Economic family policy

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposed decision.

Now we are going to debate economic family policy. The family is the very heart of our society. It is there that we receive love, learn responsibility, shape our values, and create memories that follow us through life. The Moderaternas family policy is built on both freedom and responsibility. It is about giving parents the opportunities and the flexibility they need to be present for their children while maintaining a stable economy. It is about giving all children the conditions for a secure upbringing, and that is exactly what this government is doing.

Sweden has for a long time had one of the world's most generous compensation systems for parents. 50 billion kronor are spent on the parental insurance, and 33 billion are paid out in child allowance every year. Few countries offer such good opportunities to stay home with their children.

We have a responsibility to manage that system but also to renew and improve it. An improvement that we are implementing is the doubling of the so-called double days - from and including July 1. It goes from 30 to 60 days. Both parents are given the opportunity to be at home at the same time during the first sensitive period after childbirth. The mother may have had complications and needs extra support. It may be necessary to have two adults at home to support each other. There are studies that show that double days have reduced mental ill-health and the need for care among first-time mothers. There are also reports that couples who use double days tend to have a more equal take-up.

Madam Speaker! Another improvement for increased freedom in the economic family policy is that the government makes it possible to transfer the parental leave to another person. It concerns 45 days for parents with joint custody and up to 90 days for single parents. It is a proposal that increases freedom for, for example, single parents. It increases freedom for patchwork families, for entrepreneurs, and for other people who currently have jobs that can make it very difficult to be at home. It is not the families who should adapt to the system, but now we adapt the system to the families.

Madam Speaker! Proposals have been submitted by the left-wing parties to increase the number of reserved days in the parental leave. It is certainly good intentions, to increase equality, and it is not uncommon for people in private to comment on how other families do and behave. But politically, Madam Speaker, we must stay at a higher level. Then we should not interfere too much in how families should look and how they choose to distribute their days.

The freedom that exists today, with the possibility to personally distribute 390 of the total 480 days of parental leave, is a well-balanced provision. The Moderaterna wish to preserve that freedom. Moderaterna therefore propose no changes on that point.

Madam Speaker! In a time when it is economically tough for many, it is also a time for responsibility. Inflation has driven up the cost of living in society, and it hits the already vulnerable households hardest. As a result of the extraordinary situation, the government has previously strengthened and now also extended the temporary supplementary grant for families with children within the housing allowance. It is a precise initiative so that the families who have it the toughest will receive extra support.

The Left parties propose increased child allowances, which would also mean increased allowances for high-income earners. It is a somewhat strange prioritization.

Madam Speaker! It is impossible to address this motion report without mentioning the work line. The work line is that it must always be profitable to work, because benefits will not be the path to economic freedom. Benefits shall support and help temporarily, not permanently. No benefit increases can replace the feeling of having a job to go to. Therefore, the government has commissioned an inquiry into introducing benefit ceilings that limit the total level of benefits and compensations for households, precisely to increase the incentives for work.

The government also wants to propose a model for qualification for social insurance and financial assistance for newcomers and non-citizens. This is being done to strengthen the incentives for people who come to Sweden to quickly enter employment and self-sufficiency, to counter exclusion, and to counter long-term benefit dependency. It is to take responsibility for a strengthened work principle that covers everyone who is in our country but also those who are considering settling here.

Madam Speaker! Let me mention something about the objections that the opposition has raised in previous debates! I reacted when I listened to the budget debate regarding economic family policy, when the Social Democrats presented the reform on the transfer of parental days as an opportunity for criminals to exploit the system.

Madam Speaker! This government was elected in many and many ways on precisely the question of combating crime. This is being done with full force in committee after committee. At the same time, the criminals must not set the entire political agenda, for they have not earned it. We must not, out of fear, refrain from implementing reforms that facilitate things for families with children or business owners, but we must keep the pace. We must govern the country, not let ourselves be governed.

Of course we must be vigilant – we have left the days of naive left-wing politics behind us. That is why we have established a payment authority. That is why we are tearing down confidentiality barriers and changing data protection legislation. That is why we are careful with regulatory letters to authorities when it comes to follow-up.

Criminals shall be prosecuted. System loopholes shall be closed. But we shall continue to facilitate things for ordinary families with children. It is them whom we represent in the debate on economic family policy. It is for their sake that we spend many hours every week processing proposals, debating, deciding, and executing. It is to take responsibility for real.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! I want to ask the Member what the Moderaterna want with the housing allowance in the slightly longer term. If the income levels for the housing allowance are not adjusted, the number of households eligible for the allowance will continue to decrease every year. The fact that the rent levels are also not adjusted when it comes to the housing allowance means that less and less of the rent is covered by the housing allowance - it decreases every year.

This obviously means that people are forced into overcrowding if they are in need of housing allowance. I want to ask the member if the Moderaterna think that this is a good development.

That the government has temporarily extended the increase of the housing allowance is necessary. But the number of people eligible for the housing allowance decreases for every year that passes when one does not raise the income ceiling for the benefit. Even when the acute economic crisis is over, those with small margins will continue to have it tough. The equalizing effect of the economic family policy has diminished over time, as the majority of compensations are not indexed.

The government has several times during the economic crisis pointed out that the housing allowance is a targeted benefit that they want to use to support weaker households. But if the housing allowance is not to lose its function, it needs to be adjusted even when it comes to the levels on the income side. I want to ask the member how they view the development of the housing allowance.

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

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Mixter, for the question! The housing cost is often the very largest expense that a family with children has. Precisely for that reason, we think it is important with the extended reinforced supplementary grant within the housing allowance for families with children.

Just as the member points out, we argue that this is very accurate because it reaches precisely those with the lowest incomes, in contrast to what the member's party often highlights. This applies, for example, to increases in other benefits, such as the child allowance, which affects all income groups, including high-income earners.

That is why we have focused specifically on strengthening the housing allowance for families with children. A family with children can receive approximately 2,000 kronor extra per month. We believe that in a tough economic situation where we are nevertheless on our way to tackling inflation, it is very important to focus specifically on those who have it the hardest and not risk fueling inflation through broader allowance increases, indexations, and other proposals found in this motion report.

Right now we are focusing on those who have it the toughest with a very accurate reform. Otherwise, we need to ensure that we do not fuel inflation and that we safeguard the work line.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! Unfortunately, I do not quite receive an answer to my question on how the Moderaterna view the development of the housing allowance in the long term.

The number of beneficiaries of the housing allowance has decreased by approximately half from 1997 to today, and if the income limit is not adjusted, the allowance will in principle be gradually phased out by itself because such low incomes are required to be eligible for the housing allowance.

I hear that the government considers that it works well as it is today, but I still think that the politicians must take this seriously. We must ensure that the compensations that exist actually keep pace with the cost developments, otherwise they completely lose their purpose. One almost wants to ask: Do you even want to keep this as a subsidy or not?

The Chairman also mentioned the child allowance and that it is not a precise reform. The Moderates often return to the point that it is a problem that the child allowance also reaches high-income earners. The problem is that the comparison with taxes is really flawed. The child allowance is a nominal amount, which means that 400 kronor for a low-income earner means incredibly much more in percentage terms than for a high-income earner. Tax cuts, which the Moderates like to engage in, work exactly the opposite, that is, they have a redistributive effect in the other direction. The one who has the most also gets the most in percentage terms when taxes are lowered.

You are engaged in a redistribution policy that takes from those who would actually need it most and gives to those who have the most today. I therefore still wonder how the member views the development of the housing allowance in the long run.

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

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Madam Speaker! The big difference when we discuss subsidy increases versus tax cuts is that tax cuts increase the incentive both to actually take a job and to work more, which benefits growth in Sweden. That, in turn, benefits everyone, because you also receive more tax revenue to fund and develop the welfare.

Tax cuts therefore have very many more positive effects than just for the individual. It is something that benefits the whole society and also the welfare and the various social security systems that we all are a part of. I would therefore like to say that precisely the fact of getting more people into work is incredibly central even for those who are outside the labor market today.

Regarding the housing allowance and your questions about it, there is no system that is completely perfect. We have a number of questions and proposals that are currently being prepared in the Government Offices, but based on the existing motion report, we have at this stage chosen to focus on those who have it absolutely toughest and direct measures regarding the housing allowance towards them. Now it is being implemented, and we look forward to following the effects.

(Applause)

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want to remind everyone to speak through the Speaker and not to use words such as you, you, and your.)

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! Welcome, Member Lundkvist, to the Social Insurance Committee and our debates!

I understand that the member, the Moderates, and the government may not want to listen so much to us in the opposition regarding the criticism that the transfer of days could lead to welfare crime. But perhaps you should be a little more interested in listening to what the Economic Crime Authority, LO, and TCO have to say. They are all bodies that have pointed out that there is an imminent risk that the transfer of days could open up for a great deal of welfare crime.

I can therefore promise here in the chamber today that we Social Democrats will follow that reform very closely after it has been introduced this summer, because we truly see the risk that has been identified by these different bodies.

Therefore, I have a very short and concrete question for the member here today. Can the member guarantee that the Socialdemokraterna, TCO, LO and the Swedish Economic Crime Authority are wrong and that this will not lead to welfare crime? Yes or no would suit well as an answer.

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

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lennström, both for the welcome and for the contribution!

Transfer of parental days is a reform to take responsibility for ensuring that the child receives a calm and secure start and an opportunity to bond with the adults who will be in the child's life. Often it is not just the parents, but there are others in the picture, for example when more than two choose to have a child together or when someone has a child on their own. In those cases, one sometimes also has a need for extra support from someone in one's vicinity who both wants and can be present, be there and give the child security.

Let us take responsibility! Let us give these families the extended freedom so that, above all, the child receives extra security!

Madam Speaker! We must also, I think, have the starting point that parents want to be at home with their children. This is an opportunity to transfer a part of the parental allowance for those who need it.

I think it is good that the Social Democrats want the reform to be followed up. Försäkringskassan also wants that. It is very clearly written in the 2024 regulation letter that they shall follow up on the utilization of the transfer of parental leave. A first report shall be submitted by January 30, 2025, and Försäkringskassan shall also report on how they work to counter incorrect payments in the transfer of parental leave. Then a second report shall be made where they shall also, as far as possible, analyze the effects on equality.

The answer is that this will be followed up. We can see that through the regulatory letter to Försäkringskassan.

(Applause)

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! The member speaks very highly of all the advantages that the government and the Moderaterna see with the proposal, but I hear no answer to my question regarding the criticism that the Economic Crime Authority has directed at it.

When one carries out a change in the legislation, one must also consider the consequences. One cannot just jump and hope that one lands softly. One must constantly review what the consequences could be, and then one must listen to very important authorities such as the Swedish Economic Crime Authority. But that has not been done. One has not had any answer to that criticism.

I also receive no answer to my question. The member speaks very gladly about responsibility, but where is the responsibility for welfare crime? Where is the responsibility for the Swedish people's tax money, which could end up in the hands of criminals here? This is something we are very worried about.

Yes, the reform will be followed up, and we in the opposition will also ensure that it is. However, I still want an answer to my question: Is the Economic Crime Authority wrong?

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

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Madam Speaker! I can state that this government truly prioritizes the fight against crime. Committee after committee, we are implementing reform after reform to tackle crime. The Committee on Social Insurance is no exception – on the contrary.

It is now that the great shift occurs. The Payment Authority is established. Secrecy legislation is changed. Data protection legislation is changed. We are adding resources to the justice system. Försäkringskassan receives an extra 450 million in the spring budget, of which a very large part goes to precisely the work against benefit fraud.

We will ensure that there is a clear regulatory letter highlighting that we must be vigilant regarding all types of risks. No system will be perfect, but we must also look to the single parents and the "star families" who need this reform, and to the children who will actually have other adults in their vicinity. Is the member not prepared to give them the extra security that this reform can provide?

(Applause)

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! "The food we can afford now is worse, less nutritious. Never vegetables or fruit. No leisure activities that cost money are an option anymore. My well-being as a parent absolutely affects the children." This is a quote from a parent in connection with the release of Save the Children's report on child poverty.

Putin's aggressive war against Ukraine is a factor that has led to a cost-of-living crisis that has driven entirely new groups into economic problems that affect the children growing up right now.

Today's report concerns a policy area that goes straight into the core of the Social Democrats. It is because it plays a major role in which family you are born into. From the very first moment, we have very different conditions to manage in life, reach our dreams, and have a secure childhood.

We must create a Sweden where all children receive security, dare to dream big dreams, and are given the tools to realize these dreams. It is the job of politics to ensure that children do not need to pretend to be sick because one cannot afford to join the outdoor day. It is the job of politics to ensure that children do not have pain in their feet because the parents cannot afford new shoes. Politics has a responsibility to ensure that these children are helped - for their sake, but also for the sake of the future society.

Today, I thought I would take the liberty of repeating the demands for measures that Rädda Barnen put forward at their seminar on child poverty. I do this because it provides a good overview of several issues in today's report.

The first requirement is that we must permanently increase the support for families with children via the housing allowance. The housing allowance is distributionally accurate, which means that we help those who have it toughest. It is also about leveling the differences in housing standards. Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna were the only parties in the seminar's panel who were against this. It can amount to up to 2,000 kronor for a single mother. We cannot let the children pay the price for the cost crisis we currently have in our country.

The second requirement stems from the fact that more and more parents report difficulties in affording to buy clothes for their children when a new season arrives and the children grow: Increase the child allowance! This is something we Social Democrats have tried to do in several different forms. Here, all government parties except the Christian Democrats were against it. Food prices, rents, and other costs are skyrocketing, and the child allowance is something that can make the finances work for a family with children, as MP Mixter mentioned earlier.

There is also a third requirement concerning free leisure activities. It is also something we Social Democrats stand behind.

The fourth [point] concerns free public transport for children. One could start with a summer holiday card so that children can get to their first summer jobs or go and swim. Even here, the Sweden Democrats and the government parties give a negative weight.

The fifth and final requirement concerns one of three cohabiting parents saying that they have difficulty buying nutritious food. Among single parents, it is every second one. Free school breakfast is, of course, the requirement here. Again, there is negative overweight because of the government parties; SD, M and KD say no.

Save the Children also mentions that single parents, in many respects, have it toughest of all. Here, interventions such as increased maintenance support are needed.

Politics is about prioritizing, and we Social Democrats prioritize ordinary people and not least families with children, who are hit hard by the cost crisis we see right now. We prioritize families with children over bank directors, high-income earners, luxury-rot, and the plastic bag tax.

Madam Speaker! Another part of today's report concerns vab, temporary parental leave. There are quite a few reforms that could make parenthood much more secure, for example, if there were an opportunity to use vab to introduce school staff to a child's medications.

We would also need a significantly stronger social insurance protection for pregnant women. Therefore, it is my hope that the government wants to proceed with Kristina Nilsson's investigation on this theme. It would mean that pregnant women could receive better compensation, be at home with compensation without having to apply in the last week, and get greater rights to relocation at their workplace. These are important steps towards an equal working life and equal parenthood.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would also like to say something about our parental insurance. We Social Democrats think it is very unfortunate that a possibility will soon open for parents to give away days from the parental insurance to whoever they want. It would have been a beneficial reform for those who need to solve the puzzle of life as single parents. We agreed to that. But the government has rushed the proposal and has not listened to concerns from LO, TCO, and the Economic Crime Authority that the reform risks opening the door to both fraud and welfare crime.

We will have to follow this very closely, because we want an equal parental leave that provides security, predictability, and time together with the child. This can also give us an equal working life and, ultimately, also more equal and better pensions. There is a great deal to do to get there. One such reform is to abolish the so-called speed premium.

The speed premium in the parental insurance creates economic incentives today to increase birth density. It was implemented in the 1980s, but since then we have seen negative health effects and economic effects for women due to this reform. The risk of birth injuries has increased. The risk of premature birth has also increased. This is not something the state should encourage financially. The speed premium should be abolished in accordance with the investigation on a modern parental insurance, and therefore I move for approval of reservation 15.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, a sale of flowers is currently taking place – flowers that make a real difference. I am, of course, talking about the Mayflower.

One of this year's May flowers is missing one of its ten petals. I do not know if you have noticed this, but I was made aware of it yesterday. It is a reminder that one in ten lives in child poverty.

The Mayflower has made a difference for children since 1907. The founder Beda Hallberg was driven by a strong commitment to children and young people and wanted to give everyone the opportunity to contribute to a better and stronger society. The flower became a receipt for those who had donated money. What will your and my receipt be that shows that we have been involved and contributed to a better and stronger society?

Madam Speaker! I would like to immediately move for approval of the committee's proposed decision, that is, the rejection of all motions.

The family is the most important building block in society and the form of cohabitation 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, society does not function either. The family is a supporting pillar for a functioning society. In most cases, families manage to stand on their own feet financially as both parents have steady incomes and a stable economy. But it does not look like that for all families.

That is why we need an economic family policy that can step in and provide extra support where needs exist. In my and the Christian Democrats' eyes, the family is the most important pillar in the construction of society.

The starting point in family policy is to strengthen the economy of households with children and contribute to equal parenting. Family policy shall increase the opportunities for men and women to combine family life and work life, and family policy shall reduce the differences in economic standard of living between households.

The economic standard of families with children has improved over many years. I can only compare it with my own upbringing and the economic conditions that my parents had in the 60s and 70s.

But it is important to remember that not all households have experienced the positive economic improvement. No one has missed that inflation has driven up the cost of living in society. It has primarily affected already vulnerable households, and the current government takes this most seriously.

Madam Speaker! For the sake of the particularly vulnerable households, I am relieved that the Christian Democrats and the government have decided on a further extension during the year of the housing allowance's supplementary part, which was presented in the autumn budget this week.

The supplementary allowance is paid out automatically to families with children who receive housing allowance. During 2023, the supplementary allowance was increased from 25 percent to 40 percent of the preliminary housing allowance. The increase meant that the maximum amount of the supplementary allowance increased to 2,100 kronor per month instead of 1,325. You have already heard that.

The housing allowance and the supplementary allowance are calculated to reach approximately 103,000 families with children every month during 2024. It is 103,000 families with children who receive improved finances, of which a large majority are single women. The cost of extending the temporary supplementary allowance during this six-month period is estimated to be approximately 650 million kronor.

Madam Speaker! For the Christian Democrats, a parenthood where children get time with their parents is a decisive factor for what I initially touched upon – that the family is the most important cornerstone in society. Family policy should therefore provide more tools and room for flexibility, for example when it comes to the parental insurance. It has positive effects for both children as well as for women and men.

An example of a more flexible parental insurance is that the number of double days from July 1 is doubled to 60. This gives parents the opportunity for both to be at home with the children, share the responsibility and relieve each other. It is particularly important in periods when it can be extra tough for the family.

At the same time, an opportunity is introduced to transfer 90 parental days to a close relative. We have also heard that before. Certainly, it is as the saying goes: It took a whole village to raise a child. That relatives and friends can help and provide relief is a good opportunity for all parents but, again, perhaps especially for single parents. With early interventions where we support families, we can prevent problems and instead provide prevention.

The Christian Democrats welcome these changes but will, of course, continue to fight for a completely free parental insurance.

Madam Speaker! My children are now grown and will soon stand completely on their own feet. But as a parent, one never stops caring about their children. I hope that they experience having had a secure and reasonably well-functioning upbringing. It is something I wish that all children in Sweden should get to feel. It builds our society strong.

As a Christian Democrat, I will always work for a family policy that gives parents the best conditions to spend time with their children.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to state that we Sverigedemokrater stand by all our reservations.

The Swedish parental leave is very generous and flexible from an international perspective, especially considering that the leave also entails the right to return to the same job and the possibility of spreading the leave over a longer period.

The family is the fundamental community in society where children's well-being and security are built up. Being a parent involves a special responsibility, and it is of utmost importance that there are periods of leave to be with one's family.

The majority of all parents value free time with the family highly. From an international perspective, Sweden has a high proportion of parental leave days, and it truly shows that society values time with the family.

We know that family constellations look different, that every family's everyday life is unique and that the challenges for families with children can be many. Combining professional life with family life and making the life puzzle fit together can sometimes be difficult.

We Sweden Democrats would like families to have more options. Families should be free to make their own decisions about their everyday lives.

Madam Speaker! Family policy has begun to change course from mandatory reforms that limited the scope for action to placing a focus on more freedom of choice, so that it should be easier to organize work life around the family and the children's needs rather than according to the politicians' wishes.

We Sweden Democrats believe that more choices and flexibility reduce the stress of putting the family puzzle together.

We have ensured that the number of double days is now increased to 60 days, which will become a reality this summer. It is something that we Sverigedemokrater have included in our family policy for many years. It is about increasing the flexibility for families with children. It has turned out that the double days contribute to increased equal presence of both parents in the home and that they have had a positive effect on mothers' health.

I think this is a very good opportunity that is based on voluntariness rather than on compulsion and restrictions.

Madam Speaker! We Sweden Democrats also want to review the possibility of increasing the number of days at a child's birth that are commonly called paternity days. This would strengthen the family and enable it to form bonds during the first period after the birth.

Starting a family is something that will be felt economically. One needs to have a parental insurance that reduces the loss of income. There is an ongoing investigation into a more modern social insurance protection for pregnant women. It will be interesting to see what it results in.

In the shadow of inflation, many are in a tough economic situation. The temporary supplementary grant to families with children receiving housing allowance for those with low incomes has been extended and also increased. It is a tool that is immensely important in the work of helping the families who are having it the hardest right now, and it is pleasing that this opportunity is extended until December 31.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the point in the report concerning reserved days, I hereby wish to inform that we in the Sweden Democrats will primarily demand 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.

In the proposal that the Social Democrats and the Green Party stand behind, they want a more individualized parental leave, that is to say, more reserved days. This is something that the Left Party also proposes.

This is the opposite of what we 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 we 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 full confidence to dispose of the parental days freely.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! The fact is that food prices have skyrocketed enormously in our country by somewhere between 25 and 30 percent. This has caused many, not least families with children, to now have difficulty affording food - above all fruit and vegetables.

The party leader, Jimmie Åkesson, has told Swedish households that they should shop with the one who has better prices. So strange that the families with children had not thought of that before! For my part, I can answer that I have seven miles to grocery stores that could have better prices. There are, therefore, quite natural answers to that.

From the Social Democrats' side, I want to be very clear that we at least consider it to be the responsibility of politics, and not of the families with children, to ensure that families with children can afford to buy food and meet their most basic needs. Several countries similar to Sweden have taken various measures to ensure that the development of food prices is limited. Our party has, for example, proposed a food price commission. This was also mentioned during a seminar recently.

My question to the member is quite simply: Does the member agree with Jimmie Åkesson that the problem of families with children not being able to afford good food is a matter of shopping in cheaper grocery stores?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Sanne Lennström for the question.

I think the question is more complex than that. During this time, the government has also fought inflation quite hard. We are now beginning to see that inflation is moving in the right direction. Another part that we have prioritized in the budget is to combat the development that has occurred in fuel prices. This also makes things easier for families, not least families living in rural areas, and the transport of, above all, food and other products that families need becomes cheaper. It will curb the cost development. But to a large extent, it has been about the fact that we must fight inflation. As said, we are beginning to see improvements there.

The question is complex. If one has the option to shop in other stores, that is good, but there are many families with children living in the countryside, as Sanne Lennström says. In that case, the car is an alternative that we try to make it easier for families with children to utilize better, when there is no public transport.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Mr. Speaker! For us Social Democrats, this is a question of responsibility, as I mentioned earlier – responsibility for and care for families with children. One must have the means to provide their children with good food, which is very important so that they, for example, can manage their schooling.

It is about responsibility, but it is also about priorities – that is what absolutely everything in this chamber is about. Politics is about priorities. Do we want luxury rot and the removal of the plastic bag tax, or do we want to ensure that children can afford public transport to get to their first summer job? Do we want to give the banks even more excess profits, or do we want to increase the child allowance? For me as a Social Democrat, the answers to these questions are simple. The question of whether parents should be able to put good food on the table for their children is fundamental.

I would like to know why the Sweden Democrats were one of the parties that said no to the most proposals of those mentioned during the Save the Children seminar. Don't you think that the politics and you, as the largest party in the government support, have a responsibility? What do you think is the most important measure for our Swedish families with children to be able to afford good food on the table?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Sanne Lennström for her supplementary question.

The coalition parties presented an extension of the temporary supplementary grant in the year-end budget. We believe this has good accuracy. It is also worth mentioning that we strengthened this grant during the previous year and that it remains in place this year. For a family with children, it can mean up to 2,100 kronor extra per month. The supplementary grant is expected to reach around 103,000 families with children on average every month during 2024. We believe this is a good tool to support families in the economic situation we are currently in.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech, where I heard freedom of choice for families with children mentioned. I then wonder if freedom of choice for the Sweden Democrats is whether one should choose between eating oatmeal or noodles. That is, in fact, how reality looks for very many families with children in today's Sweden. In SD's and this government's Sweden, that is the reality.

For decades, households have not lost so much in disposable income. The price of the grocery bag has risen by 25 percent since 2021, housing costs by 26 percent. Your government is doing nothing to support households. Unfair tax cuts and increased standard deduction hardly help the single nursing assistant.

What you have given people instead is insecurity. The childcare worker who becomes sick leave due to wear and tear injuries will soon be disqualified from insurance. The construction worker who has become unemployed due to the now crashed housing market will soon receive lower compensation.

I ask, the member: Why is SD doing nothing to help families with children through the crisis?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Isabell Mixter for the question.

I still think that this government is doing quite a lot for families with children. As I have previously pointed out, inflation is something we have fought. It is heading in the right direction. Had we not fought inflation, families with children could have been hit much worse.

As I mentioned earlier, we are extending the temporary supplementary grant to families with children, and it shall apply for the rest of the year. We have also taken up the fight to try to press down fuel prices, which will make things easier for many families with children. Hopefully, the costs for food and other goods can also become a bit lower when we press the prices on fuels. It is also worth mentioning that the national standard for social assistance for 2024 has been increased by 8.7 percent compared to the previous year. For 2023, that figure was 8.6 percent. Many improvements are therefore being made.

Then the leader speaks about safety. Safety can be defined in very many different ways. This government has placed full focus on ensuring that innocent people are not affected by the ruthless violence we see. Strong action needs to be taken against the development in society involving gross violence that affects innocent people, including families with children, as in the horrific act committed just a few days ago. We are therefore doing a lot for safety in other ways as well.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that the Sweden Democrats think that one kind of security is very important, but that the other kind of security, which you have also promised your voters, means nothing once you have power. You have promised your voters to fight for the health insurance and the fund, but when you then have power, it is not so important.

For the Left Party as well, it is obviously extremely important that we put a stop to the crime that is now making people extremely insecure in their everyday lives. But that cannot mean that people should simultaneously be made economically insecure. I think it shows an extremely strange and deceptive attitude from the Sweden Democrats that they first promise to do certain things when they get into power but then do something completely different.

But back to the question that this is about! The government very often blames inflation and says that it is what has made it difficult. At the same time, one sets records in doing nothing to combat inflation and facilitate things for households with children. Other countries in Europe are doing things to combat the banks' excess profits, press down food prices, and ensure that electricity prices do not spiral out of control, but this government has done nothing. It obviously affects the households and the families with children.

What the government has actively done is other things. They have increased the standard deduction and lowered taxes. Those are funds that could have been used, for example, to increase the housing allowance more and ensure it reaches more people than it does today, or to increase the child allowance. But none of that has been done by the member's government. I still wonder what you are going to do to support households in the crisis.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Isabell Mixter for her supplementary questions. Regarding the health insurance, there is an investigation that is now to be sent out for consultation, so there is no proposal on the table.

Of course, it is a tough economic situation, but sometimes I can think that in Vänsterpartiet one stares oneself blind at just subsidies - that just that will be able to help everyone out of this crisis, but one is supposed to see this in other ways.

The way to achieve a stable economy is to get a job. We will therefore look at this in a different way; we will try to get parents into work. That is the long-term solution.

Of course, there must be a good safety net, and in the previous turn I explained what the government and Sverigedemokraterna are investing in, but it must also be worthwhile to work. There are examples of when the dependency on benefits becomes far too permanent.

There must be incentives to move from benefits to work. It is something everyone benefits from. That is how we must get out of this crisis in the long term.

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin my speech with some reflections on the motions we are discussing today in a specific respect, namely the parents' freedom to decide how they dispose of the parental leave. Then I will briefly present the Liberals' proposal in this area.

Mr. Speaker! The statutory distribution of the so-called reserved days has been one of the most debated parts of our parental leave, and this is mainly for two reasons.

One is that a politically determined distribution of these days encroaches on the family's right of self-determination, which for some is an unacceptable interference in the family's life.

The second reason is that the stated goal of the family policy - to contribute to more equal parenting - does not at all seem to be on track to be achieved. This means that those who are prepared to sacrifice the family's freedom of choice for the sake of equality are eager to go much further regarding the policy's involvement in the families' lives.

Mr. Speaker! In the motions we are discussing today, these two completely opposite positions are clearly represented. The Sweden Democrats want, in the committee motion A safe family policy with the child's best interests in focus, to abolish all political regulation in this area. Therefore, they simply want to abolish the reserved days for each parent and in that way, as it is written in the motion, "give back the freedom of choice to the families."

The proponents of the motion are well aware that such a freedom of choice could lead to a setback for gender equality, but in that regard, they point out that "freedom of choice for the family is a priority for us."

The Vänsterpartiet stands for the diametrically opposite position. In the committee motion A stronger economic family policy, the party proposes that one should "reform the parental leave so that it is shared equally between the parents, without the possibility of transferring days." This anti-freedom line is not at all surprising for a party with the background that Vänsterpartiet has.

Mr. Speaker! Even more surprising is that the same anti-freedom stance is put forward by a prominent Social Democrat, namely the former Minister for Social Affairs and Social Security, Annika Strandhäll, in the motion Individualiserad föräldraförsäkring. Member Strandhäll argues that a completely "individualized parental leave is one of the most important equality reforms to achieve equality between women and men."

It is an echo from another time – the time when it was believed that the state from above could arrange the right life for the citizens. In those times, human liberation was to be achieved through the care of politics, the state, and social engineering. Thus, the individual was to be made free from their own shortcomings in a way that recalls Jean-Jacques Rousseau's words in *The Social Contract*: the person who opposes the general will would, as he says, be forced to be free, that is to say, be liberated from the inescapable flaws of their own will.

Mr. Speaker! In several other of the motions we are dealing with today, a more cautious line is taken in the same spirit, where the aim is to increase political involvement without completely erasing all freedom of choice for families.

It is about expanding the reserved days by dividing the parental leave days into three equal parts, where one third would be tied to each parent and the remaining one third would be free for both parents to dispose of. This is what is advocated in the Social Democrats' and the Green Party's respective committee motions, but also, to my surprise, in the motion presented by Martin Ådahl, the Center Party's economic-policy spokesperson and member of the executive committee. I raise this because such a proposal does not align with the party's official position, nor with the Center Party's committee motion, where it is emphasized that the party does not want to "micro-manage people's private lives."

Mr. Speaker! The Government is, as stated in the budget bill for 2024, fully aware that "the length of parental leave is very unequally distributed" but proposes no changes regarding the distribution of the days compensated by the parental insurance. Further reducing families' freedom of choice to achieve a higher level of equality is, of course, not a given.

Mr. Speaker! Let me now turn to the Liberals' approach to this genuine dilemma between parental freedom and the pursuit of a more equal utilization of the parental leave.

We are convinced that it is possible to achieve both more freedom of choice and more equality, but then we must be prepared to think outside the framework of the current system. For far too long, the debate 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 both a freer and more equal parenthood.

Mr. Speaker! The parental insurance was introduced in 1974 and has since been 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 been constant, despite the gender equality deficiencies and despite the fact that major social changes have occurred since the introduction.

Therefore, it is time to think anew regarding the parental leave. We Liberals have already previously in this chamber touched upon the ideas that could guide a long-term reform effort in this area. In our committee motion from the parliamentary year 2021/22, Liberal principles for a modern, flexible and equal parental leave, we highlight the following principles that could constitute a suitable starting point for a modernized parental leave:

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 at 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 an equal parenthood with great freedom of choice for the families.

For the fourth, the parental leave should take into account the families' differences and a post-industrial economy, where some are employed in a traditional way while many others are self-employed, freelancers or gig workers.

Mr. Speaker! Based on these fundamental principles, we have sketched out the basis 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 for women. Furthermore, we want to strengthen the drive for equal responsibility through a more generous vab-compensation.

Mr. Speaker! In concrete terms, we want to strengthen the principle of income loss so that the parental insurance truly becomes what it is intended to be: an insurance for lost income. Therefore, the 90 so-called minimum days shall be removed.

The tax funds used for 90 days at the minimum level should instead be used to provide the income-based sickness benefit for a significantly shorter period. In plain terms, this means a shorter parental leave but with much better income protection. It strengthens the families' finances during the parental leave while simultaneously strengthening the parents' connection to the labor market.

We also want to start from the premise that families with children are different and have different needs and priorities. While some parents want to be at home for a long time with the children, others want to be able to return to gainful employment a bit earlier. But today's parental insurance provides the same number of days to all parents, regardless of whether they request exactly that number or not.

We want instead to increase the freedom of choice for families with children by being inspired by the Norwegian model. In Norway, parents can choose the level of the compensation, which in turn affects the number of parental days. Norwegian parental pairs can choose between receiving 100 percent of the salary in compensation for 49 weeks or 80 percent of the salary for 59 weeks.

Our proposal is that a similar freedom of choice shall be introduced in Sweden. Our target is that the replacement rate shall be 100 percent in the shorter track and 70 percent in the longer one. Experiences from Norway indicate that a shorter but more generous parental leave strengthens women's connection to the labor market and thus improves economic equality.

Mr. Speaker! The only freedom of choice that exists in today's parental leave is that the parents have the possibility to distribute a certain number of days between themselves. Our proposal increases the flexibility in a new way and thus strengthens the families' freedom of choice.

At the same time, we in the Liberals want to shorten the period during which parental leave can be utilized. Our proposal is that the majority of the parental leave days can be used until the child has turned two years old. The remainder shall be able to be used until the end of the year in which the child becomes school-bound, that is, six years, given that preschool is now compulsory. The reason we want to tighten the time limits is that we want to invest the resources during the time when they are needed most.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals were the initiators of earmarking a certain amount of time for each guardian and have also contributed to gradually increasing this earmarking. The number of earmarked days is today 90 days per guardian.

Our proposal does not include increasing the number of earmarked days further.

Mr. Speaker! These are some of the fundamental principles of the liberal path towards a reformed parental leave, which in the long term can contribute to a more equal and freer society. We hope that this can lead to a productive conversation about the need for a modernized parental leave now that our old system turns 50 years old.

Last but not least, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mauricio Rojas, for 15 minutes of interesting lecture on thoughts regarding the parental leave!

Much of it aligns with what the Center Party has proposed, and there are also motions from our side. I note, however, that Mauricio Rojas calls for the rejection of all of the Center Party's proposals, including how the parental insurance should be adapted for entrepreneurs, so that it becomes easier to be an entrepreneur while being a parent, and including the possibility of removing the minimum days and so on.

There is just one thing that I am really reacting to, and that is that the Liberals apparently propose that we should shorten today's parental leave. First, Mauricio Rojas says that it is important that it is based on the children's needs. Today, the parental leave is sufficient to be home with one's children for approximately one year, but the Liberals think this is far too long. Instead, the financial compensation should be increased and the parental leave shortened.

My first question to Mauricio Rojas is: How much should it be shortened? Should it go down to nine months, six months or perhaps just three months? It would be very interesting to hear how the deliberations have gone.

We have here listened to a long series of demands for changes to the parental insurance. Many of them are very interesting, but I note that none of them are found in either the government's statement or the Tidö Government's reform agenda. That leads to my second question: Did you in the Liberals not propose all of this when you sat there at the castle and negotiated, or were you completely overridden and had all your good proposals for reforming the parental insurance struck out?

It would be interesting to get answers to these questions, I think.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! The member, or the party that the member represents, also wants to reduce the parental leave days. We agree that the 90 minimum days shall be removed. This is in the Center Party's motion, so there we agree.

What the Center Party perhaps has not considered is to change the system fundamentally. We can see that the Norwegian model has yielded very large gains in terms of equality. If I remember correctly, 45 percent of the men took as many days off as the women, and this is fantastic in comparison to the Swedish reality.

What I spoke about for 15 or 14 minutes was our long-term view on the parental leave. It is not included in what the government proposes today, but we distinguish between that and our long-term vision, where there is, of course, much that coincides with the Center Party's ideas.

What we have achieved is what is stated in the budget bill, but we would like to go a different - slightly longer - path than the other parties. I believe it would be very possible for Centerpartiet to go that way with us.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! What is strange is to stand in the chamber at this late hour and describe this as a development of the parental leave while simultaneously demanding the rejection of all proposals that would steer in that direction in the short term.

Furthermore, it is clear that this has not been pushed at all in the government negotiations, because we do not see a trace of the changes if we look at the government bill or the documents that come from the government's side. My question therefore remains. Either one can request approval for the proposals that nevertheless go in the Liberals' direction in a number of areas, or one must push it via the government. But there it is apparently a dead end, because none of what Mauricio Rojas has proposed is found in the government's policy at all.

As I see it, it can be due to two things, Mr. Speaker. One is that this was a formal speech held in the chamber, where one describes how one wants to change the parental leave over many, many years, but not something one is pushing sharply in government negotiations. The other is well, that the Liberals have also presented their policy in this issue and that the Sweden Democrats have then said no, so that nothing came of it.

It would be interesting to hear how Mauricio Rojas views this. He gave an interesting presentation, but how does it align with current politics and the possibility of turning the ideas into reality?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the members for their questions and objections.

At this late hour, we are at least in agreement that both Centerpartiet and Liberalerna want to shorten the parental leave days by eliminating the 90 days with the lowest compensation. We want to use these funds to reduce the loss of income during the other parental leave days.

It is very clear that there is no majority formed by the Center Party and the Liberals in this Riksdag today. When there is one, we will certainly be able to do much more of this. As long as there is no majority, we must accommodate the political reality that exists. There are other parties that form governments and constitute government bases, and no other party in the chamber would stand behind such a thorough reform of the parental insurance.

It is, however, an idea we raise so that perhaps in the future an opening may arise where it is realized that our current system really has very large problems. It has not helped particularly much regarding equality. The parental leave is very long, but it is utilized in a way that was not actually intended. The intention was, in fact, to create a much more equal parental leave, and that we have not achieved. We also do not want to go the path that Vänsterpartiet and other parties want to go, that is to say, to further restrict parents' freedom of choice.

I think, therefore, that we are quite in agreement with the Center Party, but we have to wait until we get a solid majority here in the Riksdag.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Elisabeth Svantesson argues that the government supports the weakest families with children by extending the temporary increase of the housing allowance, but it is also the only thing this government does to support families with children. The government and the Sweden Democrats are failing Swedish families with children.

The government wants to see contribution ceilings and a return to mass insurance in the health insurance. They lower the allowance and watch as construction plummets and unemployment rises. When parents become poor, the children also become poor. The government must set some kind of record in doing as little as possible for households in the economic crisis. While other European countries have acted against the high electricity prices, food prices, and the banks' excess profits, this government has stood passively by.

Mr. Speaker! What does it look like for households? Closer to 1.7 million people in Sweden live in households that lack a cash buffer, that is, the ability to pay an unforeseen expense of at least 13,000 kronor. That is 20 percent of all households in the country. Of single women with children, it was as large a proportion as 57 percent who lacked a cash buffer. More than a quarter of single women with children cannot afford to go on a week's holiday or spend a small sum on themselves.

In a survey conducted this year by Rädda Barnen, Röda Korset, Hyresgästföreningen, and Majblomman, we can see what the situation is today for families with children and families with lower incomes. In the survey, 42 percent of single parents state that they have had to borrow money to be able to pay basic expenses during the last six months. This is a sharp increase from last year.

The survey shows that 41 percent would be able to manage increased expenses of at most 1,000 kronor before it becomes difficult to pay the bills, which is also a significant increase compared to last year's survey. Of the single parents, 46 percent have not been able to afford to buy nutritious food every day of the week, and 20 percent have not been able to afford to eat until full on one or more occasions during the last six months. Taken together, these figures show an extreme situation for many families - a situation that has also worsened during the year.

The temporary increase of the housing allowance was introduced during the pandemic. Now, four years have passed, and the increase is still presented as a novelty in the budget bills. It is fascinating in itself. Today, it is approximately 170,000 households that are reached by the housing allowance. In 1997, it was 365,000. The number of people receiving the allowance decreases every year because the income levels are not automatically adjusted. If no decisions are made to raise the income limit, soon no one will be eligible for the housing allowance.

This is happening at the same time as we have seen record increases in rent levels and housing costs. The housing allowance therefore needs to be indexed both in terms of allowance levels and income levels. Vänsterpartiet wants to see a new model for the housing allowance. The cost of housing has increased sharply, and many households are under economic pressure. The housing allowance needs to be raised permanently and constructed so that other incomes, for example social assistance, are not automatically lowered when the housing allowance is raised.

Furthermore, a higher income qualifying for benefits should be accepted so that more people can be entitled to benefits and to higher benefits. The upper limit for which housing costs qualify for benefits also needs to be raised. Today, the absolute majority of recipients have housing costs that exceed the upper limit, which means they are only compensated with a small part of the housing cost. Additionally, the amounts for the income qualifying for benefits and the housing cost should be indexed according to price and income developments so that the values are not eroded.

We believe that households without children should also be able to receive housing allowance. The sharp rent increases combined with very low construction mean that more and more people find it difficult to afford their housing. It is a political task to take responsibility for that.

Mr. Speaker! I was very pleasantly surprised when six of the eight parliamentary parties responded that they want the housing allowance to follow the cost development. This was at a conference organized by precisely the Red Cross, Save the Children, the Tenants' Association, and Majblomman on March 20. Thus, there is a majority for this in the Swedish Parliament, and therefore I proposed a committee initiative on it in the committee and assumed that we could easily reach an agreement on this issue. Unfortunately, I can state that the parties – Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet excepted – did not stick to what they had promised and said to the organizations.

Mr. Speaker! This year, the Swedish parental insurance marks 50 years. It is a reform to be proud of. It has made it possible for women to be both parents and work. It is a reform for freedom for women.

But we cannot be satisfied. When women have children, an income gap arises between women and men that persists until the child turns nine. The income gap means that women lose an average of 50,000 kronor per year. There are, of course, several reasons for the income gap, but a significant part is that women take the larger share of both paid and unpaid parental leave.

The development towards a more equal uptake of parental leave is slow. Today, 30 percent is taken by men if one counts the paid parental leave days. If one also takes into account unpaid days, it looks more unequal. Since 2018, the development has essentially stood still.

That men still take out such a small share of the parental leave plays a role for women's incomes, wage development, and future pensions. It is time that after 50 years with the parental leave to take the next step and individualize the parental leave.

On July 1, the government's nanny reform will be introduced, which means that 90 parental days will be able to be transferred to another person. Many referral bodies have been very critical of the government's legislative change and pointed out that this risks making us move further away from the goal of equality, that it opens up for a marketization of the parental insurance, and that it could lead to increased fraud.

The proposal that the government has implemented comes from a larger inquiry into the parental insurance. Now, the government has chosen to proceed with one proposal from the inquiry and completely ignored the other proposals, which move in the direction of increased equality. One can only congratulate all the well-off who will now be able to hire a nanny for money from the parental insurance.

Mr. Speaker! Since 2000, the number of child households with a low economic standard has doubled. This is due, among other things, to the reduced redistributive effect of family allowances. The child allowance and the housing allowance need to be price-indexed. The child allowance has been eroded in connection with the rapid price increases on basic goods. In the autumn budget, Vänsterpartiet proposed an increase of the child allowance by 400 kronor per child. This would mean 800 kronor more per month for a single mother with two children. It would make a big difference for her and other parents who are now struggling to make ends meet.

It is about priorities. The government's message has been that one can do nothing to support households, as it is inflation-driving. At the same time, we have seen how other countries act to support households. It has also gone perfectly well for the government to lower the tax and increase the standard deduction. These funds could have been used for something else, for example, increased child allowance and housing allowance.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 25.

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

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Mixter, for the speech!

I reacted when I heard the irrelevant accusations against our Minister for Finance and expressions that the government would betray families with children and that the only thing being done is to extend the supplementary grant within the housing allowance.

Firstly, the supplementary allowance within the housing allowance for families with children is not so "just". It is about over 2,000 kronor extra per month for a family. The government also has a number of reforms and, above all, a strong focus on combating inflation, which is absolutely crucial if one is to be able to stop the price increases that the member mentioned, which put many in a tough situation. If this is to be dealt with, the government must continue to combat inflation, and that is something one is well on the way to succeeding with.

In addition to this with the housing allowance, the government has made a historic increase - of over 8 percent - regarding the national standard within the social assistance both in 2023 and 2024. One has also ensured to implement reforms for lowering fuel prices, which many families with children are affected by.

It is not least about the work line. Children deserve to see their parents go to work. To set requirements is also to care, Member Mixter.

Given this enthusiasm for the subsidy line, I must ask: Does Member Mixter think that Sweden has too many people who work?

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Lundkvist, for the questions!

Vänsterpartiet does not really think that Sweden has too many people working. That is why we view it with very great concern that unemployment is now rising. It is also this that we criticize the government for – one stands totally helpless in the economic situation that Sweden is currently in. Sweden is heading into a recession. Construction is plummeting, and we see that many more of those who are affiliated with, for example, Byggnads have gone into unemployment. It is your government's responsibility to ensure that investments come that allow people to go to a job.

I think Member Lundkvist has a very strange attitude when she implies that those who now need, for example, the housing allowance just have to go and work a bit more. That is not how reality looks. An extremely large number of single women toil day in and day out. They might work as an assistant nurse at a hospital that is now forced to lay off masses of staff because your budget for the regions is insufficient. They toil and work hard, and what they get back is that you say they should work more. I think it is terribly offensive.

We see now that the majority of single parents cannot afford the basic things needed for them to be able to take care of their children. In that case, there is something broken in the system. It cannot be that 57 percent of single parents need to work more for this to be resolved. There must be political reforms to facilitate things for families with children. What does MP Lundkvist want to do for them?

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

Eleonore Lundkvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the regions. The government is adding 6 billion extra to the regions in the tough economic situation that prevails. There is a large supplement there to meet the development. Then every region needs to do a job - even left-led regions.

The left-wing policy with increased subsidies is neither new nor good. On the contrary, it risks making us all poorer if it fuels inflation.

The Chairman mentioned the economy. If we are to succeed in turning the economy around, the government must continue its hard work to combat inflation, and we are on our way to getting rid of it. However, it is truly bad timing for the subsidy line right now, and it will be so moving forward as well.

We must continue to increase the incentives to work. It is absolutely not about people being lazy, but it is about that we must constantly see if it pays off enough to work. Does it pay off to take a job and to work those extra hours?

As I mentioned earlier, this is important for the entire welfare state. If we can increase tax revenues and bring in more money so that we can continue to strengthen healthcare and schools - the core activities, quite simply - more tax money must come in, and then more people must work.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to remind Member Lundkvist that the committee has a common goal for the area of economic family policy. It is to level economic differences between families with children and those who are not families with children.

It places certain demands on us as politicians to live up to it. Now we see how the differences are increasing and how more and more families with children have difficulty putting food on the table for their children. They have difficulty affording the rent, they have difficulty buying clothes that are adapted to the season, and they have difficulty paying leisure fees.

It must be the task of politics to ensure that people can make their daily lives work when they have done everything they can and when they have a job, or for that matter if they cannot work. If they happen to have become ill from their work, there must still be conditions for all children in this country to be able to grow up with reasonable conditions. If the government and the Moderaterna do not think so, then I think that is a very big problem. If they think it is okay for children to grow up in poverty in this country, then I think we have a very big problem in this chamber. But if they think it is reasonable that all children should be given good conditions to have a decent upbringing, they must ensure that the benefits we have in our systems, such as the child allowance and the housing allowance, actually keep pace with developments. They are not indexed benefits, which causes them to be eroded. And if nothing is done, they will be completely meaningless in a couple of decades.

The Moderates may perhaps need to consider whether they think it is okay with child poverty or if they think it should not exist. There is a fairly clear choice there.

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

Anders W Jonsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! That children are our future is repeated so often that it sounds a bit like a cliché. But it is still difficult to argue against it. It is precisely for that reason that economic family policy, schools, children's healthcare, and the social services' family care are such incredibly important building blocks for a strong future in a country.

Many countries in the world have for a long time struggled with major challenges in declining birth rates. Sweden has been at a high level, even though it is unfortunately now falling here as well. There are many explanations for why we have had relatively high birth rates. A Swedish woman has given birth to almost two children. But it is clear that the child allowance and the parental insurance are important parts. The child allowance gives everyone a basic security, and the parental insurance in combination with an expanded preschool has meant that Swedish women do not need to do what women in many other countries need to do, namely to choose between on one hand work and on the other hand family and children.

This is not the case in other countries. Large parts of the OECD area have had low birth rates for a long time. I want to remember that Japan is one of the hardest-hit countries, where they have even calculated when the last Japanese person will pass away. Low birth rates are completely devastating for a country. It means fewer people of working age who are to support an ever-growing older generation, not only economically but also in care and nursing.

I would like to say that the economic family policy in Sweden works very well in large parts. There are some areas where it is completely obvious from the debate here that there are different ideological views. There are also a number of areas where one should make smaller corrections.

The first contradiction, of course, concerns whether the parental leave benefit should be quota-based or not. We in Centerpartiet are well aware that the skewed distribution of parental leave claims has consequences for gender equality. Women generally receive a lower lifetime income and thus also a lower pension. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not want to solve this through quota-based systems. Quota-based systems interfere with the family's right to make decisive life decisions and can unfortunately, not least for the children, have unwanted negative consequences.

It is also entirely possible, based on today's rules, to divide the number of days exactly equally between the parents. What is it then that determines that it becomes so unequal? Some claim it is the regulatory framework. But it is also the collective valuation, both among many men and among many women, that it should look the way it does. If one had other values, men and women would, of course, be at home equally much.

Centerpartiet wants to influence this through an equality bonus for those parents who share the parental leave 40/60. In motions treated in this report, we also propose an equality bonus when it comes to the temporary parental leave. We also think it is important that Försäkringskassan uses modern methods to provide parents with correct information when they are to choose how they should make withdrawals of parental leave, or for that part of vab, and what economic consequences this has for the future regarding salary development and pension.

Mr. Speaker! Taking parental leave can be particularly difficult for a group, and it is those who run a company. We stand by our demand that it must be possible for entrepreneurs to carry out certain limited administrative and managerial activities in their company during the parental leave without losing the parental leave benefit for that reason. The purpose of the parental leave benefit is, in fact, to facilitate family life when one has small children and that one should not be away from the labor market for too long, as it affects both livelihood 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.

When it comes to the housing allowance, which is another important building block, some changes should also be made. 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 risk putting families with children into debt. A mother who is unemployed during the spring and receives housing allowance, but manages to get a job during the autumn, can risk becoming liable for repayment and thus end up in debt if the reconciliation is done annually. Those who have the greatest need for allowance and support to manage their livelihood thus risk, due to the regulatory framework, ending up in debt.

Children can also have special, dedicated assets such as inheritance, which cannot be disposed of before the age of 18, or crime victim compensation. It is not reasonable, Mr. Speaker, that these financial means should reduce economically vulnerable families' opportunity to receive housing allowance.

A third such area concerns the fact that young people living in families that are benefit-dependent must be encouraged to try to get jobs. Therefore, those who get their first job must be able to earn from it. The family must also earn from it. Therefore, we must allow that the incomes of young people in these situations 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 parts of the housing allowance to deal with, 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 circumstances is forced to calculate the number of days to manage their livelihood. This creates completely unnecessary conflicts.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to say a few words about the child allowance. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Center Party was proactive in introducing the universal and equal child allowance. It was and remains a very important part of the basic security. But, Mr. Speaker, it is less suitable when it comes to temporarily compensating families in economically difficult times. A never so small increase in the child allowance, let's say by 100 kronor per child per month, costs more than 1 billion kronor. Therefore, in these situations, one must use more accurate instruments that can be used for the small group that is having a really hard time. A temporary increase in the housing allowance is therefore a wise way to go.

Mr. Speaker! I finally wish to move for the approval of reservation 3.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Last week, 40,000 children across the country went out onto the streets, squares, and between the houses to sell cornflowers. There are probably many of us who have a small collection at home or who remember what it was like to sell cornflowers ourselves as children. This year's flower is purple, or violet-colored. It was designed by 16-year-old Alexis, who has a best friend named Viola, whom she met at a theater camp. I have it on my lapel today.

The cornflower gives children in families with small margins an opportunity to get that little extra, a childhood without poverty. This flower has ten petals. This year, cornflowers are also sold with only nine petals – one petal is missing. That petal symbolizes all the children who live in poverty.

One in ten children in Sweden lives in economic vulnerability. That is not how we should have it in a welfare country. It is up to the politics and to us politicians to change this - to fight child poverty by all means. We owe it to the children, and it is also mandated by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been Swedish law for a couple of years now.

According to Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all children have the right to the standard of living necessary for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral, and social development. Nevertheless, thousands of children live in economic vulnerability in Sweden today, according to Save the Children.

Save the Children's latest report is from 2021. It shows that even though child poverty is receding, albeit weakly, the economic gaps in Sweden are increasing. The Swedish Red Cross's report on basic humanitarian needs in Sweden came earlier this year. The message is that economic vulnerability in Sweden is increasing, especially in the groups of single parents with children – primarily women, naturally – and families with children with low income.

These are alarm bells sounding into this chamber. For it is we who sit here right now, members of the Social Insurance Committee, perhaps with a special focus on economic family policy, who have access to the tools needed to prevent children in Sweden from suffering.

One can also note that the government in a fairly recent report from the National Audit Office – it arrived just a month ago – receives criticism for the lack of efforts to strengthen compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

To counter child poverty and the growing inequalities in society, we would naturally need a new tax policy and a new economic policy. This is in the long term. But we urgently need a crisis commission to combat child poverty.

Miljöpartiet has proposals in this motion report. We want to secure and strengthen the protection for those who have small margins. We want to raise the levels for the child allowance, maintenance support, and housing allowance. We need to make the temporary supplement to the housing allowance for families with children permanent. It is not enough to just extend it term after term in the way it is being done now. Families need long-term security.

These supports naturally also need to be inflation-proofed. They need to be linked to indices so that they are adjusted upwards automatically in line with price increases. And for them to have an effect and be accurate, the increase must be protected so that it is not offset against the subsistence support.

Regarding the housing allowance, we are also waiting for the government to follow the BUMS investigation's proposals and introduce more frequent, for example monthly, reconciliations of the housing allowance so that we do not unnecessarily indebt people and families.

Mr. Speaker! The parental insurance enables parents, mothers and fathers, to be at home with their children. But above all, it enables the children to be with their parents and have a secure and good first time in life. This is what we shall safeguard.

But the parental leave also has a purpose when it comes to equality: equal parenting. It is also a key to an equal working life and equal lives.

We must achieve a more even distribution of the parental days. We need a regulatory framework that ensures that fathers take a larger share of the responsibility. We need to continue to individualize the parental insurance so that children in mother-father families get access to both of their parents during their first years of life and so that more children get a close relationship with their fathers.

This is also the only functioning way to achieve equal pensions. We know that men's and women's wages keep pace throughout life, until the first child. There, women lose out in wage development and never catch up with the men throughout their working lives - with a lower pension as a result.

A more individualized parental leave does not mean reducing freedom of choice, on the contrary. Women take approximately three times as much parental leave as men. If we also include unpaid leave, the gap becomes even larger. Is this a matter of freedom of choice, or is it a matter of norms and social pressure from employers, colleagues, friends and acquaintances and of expectations? Yes, of course! It is about norms, and legislation governs norms. We have seen many examples of this, not least when it comes to parental leave. Individualization and equal parenting is not a lack of freedom, but on the contrary, it opens up for a freedom that is good for men and women, mothers and fathers, society and children, who need both their parents – or all their parents in cases where they are not just two.

Miljöpartiet therefore wants to divide the parental leave into three parts. The parental days should be earmarked so that at least one third is used by each parent, while one third should be able to be used freely by the guardians or transferred to another adult who is part of the child's family. But this needs to be done in the right way. The government's policy, which allows transfer to almost anyone, risks becoming a failure. I am relatively new, or new-old, in this committee, but I have followed the debate. There has been talk of both nanny services and babysitters who are themselves children, but also about how this opens the door for extensive fraud and vulnerabilities. The government's reform for transfer risks, as it looks now, not to consider either the child's perspective or equality.

Mr. Speaker! The new law is to enter into force at the mid-year turn, as I understand it. It should be withdrawn or at least supplemented so that it ensures that there are no nanny services and that the system does not open up for crime.

The speed premium in the parental leave should also be removed. That system has been shown to have some negative health effects.

Mr. Speaker! I will also say a few words about an issue that may not be directly covered by this committee report but which nevertheless has great importance for a functioning family life and for mothers and fathers to be able to spend time with their children, namely shorter working hours. It is an issue that has followed Miljöpartiet since day one in the party's history, I believe. And finally, we see that it is gaining momentum. Many actors are talking about shorter working hours right now.

If you spend less time at work but still probably get as much done, you get more time for other things: rest, leisure, family. But it is also an effective tool for reducing stress. Work-related stress is the most common cause of sick leave. It is a cost that must be borne by our social insurance systems. It is bad for the employers, the individual who is affected, and the whole family.

Among the occupational groups that are hit hardest, we find the staff in health and social care. Despite the Prime Minister's promises, we now see across the country that the regions are letting go of staff in healthcare. The pressure on those who remain naturally becomes even harder, with additional stress and sick leaves as a consequence.

We need to make these professions - the care professions, the contact professions - more attractive and lure more people into care, not give those who are there the boot because of the government's stingy budget. The 6 billion that were presented in the spring budget on Monday are not enough at all.

Mr. Speaker! I will conclude by raising some parts from the Green Party's motion on strengthening the rights of children fleeing to Sweden. An ambition from the Sweden Democrats that was driven during the last parliamentary term and has now made its way into the Tidö Agreement is to make benefits citizen-based, which today are settlement-based, and that newcomers should qualify themselves into the welfare system.

In Miljöpartiets Sverige, all families registered in Sweden have the right to welfare, including refugees and those in need of protection. This applies to the right to, for example, parental leave, child allowance, multi-child supplement, and housing allowance, but also additional cost compensation and care allowance for children with disabilities.

Creating laws that exclude is something that is based on a fundamentally anti-human thinking that Miljöpartiet strongly distances itself from.

It is also a dangerous path to take to send signals that Sweden is a hostile country and that Swedes are a hostile people - in order to "reduce the factors of attraction", as it states in the Tidö Agreement.

Sweden has gone from being one of Europe's most open countries to becoming one of the most refugee-hostile countries in Europe, this while horrific wars flare up in our vicinity and at the same time as people die in small boats in the Mediterranean.

I myself am a second-generation refugee. My mother fled as a four-year-old together with her parents – that is, my grandparents – and two younger sisters in a small boat across the sea. They came to Sweden in 1944 as one of the approximately 30,000 Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians who fled the Soviet Union. Today, well, no one would suggest that we should deport people to the communist Soviet Union. They were not war refugees but political refugees. They quickly became established in the new country, Sweden. They did well here. Someone might perhaps say too well, that they were economic refugees.

With the right-conservative government that Sweden has today, they would have been denied access to welfare. Establishment would have been hindered, and they would probably also have been sent back when the humanitarian protection ground is restricted and the list of safe countries is transferred from the agency to the Government Offices.

Mr. Speaker! In a time when the alarm bells are ringing, we have a government whose policies make more, not fewer, children poor.

I support all of the Environment Party's motions, but I will now content myself with moving for approval of reservation 4.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 April.)

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