it is important that we do not deceive ourselves into implementing reforms that sound good, which, for example, the gender equality bonus really did. It was believed that a bonus, more money, would lead to more fathers choosing to stay home more with their children during the first period of life. That did not happen, but it was the same families – families where the parents have a higher education and higher income – who stayed home to a greater extent, just as before. No increase was seen. Today, actually, every third father does not take any parental leave at all.

Some of the keys, I believe, we are in agreement on. We must ensure that the parental leave is adapted even for entrepreneurs. This applies to all social insurance systems. We have also introduced a division with three reserved months even for those who do not have a sickness benefit-qualifying income, i.e., those who are the poorest: students or persons who have been in the establishment allowance or have not yet entered the labor market. But we shall do what works, because inequality is one of our greatest societal problems. What we have seen in Sweden historically is that more reserved months for each parent, what is called "daddy months," have had an effect. The most important thing this has led to is that more children have received a close relationship with their fathers.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the members for the questions and comments.

What we want is to open a conversation about this. We must try different paths. The member says that this has worked in Sweden; I say that this has worked in Norway, which is not so fundamentally different from Sweden. We must open the debate and see. We must also see how other countries have done it. It is true that the Nordic countries are pioneers in this regard, but perhaps there is also something to learn from other countries.

What we want is to make it more flexible and pay full compensation for the loss of income. We dislike the extended use of the parental insurance, as it turns out to be a permanent way for women to reduce their working hours to most often 75 percent. This leads to many other consequences, not least that their lifetime income and pension become lower. It thus has many effects that we should counteract in some way.

The purpose of my presentation was to open the conversation. Then we have a lot that is short-term. We have discussed it, and the government will return - it is of course very important. But the long-term conversation would be good, because the equality effect of the system we have is obviously deficient. We cannot be satisfied with a system that yields this result.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It has been a very long time since so many in Sweden experienced it being so difficult to make the money last. The price of necessities such as bread, butter, and vegetables has skyrocketed. The rents, interest rates, electricity bills, and fuel prices are very high. For a typical family with children, the price increases amount to around 17 percent. People are forced to go into debt to afford to pay the bills.

The government can, of course, not be held responsible for Russia's war of aggression or the pandemic effects that have contributed to the high inflation. But how the burdens of the crisis are distributed is something that a government can definitely influence and should be interested in. This government, however, is shockingly passive. At the same time as the food queues at Stadsmissionen and the Church of Sweden are growing, the government throws up its arms and says that nothing can be done because it risks fueling inflation. According to the National Institute of Economic Research, however, support for households would only have negligible effects on inflation.

The equalizing effect of economic family policy has been eroded over time, and it becomes particularly noticeable in the economic situation we are currently in. It is especially difficult, of course, for those who already had small margins before the crisis: the unemployed, those on sick leave, pensioners, and single parents. But the high inflation also eats into the wallets of families who were previously economically secure. The Government and Sverigedemokraterna should take an interest in easing the situation for families who are now having a very tough time.

In order for the economic family policy to live up to its purpose, the ceiling and replacement levels in parental leave, child allowance, housing allowance, etc., need to be indexed so that they keep pace with price and wage developments. The fulfillment of the goals for the economic family policy has deteriorated since the 1990s. That trend needs to be reversed.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats have recently announced that they intend to double the number of "double days" in the parental leave from today's 30 days to 60 days. They also want to extend the time limit for how long they can be taken from 12 to 15 months. The argument the Government uses for the double days to be increased is that the introduction has had a positive effect on fathers' take-up of parental leave. That is true. But there is nothing in the studies that have been conducted that shows that additional double days would make the take-up more equal. Instead, the Government is groping in unexplored territory rather than doing what is actually required to ensure that the take-up of parental leave becomes truly equal, i.e., reserving more days in the parental leave for each parent.

TCO has criticized the government's proposal to double the number of double days. They say that the effects are uncertain and that it is a very low proportion of parents who utilize all the double days that exist today. The risks are that women are home more with unpaid parental leave and that men do not take primary responsibility for the children.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see an individualized parental leave instead. Such a system should, of course, take into account that families can look different. We also need to ensure that it becomes easier for self-employed individuals to claim parental leave benefits. A report from TCO was recently released showing that parental leave is even more unequal than what is shown in the statistics. When unpaid parental leave is also included, women are on average away from work for more than a year during a child's first two years. That is over nine months more than the men.

Ensuring that parental leave is shared equally is extremely central if one wants to ensure that women and men can live equal lives - where women avoid being penalized in their paychecks for having been home with the children significantly longer than the men have been and where women receive a pension that can be lived on. Every month that the father is at home, the future salary increases by 7 percent for the mother.

I question how the living conditions of women and men are to be equalized with the government's policy. Instead of ensuring that parenthood becomes more equal, the government wants to see a parental insurance that can be used by others than the parents. If it is an LGBTQ+ or star family that the government and Sverigedemokraterna have in mind, that feels fine. But that could be solved by having more parents become guardians. I imagine that this is not the government's primary target group. If the government's proposal were to be introduced unregulated, it could lead to us getting a nanny system financed by our tax money.

Madam Speaker! Instead of helping families through the crisis, the government and the Sweden Democrats want to introduce benefit caps. The calculations that the government and the Sweden Democrats have jointly concocted in Timbro's office, about it being so lucrative to receive benefits, are like something out of a fairy tale.

Vänsterpartiet has a small tip for the government regarding a subsidy that can actually be withdrawn without it having negative effects for the finances of the vast majority of families: Pause the RUT deduction! With that money, we can increase the child allowance for all families by 400 kronor. It is a prioritization that Vänsterpartiet wants to make, but the government has others.

We have also proposed an extra child benefit supplement for single parents of 500 kronor and an extra benefit for those who have more than two children. We know that it is single parents and parents with multiple children who have the lowest economic standard. The single mother with one child would, with Vänsterpartiet's policy, receive 900 kronor more per month, a single parent with two children would receive 1,800 kronor more per month, and a single parent with three children would receive 3,180 kronor more per month.

Madam Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats should not only be scolded by me here today. It is good that the Government and the Sweden Democrats have extended and increased the temporary increase of the housing allowance, even if it is the only thing the Government does to help households.

The housing allowance is the support that has been eroded the most over time. The ceiling of the allowance and the income levels have not kept pace with price developments, and therefore the housing allowance needs to be adjusted and indexed. The enhanced housing allowance should apply until this is done.

The government and the Sweden Democrats, in their temporary support, have chosen to exclude the group that has the least margins, namely those who receive social assistance. Some confusion arose at the government's and the Sweden Democrats' press conference where the extension of the housing allowance was presented and the ministers were to answer whether persons with social assistance are covered or not. Now we have received clarity that is not the case, and this has met with great criticism. That the municipalities can act in different ways leads to a great inequality depending on which zip code one has, and we do not think this is particularly good.

Furthermore, there is a problem that has existed for many years regarding the housing allowance, and that is that many people become liable for repayment. It is not reasonable that people continue to end up in debt because the system guarantees it. Therefore, the government needs to proceed with the part of the BUMS investigation that concerns monthly reconciliations of income as soon as possible. The investigation is complete and is on the government's desk. Between the removals of the plastic bag tax and the state of emergency, perhaps the government can find a little time to address, for example, this, which is a tangible and real problem in people's everyday lives.

Summer is coming soon, friends, and thoughts may turn to sun and swimming. For many, it will instead mean a lump in the stomach over how the money will suffice when the children will not be eating school lunch at school. The government is doing nothing about this. The residents of Lidingö can continue to use their rutavdrag for pool cleaning so that the children can swim and have a good time. In Kramfors or Härnösand, there are very few rutbidragstagare, but plenty of people who want to make ends meet in everyday life.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation 23.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is quite popular to submit quarterly reports, and I intend that the government should also do so. Then everyone will think that three months have passed now – a quarter – but for me, the quarter becomes two years because the previous government had eight years to get Sweden's situation and the economic vulnerability of certain families and single parents in order. Vänsterpartiet supported the previous government during those eight years. Let this government return with a quarterly report in two years, even though we already know what the government is doing.

I would like to ask Member Isabell Mixter what the Left Party intends. A budget is presented with unfeasible proposals that is underfunded by 21 billion. If this budget were to pass, it would mean higher interest rates and even less money left in the pockets of ordinary people. In a time of high inflation where the parties in the labor market have taken responsibility for keeping wage increases down, one chooses to underfund their budget by 21 billion. Is this taking economic responsibility? Is this looking out for the weakest?

Then I would like to ask a question to Member Isabell Mixter, who speaks a lot about equality, which is extremely important to me. I would like to ask – if we now have to weigh two things against each other – whether the most important thing is equality or the children's best interests.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! It is not true as the Member says that the Left Party has a lot of unfunded proposals in its budget. They are calculated and are in no way unfunded. Rather, it is about priorities – what one chooses to do. It is true that the Left Party has a somewhat more forward-looking budget than the government, but that the proposals would be unfunded is a falsehood that the Member is spreading.

My question is once again why the government chooses to prioritize, for example, maintaining the rutavdrag (travel deduction), which goes to the very richest and is essentially a Stockholm subsidy, and why one chooses to lower the tax for the very richest instead of ensuring that ordinary families with children have food on the table. I think that is the real problem here.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats, who are part of the current government, really do not want to see any children going to school hungry or wearing outgrown clothes. You might not believe it, but I am so old that I grew up in a family where we had to make ends meet, where there was only one income because dad was the one who worked, and where I experienced that the thing there was always money for was tobacco and alcohol.

The government will not leave behind those who are struggling the most financially; instead, the government shall ensure that everyone who needs help receives it. I have complete and full confidence in the government we have now. The previous government had eight years. It is not the case that the situation for those who now are struggling the most financially has arisen in the last six months; rather, it arose much earlier.

I want to repeat my question to Isabell Mixter: Is equality or the best interests of the child most important?

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! I think it is an extremely strange contradiction that the member has, that equality or the best interests of the child should stand against each other. For me, the obvious answer is that it is super good for the child to have two present parents rather than one present parent. Therefore, it is extremely important that we establish early on that both parents have an important parental responsibility where both share the burdens of being guardians, and therefore we also need to get an individualized parental leave benefit. I think this is central.

Then I want to remind the member of something. She was suggesting that the old government with the Left Party in tow somehow would have worsened the economic situation for people. What happened when we in the Left Party had influence over the budget and when we pushed? Well, it resulted in increased pensions, increased sickness benefit, and a lot of things that would not have existed without the Left Party.

What have we seen from the government? Yes, an increased housing allowance that benefits approximately 100,000 people in Sweden. That is good, but it is really not enough to help everyone who is now having an extremely difficult time. There you stand and say: Unfortunately, we cannot do anything because inflation is so high. It is not enough.

I have not seen any proposals whatsoever that this will be rectified within a quarter, as the member pointed out, but rather what we see is that, on the contrary, it is said that one shall introduce subsidy caps and reintroduce some type of work principle, which I perceive as that people are to be thrown out of the safety nets. This stands in direct contradiction to helping people who are having a hard time.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Economic family policy can contain many different parts, and it is impossible to go into everything. I will focus on a couple of things.

The purpose of the parental leave is to facilitate family life when one has small children and that one should not be away from the labor market for too long because it affects lifetime income and wage development. It is one of the reasons why the Center Party believes that 80 percent of the parental leave should be taken during the child's first three years of life, not four as it is today.

The time when the child is small is important and valuable for the parents. It is also important to value both parents equally, which we do not do today in Swedish legislation because there is no automatic joint custody for both parents if one has a child and is unmarried. In that case, the woman who gives birth to the child must approve the other parent as a guardian. It is clear that it affects how we view the family and holidays when one parent does not automatically receive custody of their child.

Building on this, it is obvious that there should be more double days. We actually want there to be unlimited access, but it is good that the government proceeds with the fact that there should at least be more than until now.

Then I begin to approach the question of equal distribution of parental leave. Much has been said about parental leave being a woman's trap, that women are home more than men. Then I cannot help but wonder what it is that makes it so. It is entirely possible with today's rules system to share exactly equally the number of days one is home. It is entirely possible that both parents choose to be on leave for a certain period, or not choose it. What is it then that governs this? Is it the regulations, or is it norms and values that govern us? How much should we change in the regulations if we do not change the view on whom we expect to be home most? There is a common collective value among both men and women; otherwise, it would not look the way it does. Then women and men would be home more equally, and I would almost dare to say that the women would let the men stay home.

It is clear that the rules can be reviewed. It is also possible to problematize them. We have heard from the rostrum how valuable it is to be at home part-time, to be on leave when our children are small. But what does it mean if I am at home 25 percent for a number of years? How does it affect my salary, and how does it affect my pension? If we want to problematize the issue, perhaps we should not allow such a thing if we want equal pensions in the future. It is only a matter of problematizing, not of presenting a finished proposal.

What happens when there are more earmarked days? We cannot work solely with that factor if we want there to be a real change. What happens when more days are earmarked to one parent – who is usually the father – is that more fathers stay home longer, but the women are not home for a shorter time because of it, rather they are home just as long but for a lower compensation. Which rules do we change so that we also change the underlying norms and values that exist where we expect different things from mothers and fathers?

Then we can, of course, work on how we spread knowledge and so on. I would like to see a close cooperation between Försäkringskassan and Pensionsmyndigheten. When I go in and plan my parental leave, which we are incredibly good at in Sweden – how many days I can be home and how long I can be home – a flag should also automatically appear stating that this will give me so and so many kronor, or percent, more or less in pension. Then we can also see what the life choices entail, and it might affect our norms and values in the future.

When it comes to the housing allowance, I have earlier today raised the importance of us having to change some fundamental things. The previous government could have, and the current government can, be faster in presenting proposals for a monthly reconciliation of the housing allowance, so that we do not continue to put families with children into debt. Those who have the greatest need of the allowance to cover their livelihood risk falling into debt with the current regulations.

I want to once again mention the importance of breaking exclusion. A young person who gets their first job should benefit from it. The family must benefit from it. Therefore, we must allow that young people's incomes do not play as large a role in the calculation of the housing allowance.

There are questions that create conflicts in families who have lived happily together so that they then for some reason separate. There are things in the housing allowance to handle, for example how many days a child should live with one or the other parent so that the housing allowance is not affected. Again: The family with the worst economic conditions will calculate the number of days to manage their livelihood. It creates unnecessary conflicts.

I must comment that the rutbidrag would be the solution for families with children to have it better. What does it mean in practice if the rutavdrag is paused? It means that a lot of people who today work in the industry do not have a job to go to. In that case, it does not help to get a higher allowance.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation number 24, even though I stand behind all reservations from the Center Party.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a crisis commission to combat child poverty. Child poverty in Sweden is one of the most acute problems here and now. Voluntary organizations, the Church of Sweden, Stadsmissionen, the Red Cross, Matmissionen and others are sounding the alarm that it is now not only people living on daily allowances because they are refugees from Ukraine who are standing in food queues, but it is also people who have a job and people whom society provides maintenance support to, which we all once agreed would be enough for the most basic, that is to say, to put food on the table for their children.

Schools are warning that much more food is consumed on the Friday before the weekend and on Monday when the children have not had school lunch for two days. This should shake us all. In Sweden 2023, there are children who go hungry because the parents cannot afford the increasingly expensive food in the wake of inflation.

We need to inflation-proof the child allowance, the housing allowance, and the maintenance support that goes to the single parents, almost always mothers, who are the group that has been hit hardest in this situation.

Instead of a crisis commission to combat child poverty, we have all been able to read in the Tidö Agreement something that to me sounds exactly like the opposite, namely that more children are to become poorer - not all children, but children of parents who are newly arrived.

Today we have debated how we should make the parental leave more equal. I worry about the day when the government wants to remove the right for newly arrived refugees who have just had children to participate in the parental leave at all because they have not had time to work and qualify for such an insurance.

Madam Speaker! I am concerned about the day when the right to child allowance and the right to assistance payments for newly arrived refugees who have not had time to work in Sweden are removed. In a situation where child poverty is an acute crisis, it would hit in a completely devastating way, and we would divide the children in our classrooms even further into a group that has rights and one that does not. In a country where the Convention on the Rights of the Child is law, it should always be the best interests of the child and children's rights that guide.

Madam Speaker! In the exchanges of remarks, I have already spoken about the Green Party's policy for a more equal parental leave. We want to double the number of days earmarked for each parent. It is the most effective way to ensure that parenthood becomes more equal, that wage development in the labor market becomes more equal, and that the unpaid home and care work is distributed more equally.

I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 7.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I requested a reply to Member Hirvonen's contribution primarily to create some kind of balance in the portrayal. A picture is being painted of the government and the Tidö Agreement that is in no way anchored in reality. A picture is being painted that we are now abolishing both the one and the other and removing protection and support, which is not true.

There is also something that becomes a bit funny in this context. People talk about the reserved days, which they want to expand. Actually, it is about removing the possibility for families to choose. Does Miljöpartiet have no thoughts regarding the other risks that exist with this? For example, in Norway, where they have much more strict three-part insurance, it has been seen that many, especially women, step out of the system entirely and receive no compensation at all. What impact does it have on, for example, the pension when one completely steps out of the insurance system? This is the result one sees, because there are parents who want to choose and who need to be given the opportunity to choose how they shall distribute the time with the most important thing they have: their child.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have not yet seen what the Tidö Agreement's section on reducing pull factors is going to be about. But in the list of points that is enumerated, it states that they want to remove the right to compensation for families with children and persons with disabilities as well as financial assistance, that is, social assistance. This applies to persons who have not qualified by having worked or been in Sweden for a long time.

I hope that this does not become a reality. Imagine this: An Iranian refugee who receives protection in Sweden and is granted asylum is pregnant and gives birth to a child but has not had time to be here long or work. Should this refugee then be punished by not receiving any support or be forced to start working when the child is newborn? Or imagine a person with a severe disability who needs personal assistance just to be able to get to work! That, too, one should not be allowed to have if one has not qualified by working or being here for a long time. It is a Catch-22 that I truly hope does not become a reality, because it would be devastating in a situation where child poverty is already an acute problem.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! The alarming description of reality is not the whole truth. That we need to have a qualification for welfare is obvious, because today we have problems with an exclusion that cements people outside the labor market and which has not benefited either Sweden or the individuals particularly well. A qualification for welfare will therefore be introduced, but exactly how it is designed, I do not intend to anticipate.

When it comes to the emotional description of how a qualification for welfare takes place, I can reassure most people at home that that is not how it will look. This portrayal is absolutely problematic, I think.

Then I also think it is important to point out that politics should not enter the kitchen tables and decide how parents should distribute their parental leave. Instead, there must be incentives for how we can create a better distribution of the parental insurance.

As I have noted, it has not been noted at all that many, especially mothers, opt out of the insurance in countries that we otherwise usually compare ourselves with.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! No, child poverty is not an acute problem for everyone. We with the highest salaries receive lower taxes from the government. But the queues for the food parcels are getting longer and longer.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

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