Economic family policy

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating economic family policy, an area that touches upon some of the most important values in Swedish politics. How do we view responsibility? How do we view children and family? How do we build a society where people not only receive help and support when needed but also the freedom and the opportunity to stand on their own two feet and live their lives as they wish and as it best fits their everyday puzzle?

It is also an area where the dividing lines are clear. On one hand, we have the left's proposals for increased general grants, more state micro-management, and increased bureaucracy. On the other hand, we have the Moderaternas line, which means strengthening families' freedom, increasing the precision of the support systems, and safeguarding the work principle. We are convinced that it is the individual family that is best at making decisions to make the everyday puzzle fit together. The state should support, not rule.

Mr. Speaker! The parental insurance is one of the most important security systems we have. It has made it possible for parents in Sweden to combine professional life with parenthood in a way that few other countries can match. It is flexible, generous and secure, but it is not perfect. It needs to continue to be reformed and modernized, not least to be adapted to how families actually look today.

That is why I am proud of the freedom reforms that the Moderate-led government has implemented. The number of double days has doubled, which gives families more time together during the most vulnerable period after a child's birth. The possibility to transfer up to 90 days to a close relative is a long-awaited reform for single parents, entrepreneurs, and rainbow families.

Mr. Speaker! Let me remind you that these are reforms that the opposition painted as the beginning of a systemic collapse. But how did it turn out? There were a few thousand transfers – the vast majority to grandparents. It is about improvements for parents in real-life situations, about mothers who need support and about children who need security. Thanks to the Moderate-led government, these families have now received increased flexibility and better opportunities to combine family life with work.

Mr. Speaker! The report also addresses the government's communication regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the housing allowance. The criticism is clear. The system is too blunt, is too easy to exploit, and leads to too many clawbacks. It is not worthy of a welfare society. Therefore, the government is now implementing important improvements.

By, for example, introducing monthly data linked to the employer declarations, we get a system based on current income, not on estimates. This makes the housing allowance more accurate and reduces the clawbacks. This is real reform policy: less waste of taxpayers' money, less bureaucracy, and greater accuracy.

Mr. Speaker! We must have security systems that help those who truly need them, not systems that nourish criminals and organized crime. Unfortunately, we see today that several of our benefits and insurances are vulnerable to benefit fraud. One example is the temporary parental leave, vab, which is particularly vulnerable. Benefit fraud is unfortunately not a new problem, but we see how it is taking up increasingly larger proportions.

The government has therefore given Försäkringskassan sharper tools, with possibilities to freeze assets, and access to more data from Skatteverket. Countering benefit fraud is an important priority for the Moderate-led government, and more tools to reach criminals who exploit the welfare systems are on the way, such as sanction fees for those who cheat and even disqualification for those who systematically commit benefit fraud. It is not just an economic issue; it is a matter of justice and trust. Every time someone cheats with vab, parental leave, or housing allowance, it is a betrayal of the taxpayers and of the families with children who truly are in need of the support.

Mr. Speaker! It is worth reminding oneself that family policy is not just subsidy policy. For us Moderates, the goal is not to make people dependent on the state but to make them free to stand on their own feet. Therefore, the work line is central. A strong work line is the most powerful tool we have to combat child poverty, to reduce inequality, and to strengthen security.

Children who grow up in families where the parents work have better school results, better health, and better future prospects. We know that, and therefore we say no to subsidy policies that make it less profitable to work, no matter how well-intentioned it sounds in the debate.

It is through work, not more benefits, that people get out of poverty. Therefore, we want more people to move from benefits to work and let those who work keep more of their wages through lower taxes on work.

At the same time, we see how the Social Democrats, together with their coalition partners on the left, worsen the economy for those who work in municipalities and regions where the left rules. A nurse in Stockholm will, with the Moderaternas policy, be able to keep approximately 10,000 kronor more per year in 2025 than in 2023. The Social Democrats' priority is rather to raise taxes and take more of that same nurse's salary. At the same time, they worsen the service, raise the cost of public transport, and close life-saving eating disorder care. The priorities become clear.

Mr. Speaker! We know that the left-wing parties in this debate will raise that the child allowance should be increased. But for whom? Should it be increased for everyone, regardless of whether one is a nurse or a Member of Parliament and regardless of how much one earns? It is not targeted. We propose instead tax cuts that strengthen the finances of low- and middle-income earners. It is long-term policy that strengthens households, not temporary symbolic measures.

We also know that large parts of the opposition want to spend billions on various subsidy increases. It sounds generous – it might feel good in the stomach. But it is money we do not have.

The opposition's policy does not solve the fundamental problems. It reinforces them and risks making even more people dependent on benefits. We Moderates, instead, strengthen the opportunities for people to live on their wages.

Mr. Speaker! Our policy is fundamentally simple. We want diligence and effort to pay off. We believe that security requires responsibility. We believe that people, including parents, in the vast majority of cases can make wise decisions about their own lives, if they are given the right conditions. That is why we say no to more state-mandated instructions and more regulated days in the parental insurance and yes to increased flexibility, freedom for families to design their own everyday lives, and a welfare system where support goes to those who truly need it.

With this, I conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare, Mats Sander and Viktor Wärnick (all M) concurred.

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by highlighting some of the things that Member Högström just spoke about. It is remarkable to stand in the speaker's chair in this chamber and spread what Caroline surely thinks herself is information, but which in reality are direct falsehoods.

To just mention one such: the Social Democrats in Stockholm are alleged to be shutting down healthcare. It concerns healthcare that actually has not functioned. We are talking about individual eating disorder clinics that have repeatedly overbilled Region Stockholm and owe the region over 50 million kronor. The member is therefore standing here and defending them. It is easy to do when one starts from talking points that circulate within the Moderate Party. I hear that type of rhetoric in all issues. It is noticeable that this government is under pressure.

To my actual question. The government has several times been involved in extending the increase of the housing allowance, which the Social Democrats introduced during the pandemic, but now chooses to lower the allowance. Many are probably scratching their heads and wondering why, when people are losing both jobs and homes at an increasing rate and food prices continue to remain high and in some parts continue to rise. Why do the Moderates judge that it is now the time to lower the housing allowance, which will mean that very many, especially single parents, will be hit hard?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Gashi, for the question!

Has the member seen the report that is commented on in this committee report, regarding the housing allowance and the problems that exist with it? We must not turn a blind eye to this.

What we are now phasing out is the temporary additional amount – we are returning to a regular level. Temporary additions cannot remain year out and year in, because then they are no longer temporary.

If we look at the indebtedness in connection with the housing allowance and the number of clawbacks, we see that 46 percent, I believe, of everyone receive clawbacks regarding the housing allowance. The supplementary amount was important during an extreme period with 10 percent inflation, which we took over from the Social Democrats, and during the pandemic. Then it was important to resolve the crisis. But if we look at what really makes a difference, we see that it is about making it so that more people get to keep more of their wages. That makes a difference for real, sustainably over time.

We hear recurring demands from the left side for an increase in, for example, the housing allowance. But let us see what has actually happened in recent years. A single mother in Malmö with a salary of 25,000 kronor will, from 2023 onwards, be able to keep approximately 5,000 kronor more per year – because she goes to work. That makes a difference. And if she takes an extra work shift, she gets to keep more of that salary, unlike how the housing allowance works: Every thousand kronor in increased income leads to a risk of clawback.

Your contribution line entails neither freedom nor security. It comes at a rather high price. We Moderates believe in a policy that aims to make it profitable to work – every hour worked should make a difference. It is not about forms and the risk of clawbacks, but that this mother gets to keep more of her salary. Her diligence pays off. That is Moderate policy. It is clear, and it is also sustainable over time.

(Applause)

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Mr. Speaker! What is clear for very many out there is that Moderate politics consists of pulling the rug out from under all those who have it toughest in society. This is very clearly noticeable when you in the Moderates, with one hand, lower the tax for the very richest by many billions and then, with the other hand, lower the housing allowance, refuse to increase the child allowance, and do not ensure that more people get into work; unemployment continues to rise. You take selfies with food giants instead of actually doing something about food prices. It is this that the people out there have gotten to know and can clearly say is Moderate politics.

When the member of Parliament raises the repayment requirements as a problem when it comes to maintaining or making the temporarily increased housing allowance permanent, I think it becomes a strange discussion. There have been investigations that have clearly recommended and been sharp about how we can deal with the problem that exists regarding the housing allowance – this government has had quite a long time to do this. I agree with member Högström that it is currently a system that puts many into debt because it is based on incomes that, several years later, may be higher. There are proposals that could have solved this. Försäkringskassan is sitting and waiting, I know, and wonders why nothing is coming from this government regarding these issues.

The committee members only say that a temporary grant must eventually be phased out. One can also choose to do as the Socialdemokraterna propose, namely to make it permanent. We see that these are levels that are needed today. It is not appropriate now, when the food queues are stretching longer around the corners, especially in our large cities, to lower them, as they say they want to.

I didn't actually get any answer to my question: Why does the government choose to remove the temporary increase in this situation?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Among other things, in the budget for 2024, Försäkringskassan received a clear mandate to prepare for the introduction of monthly figures. That work is therefore obviously underway, so I do not want to be held accountable for the criticism and the picture that is being tried to be painted.

From the Social Democrats' side, there is a high tone regarding families who are struggling and have difficulty making ends meet. At the same time, you raise taxes when you have the chance. Look at how it has been in Stockholm! The municipal tax, one of the most accurate taxes we have and one of the largest expenses for families with children, you choose to raise when you are in power in Stockholm.

Since 2006, the Moderaterna have introduced nine job tax credits. You have said no to all of them. You have not removed them, thank goodness, but you have said no to them. It is a credit that has meant that a nurse, for example, has received almost 48,000 kronor more every year. You have said no to that, categorically. These are large sums, which make a difference for hard-working people.

You say that you want to strengthen the economy for families with children. But how? Only with subsidies, not by people being able to keep more of their wages or through diligence. That those who carry the welfare should be able to keep more of their wages is not an option. You will take with one hand and give with the other. That is Social Democratic policy.

(Applause)

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There was not much I agreed with in Caroline Högström's speech. I will focus on some of the parts.

The Leader of the Opposition says that municipalities governed by parties on our side take money from low-income earners. But the truth is that in large part all municipalities and regions in Sweden have lost money in recent years because the government has prioritized lowering taxes for high-income earners over investing in welfare. No municipalities in Sweden would have needed to raise taxes to save their own welfare if the government would simply choose to give them the money they actually need. There, I would therefore like to place the responsibility on Caroline Högström's government again.

The Moderates say that they favor families with children. But the money that you take away from families with children is far more than what they get out in reduced tax. A high-income earner receives many more kronor every month than a family with children does. The family with children loses much more from the fact that Caroline Högström and her government, for example, remove the temporary housing allowance.

I wonder what the Moderates have against investing in those people in Sweden who actually need extra much help. We are talking about the municipalities and about the families with children. Why are you so strongly against providing targeted support to those who actually need it?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malte Tängmark Roos, for the question and the comments!

This here puts the finger on the differences in Swedish politics in a rather interesting way. On your side, one of the basic ideas of politics is to take with one hand and give with the other, and then one can feel good. It is what it boils down to. The state shall be the guarantor for everything, and the state is the one that gives.

But you forget that the state is also the one that takes. The state takes money from those who, through effort, have worked together to earn a wage. The Moderates want instead that power and the wage should, to the greatest extent possible, be with the one who has worked and created the value. Diligence must pay off.

The preschool teacher, nursing assistant, or police officer who sets the alarm and goes to work every morning, and thereby contributes to society, shall be allowed to keep more of their salary. Then we do not need to raise the benefits. If one can keep more of one's salary from the start, we can ignore this giving with one hand and taking with the other, which the left side otherwise returns to time and again.

Strengthen the individual instead! Let power reside where it belongs: with the one who has created the value – the one who goes to work every morning! This is a clear difference in Swedish politics, and it becomes even clearer in these types of debates.

(Applause)

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, there is a very clear ideological dividing line here in the Riksdag, between our parties. It is spelled solidarity with those who need support. That is what my side stands for.

We say yes to lower taxes for low- and middle-income earners. But we also say yes to providing targeted support to those who actually need it. We give more money to those who need our help so that their wages do not rise by 10–15 percent every year while food prices and rents are rising.

We say yes to including more people in the housing allowance. We say yes to expanding the sickness benefits so that the person who is ill receives a good compensation regardless of what the reason is for being ill. This is what Caroline Högström, Moderaterna and the Tidö government say no to.

You say: More money and more freedom for the individual! Yes, absolutely, one does not remove the general safety nets we have. Do not remove the targeted safety nets just because of some ideological idea that one should work and exert oneself. It is clear that one should work and exert oneself. People do so, but they still do not get by, because prices are rising more than wages do. Then we need targeted grants. We need targeted support.

I am proud to say yes to higher benefits for those who need them. This is the ideological dividing line between us.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude by saying that sometimes a picture is painted of one side wanting zero contributions and no help, while on the other side one is kind-hearted. But that is not how the truth looks.

We have a broad political agreement on our social insurances. We have a broad political agreement on the stable and strong welfare we have. On the member's side of politics, one forgets that there is also someone who pays for it all.

It can become a bit fascinating. It is said that more people should have access to the housing allowance and that one wants to expand the housing allowance. It is one of the most indebted benefits we have. There, the most have been sent into debt.

It has been necessary to have a temporary supplementary amount. We have all agreed to this in a broad agreement. Previous governments have decided this, and this government has extended it. But there are reasons why it is temporary.

Housing allowance is not the best. The best thing is that one does not need a housing allowance. The best thing is that one can live on one's salary – in other words, we lower the tax.

Tax is one of the largest expenses a family has. But Miljöpartiet lands again on that we should be kind-hearted and that we should take with one hand and give with the other, instead of letting people keep more of their wages. Then we do not need to risk indebtedness and the negative aspects of the subsidy policy that has been pursued.

There is absolutely a clear difference within Swedish politics. But the difference lies between the benefit line and the work line. For us, it is primarily about that one should be able to keep more of one's salary.

(Applause)

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 25, so I have had that done.

We are, therefore, debating economic family policy.

What is it we have already heard from the Moderates? What will we soon hear from the Sweden Democrats? Yes, it is that the future is brightening: It is getting better and better. Many of the supports that exist within our welfare are good and accurate. But since everything is just getting better and better for the country's families with children, the government chooses instead to reduce them. In practice, they are pulling the rug out from under very many families with children. They would not express it that way themselves, but that is what it means in practice.

In today's report it states: "As the economic development turns and things look brighter, the need for the extraordinary contribution may decrease, according to the government." This is therefore about the housing allowance. This is the view that is held.

Those who belong to a governing party live in one reality, but if you are outside the governing parties, you live in another. It is strange. How bright has the situation then become in our society? One can actually wonder when, from the government's side, one is so incredibly consistent in their rhetoric.

We know very well that families with children are having a tough time today. They twist and turn every krona. The grocery basket just becomes more and more expensive. Food prices have skyrocketed and continue to do so to some extent. Electricity bills are expensive – how expensive they are depends on where you live in the country. We have increased rents. We have more expensive sports activities.

We also have an unemployment in this society that is breaking record after record. It is interesting when the government says it represents the work principle but rather seems to pursue a benefit line. The policy that we see today leads to more and more people needing support.

Despite taking extra shifts in their work and skipping meals, many, especially single parents, have it very hard. In recent years, ten years of real wage increases have disappeared with inflation. The money one has is worth less today, and it is a big problem.

It is in this situation that the government completely stands in the way when it comes to proposals that could have made a difference.

When we Social Democrats, for example, propose an increased child allowance – Sweden would then potentially be the last country in the Nordic region to introduce it – the government says a flat no. They prioritize removing plastic bag taxes instead. That is more important.

When we propose that the temporary increase of the housing allowance should be made permanent, this government does the opposite. They choose to lower the housing allowance starting this summer for approximately 100,000 families with children. Single parents will be hit hardest. Today we have been able to read about a single parent who is studying, who will receive 1,400 kronor less every month from now on. It rattles weakly in the pocket when one says that they are lowering the tax but at the same time withdraw 1,400 kronor a month. In practice, they are lowering these people's economies most deliberately.

When we Social Democrats propose expanded VAB opportunities for parents of children with, for example, diabetes, the government says a flat no. Instead, they choose to make medicines more expensive when the high-cost protection is raised.

When we Social Democrats propose that protection for pregnant women should be strengthened – for two years there have been ready proposals for the government to act on – it is often answered that it would reduce pregnant women's incentives to work, as if all pregnant women were lazy.

When we time and again in this speaker's chair – you heard it just now, and you will hear it several more times today – raise the economic situation of families with children, the government and its representatives always respond in the same way: It is the work line that prevails.

In other words: If you cannot manage today despite working, you need to work a little harder. It is a contempt for all those who get up early and who work in healthcare, preschool, school, home care, industry, shop – yes, the list can be long.

The association Makalösa Föräldrar, which organizes single mothers, served porridge outside the Riksdag a couple of weeks ago to highlight that they are already eating porridge. They basically have no more savings to make. It is actually interesting that there was not a single representative for M, SD, L, and KD who was willing to meet them. Perhaps it was because it is difficult to look them in the eye. It is not easy to meet people who are struggling financially when you have handed out blow after blow against their security while simultaneously lowering the tax for the very richest by billions and billions.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: We are heading towards summer and a summer break. It is a break that many children long for. But more and more children are currently worried and do not long for the summer break at all. They know that it will not contain anything special. They will not be able to eat food at school – we Social Democrats have proposed that they should be able to do so by introducing school lunches. They will have difficulty doing activities when many other children in the class might be able to do so. They will have difficulty answering the question of where they have been on holiday when the summer break is finally over. They are ashamed that they have not been away when many friends have been.

It is the reality that we live in, and I think it is a sign of weakness that we cannot stand up for these people in these economic times.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your speech!

The Social Democrats want to review the multi-child supplement. The Social Democrats argue that it can create incorrect incentives. It can increase segregation, and parents' entry into the labor market or into studies can be delayed. The Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats are sometimes in agreement and sometimes not. But in this question, we seem to be somewhat in agreement.

The Social Democratic Party's board will, before the congress in May, propose that the multi-child supplement be abolished completely or partially. It is the same motion that is presented here today.

We Sweden Democrats want to completely abolish the child supplement.

But at the same time, the Social Democrats want to review other supports, which are more accurate, for vulnerable families with children. Then the question is: Is an increased child allowance an accurate support for families with children?

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Persson, for the question!

Yes, that is correct. We in the Social Democrats are prepared to review at least parts of the multi-child supplement that exists today because it has been clearly established, among other things by the Swedish National Audit Office, that it sometimes misses the mark. The supplement for the second child is what is judged to have the least economic accuracy – in terms of redistribution. We believe that one should be able to review and look at this. Could one redistribute those funds to something else, for example, extra support for single parents, who in these times have an extraordinary difficulty in making ends meet?

Raising the child allowance is also a way to support families with children. We from the Social Democrats propose more things. We propose that the child allowance should be raised and also that the levels in the housing allowance should be maintained.

I know that the Sweden Democrats and the right often criticize the child allowance. They argue that it does not hit correctly because high-income earners also receive a share of it. That is true. It is one of the general supports that we have. But it means most of all, and purely in terms of redistribution, it actually hits quite well. The people who need it the most are also those who benefit from it. We obviously see that an increased child allowance is distributionally accurate and therefore propose that it should be increased.

The Sweden Democrats are the party that most clearly opposes an increase in the child allowance. In these times, one can actually wonder why that is.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your answer!

Yes, as we have pointed out, the Social Democrats want to increase the child allowance by 200 kronor. The Tidö cooperation prioritizes lowering taxes. This means an average of 200 kronor more in the wallet every month. As the member himself was touching upon, it is argued that tax cuts can go wrong and benefit high-income earners.

An increase in the child allowance is a relatively expensive reform. An increase of 200 kronor per month costs approximately 4.5 billion. It will also go to high-income earners. Is it right to give high-income earners 200 kronor more in allowance per month?

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is reasonable that the child allowance also goes to those households, because households with very, very wealthy parents are not as many or significantly more numerous than completely ordinary households with average incomes – it is for those for whom this matters the most.

I have full respect for and understanding that it will not make any difference to multi-millionaires that they receive an extra 200 kronor in child allowance. But those people are also contributing to that system. I believe it is important that we view the child allowance in that way. It is a system that everyone is contributing to. I believe that in the long run it strengthens – how shall I put it? – the satisfaction of having such a system when one also gets something out of it.

But I actually wonder if the Sweden Democrats are so worried that millionaires get 200 kronor more at the end of the month. Then one can question why they have been involved and contributed to a policy that does not just give them 200 kronor more, but several thousand kronor more every month. This applies especially to the very richest.

For me, it becomes strange to say: No, we are not raising the child allowance for all those who need it today and who are struggling, because then those who are rich will receive 200 kronor that they do not need.

It is a strange attitude. If you had had some other proposal, I would have thought that was fine, but the problem is that there are no such proposals. You are aware that you are cutting the legs out from under very many families with children when you now lower the housing allowance and refuse to increase the child allowance – as practically the only country in the Nordic region in recent years. Why you are doing this, I think I will let you speak for yourselves, but I am clear and direct in that for me it does not matter that some get a little more as long as the vast majority get significantly better.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

We all know that the family is society's smallest but most important community. It is in the family that we receive our values, our security, and our first safety net. Therefore, it is also there that politics must begin: in the home, at the kitchen table, and in everyday life.

The Christian Democratic family policy has always had a clear goal of giving parents more time with their children, more power over their everyday lives, and better economic conditions to be exactly what they are: a family. We start from the principle of subsidiarity, i.e., that decisions should be made as close to the human being as possible. The state shall not decide how families should look or be organized. It shall support, not rule. These are the values we have taken with us into negotiations and into the government cooperation.

Mr. Speaker! The family is, from a Christian Democratic perspective, the heart of society. Just as a heart needs to beat freely and without unnecessary restrictions, our families also need to be given time, security, and freedom. That is where our economic family policy takes its starting point – not in statistics or in theories, but in real lives and in real kitchens with real children who need food, closeness, and security.

We know that the economy is tough for many. Inflation has taken hold, and interest rates have risen. We also know that families with children are particularly vulnerable. Therefore, we have prioritized reforms that ease everyday life for families with children. One such thing is fuel prices – which are sometimes forgotten.

For a family in the countryside or for those who commute to work, pick up children and drive them to practices, the car is not a luxury. It is a prerequisite. By lowering the fuel tax and reducing the reduction obligation, we have made it cheaper to live and operate throughout the country. That is practical family policy when it is at its best.

Our view on the family's role is not only economic. It is also about time, about presence, and about the possibility to actually be with your child when it matters most. We have therefore expanded the possibility for so-called "double days" in the parental leave. This means that both parents can be home with the child at the same time for more days. It means more time together during the child's first and most formative period. It means more participation, more community, and more security. It should be up to each family to decide for themselves how the parental benefit should be used.

We also know that children's leisure time plays a crucial role for their well-being. Sports, music, and association life build both self-esteem and community. We also know, however, that fees are often a barrier. Therefore, the government has launched the new initiative, the leisure card (fritidskortet). It is a reform that shall give children in families with scarce resources the opportunity to participate in organized leisure activities. This is not just an investment in the children. It is an investment in the future, in cohesion, and in equal opportunities.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats also want to continue to develop the parental leave. We want to make it more flexible and more adapted to how real families actually live their lives. All children are different, and all families are different. Why should the state then decide that everyone should live in the same way? We want that more days should be able to be taken during the child's school years. We want it to be possible to spread out the time according to the needs that your specific family has. It is real freedom of choice.

Mr. Speaker! In a time when many call for more central control, more state-mandated rules and less personal freedom, we stand firm. We believe in the family. We believe in parents' ability to decide for themselves what is best for their children. We believe in a society where time, security, and trust are more important than bureaucracy and uniformity. That is why we are in politics – because the family is worth fighting for.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating SFU 19, and I want to state that we Sverigedemokrater stand by all our reservations. I only move for approval of reservations 14, 18, 24 and 26.

The Swedish parental leave is very generous and flexible from an international perspective. Even though it loses ground in comparison with other countries, it is still one of the best in the world. Family policy, however, cannot alone contribute to all families with children reaching a good economic standard of living. One must be aware that there are large differences between different households with children that are almost permanent over time.

A palpable factor is that households with a weaker connection to the labor market often have a weaker economy. The parental insurance shall provide financial support during family formation and provide the opportunity to combine family life with work life. It is also important that the family gets time to build relationships among themselves.

Mr. Speaker! Being a parent entails a special responsibility. The family is the fundamental community in society, where children's well-being and security are built up. The majority of parents value leisure time with the family highly, and it is important that there are periods of leave so that one can spend time with one's family.

From an international perspective, Sweden has a high proportion of parental days. It shows that society truly values time with the family. Family policy has in recent times perhaps focused predominantly on making it possible to combine work with family life. That is an essential part of the purpose. But that families get more time for themselves to build up their relationships is also very important when one has formed a family. The extended double days are a step towards enabling more time for the families.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Sweden Democrats believe that more choices and more flexibility reduce the stress of putting the family puzzle together. We view it positively that parental leave can be transferred in a wider circle. We also want, among other things, to review the removal of the four-year rule and review the possibility of increasing the number of days at the child's birth – what is commonly called "pappadagar" (father's days). This could strengthen the family and enable it to form bonds during the first period after childbirth.

We also want to abolish the reserved days so that families can choose freely for themselves how they will arrange and plan the parental leave without the finger-pointing of politics.

Mr. Speaker! Our generous welfare policy can be something that contributes to segregation. High benefit levels have led to that, above all, newcomers lacking incentives to learn the language and to seek out the labor market or studies.

The multi-child supplement is a benefit that increases for each extra child in the family, and the purpose of the supplement has been to compensate for the extra costs that arise when the family becomes larger. In reality, however, it has become an extra threshold, especially for foreign-born women, when it comes to entering the workforce or studies, as foreign-born women are in a majority of the families that have many children. This contributes to increased segregation and reduced equality, and it becomes an economic burden for society as a whole. It is an unsustainable development.

Mr. Speaker! The high inflation seems to be defeated. The temporary supplementary grant to families with children receiving housing allowance and low incomes has been extended until June 30.

This was a tool that was quickly put in place when the pandemic hit, as a support for the families who were hit hard financially by the pandemic. At the same time, it does not have an optimal design. For example, it is not included in the final reconciliation of the housing allowance. For the government and Sverigedemokraterna, it is crucial to counter incorrect payments and that benefits are only given to those who have a need for and are entitled to them. The temporary supplementary allowance is means-tested, and it has had a good accuracy.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the point in the report on the reserved days, I hereby wish to inform and clarify that Sverigedemokrater will primarily demand our reservation number 14 in the preliminary votes. In the event that our reservation falls, we intend to support the committee's proposal in the main vote because the proposals from Socialdemokraterna and Västerpartiet involve more reserved days, which we Sverigedemokrater do not want to risk. In that case, our proposal is closer to the committee's proposal, which means that the number of reserved days does not change.

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have many times wanted to appear as defenders of the Swedish social security system. They have had a high tone and promised much, especially in opposition. Today, the Sweden Democrats are a party that is involved in governing this country – they are the largest party in the government base – and now that the Sweden Democrats have influence, we see what happens.

It is not that long ago that there was a party leader debate in SVT where all party leaders were asked to answer whether they were in favor of an increased child allowance. The Sweden Democrats were the only party in the Tidö government that clearly voted no. If I remember correctly, both the Liberals and KD wanted to increase the child allowance, and the Moderates abstained. The Sweden Democrats, however, clearly said no.

We Social Democrats sometimes receive criticism when we say "the SD government." We are asked why we say it. The answer is that it is clearly visible that it is the Sweden Democrats who set the tone for the policy that the government delivers.

I wonder why the Sweden Democrats are so clearly and sharply opposed to an increased child allowance at a time when it has been 50 years since one received as little for the child allowance as today. It has not been increased for very many years. Other Nordic countries, for example Finland and Norway, have recently increased the child allowance. They have namely seen that the economic conditions for families with children need to be strengthened now that things have become more expensive as inflation has skyrocketed.

Why are the Sweden Democrats so strongly opposed to an increased child allowance?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Arber Gashi, for your question!

In the same party debate, my party leader also spoke about our desire to reform the child allowance. We want it to go to hard-working families with children who are struggling. The proposal itself is not completely finished today, but we may have reason to stand here in the chamber and debate it in the future.

I still want to point out that within the Tidö cooperation, we are strengthening the economy for Swedish households without increasing the benefits. We have lowered the tax, which affects many households broadly. It should pay to work. We are keeping fuel prices at a low level, which is also a very important issue for the countryside – not least for families with children. In my home county of Gävleborg, there are several families with children who need to have two cars to be able to get to studies and work, so lowered fuel prices are an important prerequisite for them.

One must also know that a reasonable price level for fuels means that the price of goods and services does not increase as a result of high fuel prices. It would have been devastating if we had Social Democratic fuel prices today.

Since then, the Sweden Democrats and this government have worked hard to curb inflation, which now seems to be at somewhat reasonable levels. We are therefore doing a great deal even though we are not increasing the benefits.

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Persson, for the answer! However, I am not entirely enlightened by it.

It is difficult to understand the government's policy. It might even sound good sometimes when you talk about how inflation has gone down and that you are doing so much to invest in the country's families with children. But the truth is that reality is your greatest opponent. It is not the Social Democrats or any other party, but it is the reality out there – the one that, for example, Makalösa Föräldrar bears witness to, even though you do not come and meet any of them to stand up for your priorities.

I think it is strange, Mr. Speaker, to speak here in the rostrum about wanting to reform the child allowance in the future despite not knowing what that proposal is to look like. It is also strange that it is a reason why, in this situation, here and now, one does not want to be involved in supporting the country's families with children, even though it is 50 years since people last received so little for the child allowance.

The child allowance is not a support that raises the thresholds for work. There is no such direct correlation. It is clear that one can talk about the families who demonstrably have it difficult and where we need to ensure that we review some of our systems to minimize the risks that the child allowance would displace work. But in practice, it is a very necessary support that primarily matters for those who have it the toughest here and now.

I wonder therefore, Daniel Persson: Why do you choose, in this situation, not to ensure that you support the families with children who are openly crying out for help?

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Arber Gashi, for your question!

Another initiative that we have underway and which will soon be in place is the leisure card, which will also be a support for families with children. The initiative is also one of the largest public health reforms in several years, as it aims for children and young people to be able to participate in leisure activities that provide an active and meaningful leisure time together with others.

One must also know that the effect of the government's proposals and notifications regarding the households' economic standard is very clear. In percentage terms, the standard has increased most in the tenth of the population that has the lowest economic standard and least in the upper income groups. I also think that is worth taking away.

However, for the family to have a secure economy, the parents need to have a job to go to, and it is only through growth that we can create jobs for everyone. If the parents already have a job, we need to ensure that it pays even more to go to work. Work is the foundation for a secure economy and for being able to support oneself. We have also made the parental leave more flexible so that people can manage the family puzzle.

But, again: One can see quite clearly here that we have, on one hand, the Social Democratic contribution line and, on the other hand, the Tidö parties' work line.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It has obviously not escaped anyone's notice that families with children are having an extremely tough time today. Food prices have increased sharply, rents are rising, and wages are not keeping up. It does not matter so much that inflation is about 2 percent this month, because prices have risen by double digits in percent in recent years without wages being anywhere near that. It is that difference that actually matters, not what the inflation figure is just this month. The effects we see of this are more and more evictions of children as well as children and parents going hungry.

What do the Sweden Democrats do then? Well, they remove the temporary housing allowance for families with children, which means several hundred to over a thousand kronor less in the wallet every month. The Sweden Democrats say no to higher child allowance, as we heard. Even though Caroline Högström previously spoke about the implementation of monthly figures in the housing allowance, which is to come, the truth is that that investigation came two years ago. It can be implemented now if one wants to, but the government and the Sweden Democrats are not doing that. They are dragging out the implementation even though it would provide more accurate payments and dramatically reduce the risk of repayments.

My question to Daniel Persson is why the Sweden Democrats and the government are opposing Swedish families with children. Your rhetoric may say something else, but the actual situation is such.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Malte Tängmark Roos, for the question!

Through the Tidösamarbetet, we strengthen the economy without providing more subsidies or increased subsidies to families and households. As I touched upon in my previous exchange, we are lowering taxes and keeping fuel prices at a good level. We have also worked hard to push back inflation. We also see that interest costs are heading downwards and that electricity prices are relatively stable and at a reasonable level. Furthermore, the leisure card will soon be in place. These are important investments that will benefit families with children.

We will also see that real wages are increasing. We have seen that the industrial parties have agreed on a new collective agreement that sets the benchmark for wage increases in 2025 on the Swedish labor market. The agreement extends over two years and entails a wage increase of 6.4 percent; it will be 3.4 percent in 2025 and 3 percent during 2026. We will therefore see that real wages are increasing.

In the long term, we will strengthen household finances, but not by giving them more subsidies.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is promising that real wages may increase in the long term for those who need it the most. It is not a decision that we make in here, but it is absolutely promising.

Daniel Persson previously mentioned that it is those who earn the least who receive the largest percentage improvement in their situation with the government's policy. But one cannot pay for food and rent with percentages. In actual kronor, Swedish families with children lose more money on the withdrawn temporary housing allowance for families with children than they receive in reduced tax. Those who receive the most in kronor, which is what one actually pays with in Sweden, are Sweden's high-income earners.

Why don't the government and the Sweden Democrats propose tax increases for those who earn the most and give that money to those who earn the least? It is a solution that would help Swedish families with children here and now. However, it is not a policy that the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals want to see, and I think that is unfortunate.

Why, Daniel Persson, do you invest more in crowns and öre in those who earn the most than in those who earn the least?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Malte Tängmark Roos once again for the questions.

The chairman himself was saying that it is not we in here who set the wages for the labor market, and we are well in agreement that this shall continue to be the case. However, for us to see real wage increases, the government needs to work on keeping inflation at a reasonable level. We also need to ensure that we achieve growth in the country so that we do not end up in an inflationary decline again.

From the side of Svenskt Näringsliv, they were very satisfied and thought that the budget for 2025 provides good conditions for growth. The construction sector is positive about the spring budget that has now arrived. Growth leads to more people being able to get a job and more people getting better finances.

I also want to point out that the proportion of child households with a low economic standard has decreased over time. In 2020, the proportion was 17 percent. In 2021, it was 16 percent, in 2022 it was 15.3 percent, and in 2023 it was 15 percent. I can state that the proportion of child households with a low economic standard continues to decrease, despite the fact that we have had a pandemic and difficult years with inflation.

The Sweden Democrats and the government continue, as has been said, to try to achieve growth in the country, so that more people can get more out of their wages and so that more people can go to work, without increasing the benefits for people.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The parental leave is central to giving parents the opportunity to combine work with family life in a way that benefits the children's upbringing. We recently implemented changes to the parental leave which I warmly welcomed. Nearly a year ago, the number of so-called double days was doubled from 30 to 60 days, with an extended opportunity to use them until the child is 15 months old. At the same time, it was made possible for parents to transfer parental leave days to a close relative. These were important steps towards a more flexible parental leave.

Through the new rules, parents can be at home together for a longer period during the child's first time, which strengthens joint parenting and gives families increased freedom of choice to shape their parental leave. The proposals contribute to parents being able to more easily combine work life with family life during the periods that require more flexibility in everyday life. In this way, the work line is strengthened and parents' power to design their own lives is reinforced. It is simply a more modern parental insurance that is in step with today's labor market and family constellations.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals have long fought for a parental insurance that promotes both freedom of choice and equality. We were, among other things, involved in introducing the first earmarked "daddy month" once upon a time, and we view positively taking further steps to reduce the gap in the uptake between parents.

Being able to transfer parental days is also a business issue. It is important for this group, which has a need for increased flexibility. The parental insurance has previously been far too rigid, especially for self-employed individuals and for modern family constellations, but we have now changed that. Taken together, this means that no parent should have to choose between career and parenthood.

These improvements will also benefit the children. When both parents can share the responsibility from the start and be present during the child's first time, safer growing conditions are created. We Liberals see it as a freedom reform for families and a step towards a more equal take-up of parental leave.

It is still the case, however, that it is the mothers who take the largest part of the leave, and it is something that we need to change in the long run. With continued increased flexibility, economic incentives, and other encouragement, we want to see an increased uptake from the fathers and lay the foundation for breaking old norms.

Mr. Speaker! An important issue from a liberal perspective is to ensure that the subsidy systems truly help without locking people into exclusion or inequality.

All parties have raised the multi-child supplement, the purpose of which is to further strengthen the finances of larger families with children. Unfortunately, it also brings with it unwanted effects. We Liberals share the view that the construction of the multi-child supplement needs to be reviewed to become more purposeful. From our perspective, it is about equality and integration, and today's construction unfortunately contributes to many women ending up in a situation that hinders their establishment in the labor market.

This is obviously not the purpose of the family policy, but its goal should be to give all children a good upbringing and all parents the opportunity for self-sufficiency. I hope that we will move forward in a constructive way in this work. The goal is obviously to have a system that supports the families who truly need it without sending the wrong signals or undermining equality.

At their core, the supports are important tools in family policy and something we must guard. But we must constantly evaluate them and see how they can be improved.

Mr. Speaker! For family policy to work as intended, it is required that the support reaches those in need effectively and fairly. We know that many single parents, mostly mothers, are dependent on maintenance support to manage everyday life when the other parent cannot pay sufficiently.

We also know that the housing allowance is an important support for many, but that it also has its shortcomings, which we have heard several debaters say. The Swedish National Audit Office's review of the housing allowance also shows that it is not effectively designed in relation to its housing policy purpose. The allowance is also not sufficiently clearly focused on the possibility for families with children to demand good and spacious homes, which is indeed the very goal of the support. This is not only an important signal to take note of but also to act upon.

In addition to ensuring increased accuracy in the systems, one must avoid families falling into debt traps due to incorrect payments. Changes have been made, and moving forward, the calculation of these supports shall be based on current monthly incomes instead of old assessment data. In this way, the risk of large clawbacks is drastically reduced, because when this affects the individual, it is an extremely difficult situation. It should be easy to do correctly, and families with children who are entitled to housing allowance shall receive the correct amount from the start and not risk falling into debt. At the same time, the more current income basis means that fraud and inaccuracies can be prevented. The grants are, after all, to go to those who truly need support.

Mr. Speaker! Economic family policy is ultimately about what upbringing conditions we provide for children and what freedom and security we give their parents. The Liberals' position aims for all children to have a good start in life and for all parents to be able to shape their family life without unreasonable obstacles.

With that said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! Summer vacation is approaching with unbroken days of holiday for the country's schoolchildren. It is oceans of time to play with friends at the playground until the sun goes down and days at the beach with sandy biscuits and lemonade.

But it is also a time of difficult economic distress for many of the country's families with children. More mouths must be fed when the children do not receive school meals, while at the same time parents would like to take their children for a visit to Liseberg or come up with some other activity.

In line with the fact that prices for food, rent, and mortgages have risen, many families have been forced to tighten their belts. That households are under pressure is also visible in the statistics. More than ever are in debt, and it is not about them having wasted their money but about families not being able to make the everyday finances work when prices soar.

Initially, we could hear the Moderaterna talking about strengthening families' freedom and that the state should support mothers who need support and children who need security. Now we are in a situation where one in three single parents has difficulty eating enough and where almost half have had to borrow money to afford their basic expenses, such as rent. Parents are indebted to afford food for their children. What world is the government living in?

In this situation, the Sweden Democrats stopped a proposal for extra child benefits during the summer. When they commented on the matter, they said that they want to invest in working families who are having a tough time. What that means, they do not seem to know themselves, which we heard in a previous exchange of remarks.

Extra child allowance would have given ordinary families with children extra money. But it came to nothing. This money would have been enough for excursions and ice creams when the bills were paid. But it went up in smoke when the Sverigedemokraterna robbed Sweden's families with children of their vacation fund.

Instead, the government's and the Sweden Democrats' biggest initiative this spring is an increased tax deduction for renovations, which the wealthy can use to renovate their homes on the Spanish coast or the pool at the summer villa. The government and the Sweden Democrats perhaps think that it is Swedes with villas on the Spanish coast and in the Stockholm archipelago who are having a hard time. In that case, the prioritization of their pool renovations and veranda renovations is perfectly reasonable. In any other case, it appears world-detached.

The government's and the Sweden Democrats' initiatives do nothing for those who are struggling financially. Who thinks that the mother or father who eats porridge or skips dinner to save money would have the means to start a kitchen renovation, or that the person who borrows from their relatives to pay for football boots could spend many thousands on a new veranda?

Furthermore, the government's largest initiative in the spring budget excludes the 3 million people who rent their homes, as they are not covered by the rot deduction, unless they have a summer cottage. A large part of the population is therefore forced to help pay for the government's priorities but does not receive a single krona back.

To all the hardworking families for whom a visit to Liseberg is as remote as a lottery win, I want to say that Vänsterpartiet would have acted differently. We see how many of you are struggling and straining to make everyday life work. We see how remote a luxury renovation is and how little the government's measures help.

If we had been allowed to decide, all of Sweden's families with children would have received extra child allowance in June and July. We would also have ensured that the housing allowance remained at the higher level and that those covered by it received extra payments in June and July. We would have done this because we prioritize ordinary families, so that all children's childhood and summer holidays can be valuable without the family becoming indebted or needing to live with anxiety, and so that meaningful leisure time and entertainment can be possible even for a family with small resources.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the adoption of reservation 2.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! How we live our lives and what life choices we make have changed over the years, primarily because we have different values and different demands and expectations on parents, childcare, and the labor market. Because we live our lives differently and expect a more equal parenthood, we need a parental insurance that is both modern and inclusive.

We have moved from mothers stopping work when the first child arrived and becoming housewives, to mothers receiving parental leave during the first period they were at home with the newborn child, in order to be able to return to their work, to what is now possible: that both mothers and fathers can receive parental leave.

More parents share the parental leave, and more fathers take out parental leave pay. We often talk about this change as that fathers must be home with the children, but we also need to highlight the valuation and expectation that mothers should return to work. It is not sufficient to say that the fathers should be home, but we must also say that the mothers should return to work in order for us to be able to change the values that govern our choices.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Centre Party believe that it is time to further adapt our systems to the society and the family constellations that we live in today.

It is about both the flexibility and the fact that it should be possible to transfer additional parental leave days to other important adults for the child. A family with more than two guardians needs to have the opportunity to be jointly involved in the child's life. Being able to choose is also about not reserving more days than what is already reserved for each parent. Not having more reserved days is both about the flexibility to be able to share days with more parents but also about every family, based on their life situation, needing to be able to choose how they want to distribute their leave.

Mr. Speaker! When days have been reserved, the withdrawal has become more equal, which was one of the purposes, but it has not led to what we expected: that women would return to work. Statistics show that it is not obvious that women are at home less because the men are at home more, but statistically they are at home just as much but with the lower compensation or no compensation at all. We therefore need to achieve a changed valuation.

More parts of the parental leave need to be reviewed, we in the Center Party think, and we have also proposed that. It is not only the reserved days that are the reason.

Centerpartiet has proposals that, for example, SGI should be calculated based on how long one has been at home instead of based on the child's age, and that we should review the right to leave for children regardless of whether parental leave benefits are taken or not. The latter means, in practical terms, that one can be at home for over a year without taking a single day of parental leave, and perhaps that is where we need to review the regulatory framework.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to getting parents to take a greater shared responsibility during the child's toddler years, the double days have been a success factor, and there we want to move forward and remove the limit on the number of days. We also want to review what has now occurred so that it truly becomes what we want it to be. It has changed from 30 to 60 days, but we therefore want an unlimited number of days.

Shared responsibility has many advantages, and therefore we also want an equality bonus both in the parental leave and when the children are sick.

The mission of the parental insurance is to give parents the opportunity to combine work and the early years of childhood, and it is primarily about the first early years. Today there is a limit, that 80 percent of the days shall be taken during the child's first four years. We want to lower the limit to three years so that both parents shall concentrate their leave to the first years – for the sake of attachment, to achieve a more even distribution of the leave, and so that both parents shall return to the labor market.

Working full-time is one of the best parts for achieving an equal labor market, which in the long run provides equal pensions.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 7, but I naturally stand behind all of the Center Party's reservations.

In this speech, Daniel Persson (SD) agreed.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The economic family policy that we are debating today is a part of Sweden's safety system. I like that word – safety system – because that is what all our work is about: that it should be safe to live in Sweden and that there needs to be an economic safety net that ensures that is the case.

What is security then? For me and Miljöpartiet, security is having somewhere to live, knowing that one can afford to pay the rent, to buy food and clothes, and to arrange leisure activities for the children. But it is a security that fewer and fewer Swedes feel today. Food prices and rents are rising much faster than wages do. The number of evictions increases year by year, and even the evictions of children are increasing. For more and more families with children, students, and low-income earners, it has become an impossible equation to make the salary last the whole month.

For many Swedes, the safety net has long been a lifeline that has made life manageable. The housing allowance, the child allowance, and the maintenance support have given many people the extra kronor they have needed to pay the rent, the food, and the children's clothes and activities. But it is a safety net that is being eroded more and more with every passing day. The child allowance has not been increased since the red-green government increased it in 2018, and it was over 50 years ago that it covered such a small part of a child's actual costs.

The Swedish National Audit Office notes that the households covered by the housing allowance live in increasingly smaller dwellings, while at the same time the proportion of households reached by the housing allowance has been halved since the 90s. It is not because fewer households need help paying the rent, but on the contrary, it is because the income limits and the housing cost ceiling have hardly been raised in 30 years.

In a situation where more and more people are finding it increasingly difficult and where Swedish welfare is being eroded more and more, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are now also removing the temporary housing allowance for families with children and thus depriving some of the economically most vulnerable households in Sweden of an important source of income and security when they need it most.

Sweden can do better. We politicians can do better. It is time that we see the deficiencies that exist in the systems we have today and carry out the reforms that we so obviously need to make to support Swedish households.

Miljöpartiet wants to increase and index the child allowance and the maintenance support so that they cover more of the actual costs of having children and so that they are not eroded over time. We want to increase and make permanent the temporary housing allowance for families with children, which the government is now removing, and we want to make a proper increase and reform of the housing allowance so that more people are entitled to it and can afford to demand a good home to live in.

For me and Miljöpartiet, it is obvious that the security that Sweden's general welfare system provides to everyone who is registered as a resident in Sweden shall be preserved and be the same regardless of whether one is born here or has immigrated here.

We must also ensure that refugees from Ukraine are granted the same rights to child benefits and other settlement-based rights as apply to others who are registered in Sweden. It is actually very simple: No human being in Sweden should have to live in poverty and insecurity, and Miljöpartiet will always fight for a safety system that ensures that every child and adult gets a chance to live a good life.

Mr. Speaker! Safety is also about the possibility of escaping violence in close relationships or honor-related violence and oppression. Persons who are subjected to domestic violence or who live in protected housing can often have a very strained financial situation that makes it much more difficult to leave or stay away from their perpetrator.

In addition to the obvious loss of income that results from being forced to break away from one's home, one's work, and one's surroundings, many women affected by violence are hit by large costs when their belongings are cleared by the authorities and they are forced to leave the residence on very short notice.

For Miljöpartiet, it is clear that the state must help families who are already in a very vulnerable situation so that they do not also be brought to their knees financially, and we therefore see an urgent need to introduce a special relocation allowance in the social insurance system so that crime victims do not have to be affected financially when, for example, confidentiality has been breached or when repeated relocations are required due to protected personal data.

Mr. Speaker! Safety is also what children placed in foster homes desperately need and what they have all too often been denied during their upbringing. Children who are placed in foster homes already carry with them an insecurity from the beginning, as the care in the home was deficient. The need for attachment to the foster parents is therefore extremely important to meet, especially for the very youngest children but also for the slightly older ones. But today, foster parents have no right to be at home with parental leave, which makes the attachment both a temporal and an economic challenge for many foster homes.

This is a clear and obvious problem that is also simple to solve. Miljöpartiet believes that the rules for parental leave should be changed so that foster parents are given the opportunity to take out parental leave in addition to the usual compensation from the municipality to be able to stay home with a placed child in the same way as when a child is born or adopted into a family, as all children have the right to feel safe and cared for.

Mr. Speaker! There are many more things we would need to introduce to increase economic security in Sweden: more reserved days and a tripartite parental insurance, temporary parental allowance for parents of children with illness or disability, a non-means-tested pregnancy allowance, and so on.

If we are to ensure that all residents of Sweden have secure and good living conditions, we need a security system that solidarily helps those who need it. We need benefits and insurances that actually fulfill the goals we set, that are sufficient for what we want them to be sufficient for, and that grant time and security to children and parents who struggle every day to make ends meet. Then we, as members of Parliament, need to take our responsibility and implement the reforms that we know can make a difference now and in the future.

I support all of our reservations but move for approval only of reservations 4 and 8.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I did not actually intend to take the floor to respond to the member, but if it is possible for me to correct my motions here in the exchange of remarks, I will gladly do so.

Economic family policy

I only wish to move for approval of reservation 14. I withdraw the other motions.

I apologize so much. One is new to the Riksdag until the first term is over, right?

(INCUMBENT SPEAKER: We will resolve this.

It was a mild remark, then.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 May.)

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