Economic family policy

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Social Insurance Committee's report SfU17. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal.

For us Sverigedemokrater, family policy is a central issue. We are convinced that secure and stable families form the basis for a strong and prosperous society.

Being a parent involves a significant responsibility. For many parents, moments together with the children constitute the most valuable time in life. Therefore, it is important that there is an opportunity for leave and that the parental insurance is flexible, so that one can fit the family puzzle together.

Madam Speaker! The family policy supports should be supports so that children grow up in families with a stable and secure economy. The targeted supports make a difference. We know that there are differences between different child households that persist over time. The families that have a poorer economy most often have a weak connection to the labor market. Work is the foundation for a good economy for Swedish families. The Government and Sverigedemokraterna stand firm that it must pay to work, even for parents.

Madam Speaker! We need a modern parental insurance that meets today's needs and that is flexible and provides freedom of choice for parents. During this parliamentary term, the Tidö parties have taken important steps that make it easier for parents to be parents.

We have made it possible to transfer parental leave to a wider circle, something that facilitates both family life and working life. We have doubled the number of double days, from 30 to 60. These can now be taken until the child is 15 months old. The purpose is to give parents a better opportunity to bond with their child at an early stage. The double days give families greater freedom of choice and a better distribution of caregiving responsibility. This has also improved mothers' health, which several studies point out.

To further strengthen parents' ability to combine work and family life, the right to vab is also being expanded. This is particularly significant for parents of children with illness or disability, or for parents of children who have needs that require meetings or contacts with school, healthcare, and social services. One now gets a better opportunity to be present for the best interests of the child.

Madam Speaker! We have behind us years of inflation and economic pressure, where families with children have been affected financially. We now see signs that the economy is on its way to strengthening. But we have a continued uneasy world, which can affect Sweden. However, forecasts point to a growth of 3 percent during 2026, and inflation is at a stable level. But, as said: The world is uneasy, and the economy is shaky.

Real wages are expected to increase during 2026, and hard-working men and women will receive a tax cut.

To further strengthen households, the government and Sverigedemokraterna are implementing several important reforms.

VAT on food is lowered from 12 to 6 percent during 2026, which is expected to have almost full impact on prices in stores. For a typical family with children, this means a saving of approximately 6,500 kronor per year.

The housing allowance is being increased after the levels have remained unchanged for almost 30 years, since 1997. Now, families with one child will receive up to 800 kronor more per month. Families with two or more children will receive up to 1,000 kronor more per month. It is a targeted support that will make a difference.

It is also worth mentioning that decisions regarding the modernization of the housing allowance will soon be made. A monthly calculation of the housing allowance will then be introduced, which is expected to reduce housing allowance repayments by approximately 90 percent. The housing allowance will then become more accurate, and incorrect payments, repayments, and indebtedness will decrease.

The government and the Sweden Democrats will make it easier for parents to do the right thing and at the same time make it simple to apply for parental leave. The requirement that parents must submit a notification to receive parental leave will be removed.

Madam Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats are lowering the electricity tax.

We are lowering the preschool fee. Within the framework of the maximum fee, the government is now lowering the level for how high fees municipalities may charge. In this way, the preschool fee is lowered. I can give a calculation example: For a family with a police officer and a nurse and two children aged three and five, the fee will be 4,500 kronor lower per year. It is a targeted support to families with children.

Furthermore, the leisure card is in place. Households with housing allowance can receive up to 2,000 kronor per child, and the basic amount is 500 kronor. The leisure card is not just a financial support. It is also one of the largest public health reforms in many years, because it enables an active and meaningful leisure time for children throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has one of the world's most generous parental insurance systems. We should be proud of that, but we are not satisfied with that. We Sverigedemokrater want to continue to develop and modernize the parental insurance so that it becomes even more flexible and adapted to today's families and their reality.

Once again, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! This is the first mandate period that the Sweden Democrats have sat and governed Sweden. I would like to make a closing statement for those years.

Child poverty in Sweden is spiraling out of control. One in eight children grows up in poverty, and the situation has worsened with every passing year. Child poverty rates have almost doubled, while the Tidö parties have lowered the housing allowance by over 1,000 kronor a month for the most vulnerable families with children. More and more families with children are struggling to afford food and clothes, while the Tidö parties have allowed the child allowance to be eroded to its lowest value in over 50 years.

Unemployment has risen to over half a million people, while the government and the Sweden Democrats have worsened the situation. Now the government and the Sweden Democrats have presented the propositions for their major poverty reform with contribution ceilings and qualification requirements for welfare. It is something that all experts believe will further increase child poverty in Sweden.

It is clear that Daniel Persson's and the Sweden Democrats' policy is not a work line. It is a poverty line. I want to ask Daniel Persson: Is he satisfied with the Sweden Democrats' influence on Sweden during this mandate period?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

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

There is a multitude of different models where one measures poverty and child poverty. The measurements differ quite significantly from one another. We have debated Rädda Barnens child poverty report a number of times here in the chamber. In that report, two ways to measure child poverty are also presented.

A new model was presented in 2025. With that calculation model, 276,000 children lived in economic deprivation in 2023. With that calculation model, the figure was 321,000 children in economic deprivation in 2020. From 2020 to 2023, there has been a decrease of 45,000 children. However, there was a small increase of 16,000 children between 2022 and 2023 with the new calculation model.

With the previous calculation model that Rädda Barnen used, the figure for 2023 would have been 175,000 children. The development from 2019 to 2023 shows a decrease in child poverty. On the two ways of measuring in the same report, there is a range of 100,000 children.

I have also criticized the opposition for trying to mix up the different ways of measuring child poverty in order to create a larger difference. I think that is dishonest.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! There are different ways to calculate poverty in Sweden. There are many different organizations that show different statistics. But all measures point in the same direction. This applies regardless of whether one chooses to follow Rädda Barnens poverty measure, SCB's poverty measure, or something else. Whichever measure one uses, the figures point in the same direction, namely that child poverty and poverty in general in Sweden is increasing. It does not come from the Sverigedemokraterna.

The reforms that the government and the Sweden Democrats have implemented have not been of any use. Many of them have, on the contrary, made the situation worse for many of these families.

The economy has worsened. It makes the situation much more difficult for those who are unemployed. Nothing has been done regarding the child allowance. When it comes to the housing allowance, the housing cost limit has been raised for this year. That is very good. It should have been done many years ago.

But before that, the supplementary allowance was removed. This means that in kronor and ören, families with children get over 1,000 less in their wallets every month.

It cannot be denied that the government and the Sweden Democrats have not handled the cost crisis for families with children well. On the contrary, they have made the situation worse.

I wonder if Daniel Persson is satisfied with that or not. It is, in any case, the closing of the accounts for the Sverigedemokraternas first term in power.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

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

We will soon lower the food VAT. It is a relatively large cost for families with children. In a year, it can amount to a saving of 6,500 kronor for an average family.

We are increasing the housing allowance. Families with one child can receive an increase of 800 kronor per month. The increase for families with two or more children will be 1,000 kronor per month. It is a targeted support.

It is the first time since 1997 that the ceiling levels are being raised. The Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Green Party have been in power for a number of these years without the housing allowance being strengthened.

It seems to be easy to promise in opposition that one will increase the housing allowance. But when one has sat in the government, it seems to have been very difficult to implement.

We are lowering the preschool and after-school fee. Inflation has made it more expensive to have children in preschool. Therefore, the maximum fee is now being lowered. For a family with a police officer and a nurse with two children aged three and five, this means a saving of 4,500 kronor in lower fees per year.

It is also one of several economic supports aimed at families that will make a difference.

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to start where politics must always start: in people's reality.

In Sweden today, there are children who go to school hungry. There are parents who cannot afford new shoes, now that the winter shoes are to be put away and other shoes need to be bought. There are families who balance on the edge every month, and sometimes fall over.

It is not a temporary situation. It is a development that is moving very quickly, and it is going in completely the wrong direction. Child poverty is increasing. Unemployment has remained at high levels, and more and more families are forced to apply for financial assistance.

This is confirmed, among other things, by recurring reports from SCB, Socialstyrelsen, and organizations such as Rädda Barnen, Svenska kyrkan, and Majblomman. It is not worthy of a country like Sweden, Madam Speaker.

When unemployment increases, the vulnerability among families with children also increases. Here we see one of the government's absolute greatest failures. It is a lack of an active labor market policy.

One is good at making demands on people, but one is worse at providing tools. One cuts back on labor market measures, one dismantles educational initiatives, and one leaves people in unemployment for longer and longer.

At the same time, proposals are now being presented that everyone except the government believes will increase poverty, which is already increasing at a record pace. It is a dangerous combination to both make it harder to receive support and harder to get a job.

We are already seeing the consequences. Long-term unemployment has increased. More children live in economically vulnerable households. More and more turn to civil society to get food and support. Homelessness risks continuing to increase in the wake of economic pressure. It is not a coincidence. It is a policy that withdraws security without building any new paths forward at all.

We must also dare to speak plainly about one of our time's most serious societal challenges, that ever younger children are being drawn into gang crime. 13- and 14-year-olds are being recruited into violent environments. These are children who should be at football practices, in classrooms or at home with their families, not in the grip of crime.

Research and reports from among others Brå show that socioeconomic factors, such as upbringing conditions and economic vulnerability, play a very important role for the risk of being drawn into crime.

It does not mean that poverty automatically leads to crime. But it means that insecurity, overcrowding and a lack of faith in the future increase vulnerability.

When children grow up in families where the finances do not add up, where the stress is constant and where opportunities feel far away, recruitment becomes easier for the criminal networks.

What is the government's answer then? Yes, worse economic conditions for families with children, reduced housing allowances and higher costs for youth dental care and for the elderly's medicines, but also lower taxes for the very richest. It is an equation that simply does not add up. It risks worsening the situation.

If we are to break the gangs in Sweden, we must also break the recruitment. We do not do that by increasing child poverty in Sweden. We do it by giving every child a secure upbringing, a functioning school, and a future to believe in.

In the midst of this, the government chooses to target those who already have the least. We see reforms regarding benefit ceilings and qualification rules for social insurance benefits. These are proposals that, according to a number of very heavy actors, risk directly hitting children. Save the Children warns that more children will fall into poverty. Stadsmissionen warns of increased vulnerability and social unrest with ever-longer food queues. Several referral bodies argue that the reforms could have the opposite effect: that establishment in the labor market is made more difficult. These are serious warnings, and they deserve to be taken most seriously.

We Social Democrats choose a different path. We begin with a simple but decisive principle: that secure families with children build secure and strong societies. Therefore, we propose a strengthening of the family policy. Let me be concrete: We want to increase the child allowance.

The child allowance is general, accurate, and simple, and it reaches all children. But most importantly, it makes a difference here and now. For a family with children who is already pressured by high food prices and rents, an increased child allowance can be directly decisive. It can be what makes it possible to pay for that activity or have the means to buy clothes and avoid that worry every month. It is not just a social reform. It is an investment in children's future.

We do not want to stop at the child allowance. We also want to strengthen and modernize the housing allowance so that it reflects today's costs. We want to make the systems a bit more predictable so that people can avoid tough clawbacks, develop the parental insurance in a more equal direction, and ensure that the safety nets actually work in everyday life. Fraud must be combated, but without making entire groups suspicious. It is about building a system that people can trust.

Madam Speaker! Economic security is not created only through state support and insurance. It is created through work. Therefore, our line is very clear. A strong family policy must go hand in hand with a strong labor market policy. Everyone who can work shall work in Sweden. Therefore, we think, for example, that it is good that the government proceeds with our proposal to introduce an activity requirement in social assistance. But it needs to be followed by an active labor market policy and education, and there the government does not deliver.

We mean that more should be invested in education and skills development and strengthened matchings on the labor market. We want to give more people the opportunity to take a job, give young unemployed people the opportunity to get a driver's license, stimulate investments in housing construction and be at the forefront in innovation. Long-term unemployment must be broken, but not through reduced benefits but through increased opportunities. That is how you truly reduce poverty.

There is a decisive difference in perspective. The government sees problems and responds with restrictions. We see problems and respond with solutions. The government cuts back. We want to invest. The government increases the pressure on those who are already struggling. We want to strengthen their opportunities.

Sweden should not be a country where children grow up in anxiety. It should be a country where every child receives security, opportunities, and faith in the future, but that requires a policy that holds society together, not a policy that pulls it apart.

Madam Speaker! I say yes to increased child allowance, yes to a stronger safety net, and yes to an active labor market policy, but no to a policy that increases inequalities and makes children poorer. With that, I move for the approval of reservation 20.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! It is as Astrid Lindgren once so wisely said: "Give children love, more love, and even more love, and common sense will come of its own accord." She points out something important here, Astrid – namely that it is in the families where the foundation is laid for a secure upbringing, which also produces secure children. Families know best themselves what their children need and which decisions work in their specific life puzzle. That is how it should be. Politics should never take over the family's role. Politics should not micro-manage people's lives. Politics' task is to create good conditions, provide support when needed, and be there as the ultimate safety net when life does not fall into place.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the economic family policy. It is an area that touches, in large measure, every Swedish family at some point in life. The ultimate task of family policy is simple to formulate, but it is absolutely crucial that we succeed with it. Children shall be allowed to grow up under secure and good conditions. Therefore, the economic family policy shall strengthen the finances of families with children, especially where the needs are greatest. It shall give parents better opportunities to combine work and family life. It shall also facilitate equal parenting and ensure that children get time with both of their parents, in the case that one has two parents.

Madam Speaker! For us Moderates, the economic family policy rests on three simple but crucial principles. We can speak of security, trust, and responsibility. Therefore, the Moderate-led government has, during the current mandate period, begun extensive reform work regarding precisely those three principles.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with responsibility. During the spring, the major subsidy reform will arrive. It consists of three parts: subsidy ceilings, qualification for social insurance, and activity requirements. It must always be profitable to work. We Moderates want to see more people moving from subsidies to work. We are moving from a subsidy policy that all too often has passivized people to now setting requirements. It is to take responsibility so that the welfare system shall be long-term sustainable, but also so that taxpayers' money shall be used correctly and so that children do not grow up in homes where subsidy dependency instead of work has become the norm.

It is not reasonable that some children today do not see their parents go to work a single day throughout their entire upbringing. It is the reality for some children today. Just the thought of what a terrible failure it is for society makes me incredibly sad.

It is not fair that the systems are designed so that self-sufficiency in some cases appears almost less profitable than benefit dependency. It is not fair that people who work and pay taxes should finance a system that does not place requirements on those who can actually work and want to contribute. Therefore, it is good that the government implements reforms that strengthen the incentives for work and make the welfare more sustainable over time.

Madam Speaker! Family policy is also about trust that parents can make decisions. Since before, the Moderate-led government has doubled the number of double days. These are days when both parents can be at home together with their child. We have trust that the families themselves can decide and determine this.

The Moderate-led government has also increased the possibility for guardians to transfer parental leave days to someone else. We trust that parents can decide this themselves.

During the spring, a government bill will be submitted to the Riksdag which means that the unnecessary requirement to first report and then apply for parental leave will be removed. I have myself recently been on parental leave, and it is very difficult as a parent to understand why it is that way. It may feel like a rather small change, but it will make things easier. For a parent of a small child trying to put the pieces together, it is a small piece of the puzzle that actually matters. There will be less hassle, fewer unnecessary steps, and more focus on the family, just as it should be. That is how a modern family policy should work.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to speak about security, which I began my speech by speaking about and which Astrid Lindgren described so beautifully. Security is about systems functioning. That is why the government is also moving forward and making the housing allowance more accurate and correct. It is about reducing the risk of incorrect payments, reducing clawbacks, and thereby also reducing indebtedness.

The reclaiming of housing benefits has, of course, created enormous anxiety for many. When people cannot trust how the support is distributed, security is eroded. Therefore, it is right to modernize the system so that it becomes fairer for both the individual and the entire tax collective.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: The Moderates believe in the family's own strength. We want more children to see their parents go to work. We believe in a society that is there when life tests you but which at the same time sets requirements. The child's best interests shall always be at the center, and families shall receive support when life is vulnerable. But security is not built through long-term benefit dependency but through work, empowerment, and self-sufficiency.

That is why the Moderate-led government stands for a family policy that combines care and security with responsibility. It is a policy that strengthens families, breaks down social exclusion, and builds a stronger and more just Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! The importance of children needing to see their parents go to work was repeated several times here. That is something I sign on to.

I wonder, however, where the labor market policy is. Or does the member mean that the full responsibility lies with the individuals? Should they take not only their own responsibility but also the responsibility that lies with politics? It is often heard here that one must ensure there are tougher measures against those who receive benefits. But I rarely hear any Moderate members explain to me in what way people should be able to take a job in this country.

The lack of labor market policy in the so-called work line is very clear. This government has had three labor market ministers during the mandate period – I believe that is the number. It is quite synonymous with the situation prevailing on the labor market policy front.

I really want to know how we are to achieve that more children will see their parents go to work and that children will grow up in homes where security prevails. Or does the government expect that it is the reforms that are now underway, and which practically all referral bodies mean will increase child poverty, that are to solve these problems?

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Member! It is certainly pleasant to talk a bit about labor market policy. It also has a strong connection to economic family policy. I am happy to speak with the Member about that.

I just want to frame this, perhaps primarily for the listeners at home because I am convinced that the member is well-informed. Sweden has since the 90s crisis had an unemployment rate that has stayed between 6 and 9 percent. I believe we can at least agree on that, even if we may disagree on the rest.

It is often said that unemployment increases by approximately 2 percentage points in a recession. Has it increased by 2 percentage points during this recession? No, it has not. It has increased by 1 percentage point. It is therefore lower than during the financial crisis and lower than during the corona pandemic.

It is, however, a fact that this government inherited a high structural unemployment when we took office in 2022. I missed that both in the member's speech and in the question. In order to be able to answer what should be done, one must also specify what the problem is. One needs, among other things, to be able to talk about the failed integration.

There is a large difference in the unemployment figures. For those who are domestically born, unemployment is at approximately 4.7 percent, and for those who are foreign-born, unemployment is at 14.8 percent. There is a large difference between whether one is domestically born or foreign-born.

Then the conclusion must be that it is actually a failed integration policy that lies behind it. And it is precisely that which the Moderate-led government now has a major focus on, among other things by strengthening Sfi, which will be the case this year.

I will return to more proposals in my next speech.

(Applause)

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! It sounds as if the member is quite satisfied regarding unemployment and that she would like to put into words why it looks the way it does. But I do not understand how one can be satisfied that 100,000 more have become unemployed since this government took office and that Sweden has, in principle, the EU's third highest unemployment and among Europe's highest youth unemployment. That is the receipt for this labor market policy, which the member just spoke very warmly about. To me, it is very strange.

There was also a bit of talk about it being due to deficiencies in integration. If one looks at many of the reforms that are now underway, and which the government sees as its great flagship, one sees that practically all referral bodies mean that they will lead to opposite effects. They will not lead to any significant labor market effects. They will, however, primarily deepen child poverty, and they risk increasing crime. When child poverty increases, unfortunately, crime also increases many times over.

This government also speaks a lot about law and order and tougher measures against criminals. Why does one now want to do the gangs a great service when, by introducing these reforms, which will increase child poverty, one ensures an increase in the basis for gang recruitment? I would like to have an answer to that.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! It is good that you mention youth unemployment, Arber Gashi! I would very much like to discuss that. We see it quite differently, so to speak.

SCB's own statistics show that 60 percent of the youths counted as unemployed are actually full-time students. It has been quite a while since I studied law, but I did it for nearly five years. I did not see myself as unemployed during the time I studied law full-time. It was admittedly quite poor in the summer, and then one sought a summer job to try to manage to still be able to pay the rent. But I definitely did not see myself as unemployed when I was a full-time student.

One needs to be able to clear the figures of those who are actually full-time students. 60 percent of the young people who are counted as unemployed are in fact full-time students. It is important that the listeners and viewers at home understand that difference. The real figure, if one clears away the full-time students, is approximately 5.4 percent. That is a quite large difference.

I do not know if the member had any more concrete questions. But it feels important that the last 40 seconds I have become a bit clarifying regarding what one has to the left and what one has to the right. I think it is nice if the viewers at home can see that.

I see an incredibly strong connection between more parents needing to go to work and us having concrete policy for it. We can absolutely support families with children with increased benefits; that is usually your answer. But there is also another way. That is the way the Moderaterna stand for.

(Applause)

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! Ulrika Heindorff spoke quite a bit about trust in families and about how we, from the political side, should trust that the families at home know what they need and do what they can, and that we should not govern too much at a detailed level. I fully agree with what Ulrika Heindorff says.

Then it becomes a bit interesting that Ulrika Heindorff, her party comrades and the comrades in the other government parties have no trust whatsoever in those here in the country who are unemployed and receive benefits. It is said instead that those who are unemployed are so because sufficiently tough requirements are not placed on them – that they do not want to work. That is why they do not go to a job today.

There are no signs at all or evidence that is the case. All expert bodies agree that it pays to work compared to being unemployed. All experts agree that there is no lack of incentives to work in Sweden today.

I had a couple of debates this autumn with Johan Britz and Anna Tenje regarding the reforms being presented. I then asked them a question that I intend to also ask Ulrika Heindorff: How many of Sweden's unemployed are unemployed of their own free will? How many are those who have chosen to receive unemployment benefits, social assistance, or something similar instead of working? Can Ulrika Heindorff give me a concrete figure and a source reference?

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! I feel that the member is somewhat putting words in my mouth when he claims that what I say indicates that people want to be unemployed. In the previous exchange, I explained that it is exactly the opposite – that it is partly a totally failed integration that has caused us to end up where we have ended up and that we have not been able to support people in the right way when it comes to either language or education level.

I know that your answer is increased benefits, and our answer is something else. Our answer will always be self-sufficiency and that we shall make it possible for as many as possible in this country to move from benefits to work.

Then one might wonder what solutions we have – what do the Moderaterna want to do? I mentioned a few things earlier. It concerns, among other things, vocational training at the upper secondary and university levels. It is about working with the matching, as is done at Arbetsförmedlingen, in a clearer way than before. We extend the establishment jobs, and we make it cheaper to hire. We invest in psychiatry, because we know that the increased mental ill-health has a strong connection to sick leave but also to unemployment. So it is not that things are not being done – on the contrary.

I believe that very few people are unemployed of their own free will. But I believe that politics can do more to increase the incentives and opportunities. It is about the entire transformation of SFI – previously, one could attend SFI for many years, but now there will be individual plans and clearer follow-ups so that one learns the language. We know that the language is the key to being able to work in Sweden.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! On the one hand, it is not that people choose to be unemployed, and on the other hand, requirements need to be set for them so that they pull themselves together. On the one hand, no requirements need to be set for them, because they do want to work, and on the other hand, we need to set much higher requirements for them. I do not think this adds up.

If one considers that the problem with structural unemployment in Sweden is that too few demands are made, it is implicit that one does not think people are doing enough. But people are doing enough. Those who are unemployed are really trying. That is what all civil society organizations working with this group say. That is what the social services and Arbetsförmedlingen say, and even the unemployed themselves. It is not the lack of demands that is the problem; it is the lack of prerequisites. This is what the Fiscal Policy Council says. It is not a lack of incentives; it is a lack of skills development and opportunities. That is where the investment should be made.

The reforms that Ulrika Heindorff and her party advocate for and now want to push through will, according to all experts, lead to more people becoming poor, not to more people entering employment. It was, among other things, this that became the consequence when these reforms were implemented in Denmark: unemployment increased, especially among immigrant women. It decreased slightly in some groups but increased in other groups. It is not a reform that will have the effects that Ulrika Heindorff demands. One is not pushing for a work line but for a poverty line.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! Just so everyone at home is following: Now we are talking about the subsidy reform, which the Green Party is very negatively disposed towards, one might say. Parts of it I find so incredibly difficult to understand, even though I try to interpret and understand how one could think on the other side of the politics.

Take this regarding activity requirements. Activity requirements apply when one receives maintenance support and has a total work capacity of 100 percent – one wants and can therefore work; we know at least that one can. Today, no requirements have been set for what one must do during those 100 percent for which one receives their activity support. What the activity requirement now entails is that the municipalities must offer these persons different ways to make themselves more attractive on the labor market.

It is incredibly difficult for me as a Moderate to understand how one can be against this. How can one be against an activity requirement? It would be positive if the Green Party and the member were in favor of this, but it is very difficult to understand how one can be against such a part of the subsidy reform.

I shall try not to repeat myself too much. I can only finally, during the last 30 seconds of my speech, state that the moderately led government has not been idle when it comes to families with children. In addition to lowering the income tax – there are also many families with children where both parents or one of them works – we have introduced the leisure card and increased the housing allowance, we are modernizing the housing allowance, we are lowering the fee for preschool and after-school care, we are simplifying the parental leave, we are strengthening the right to vab in difficult situations and so on. We have therefore done a lot for families with children, and we continue to have families with children as a strong focus moving forward.

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! When I was 17 years old, we had our first child. It is the most beautiful thing that has happened to me, but it also became the beginning of a journey through our security system – a journey that was sometimes both tough and painful.

Because we were so young, we were not entitled to parental leave. Instead, the social services became our means of support. For a period of one year, we lived in a system where every krona counted and our family was scrutinized in the smallest detail so that we could reach the absolute necessities. I still remember the feeling in my body – how it could tighten in the stomach from the inhuman stress. I was of course happy about the help, but also weighed down by the pressure that came with it.

To be honest, Madam Speaker: Living in poverty is incredibly tough. It is directly existential. Everything in life is about making every krona count.

When we later became of age, the situation changed. Then we received the right to parental leave. We were able to keep the child allowance, and we could apply for housing allowance. It wasn't large sums even then, but it was more – and it made a decisive difference, not just economically but also in how it felt. There was a normality in it, a dignity. We were no longer an exception but a part of a system. We were like everyone else.

Since then, I have carried with me a strong sense of gratitude – gratitude for being born in a country where there was a political will to give all children a reasonable start in life and that my child would not have to grow up in extreme poverty just because I was young. But it is something that is in the process of being lost.

Sometimes I wonder if we have started to forget why our safety nets exist. The government speaks more and more often about people as a burden, as if the one who needs support is a problem and as if the one who ends up in a difficult situation has themselves to blame. It is a dangerous development, because the truth is that most of us will at some point in our lives need help. Our safety nets exist so that we can feel secure, so that we do not fall into poverty, and so that we can get new opportunities to grow.

In the spring I was in Colombia, and there I saw a young mother sitting on the street with her child in her arms and asking for money. It was an image that lingered, because it struck me how fragile the difference actually is. Had I been born somewhere else, it could have been me sitting there. And had she been born here, it could one day have been her standing in this rostrum as a mother who once had a tough economic situation but who, with a little help from society, could have given her children a secure upbringing and herself a life to be proud of.

It was precisely that which once made Sweden a land of dreams – that background did not have to determine the entire future and that poverty was something we would help people get out of. But something is about to be taken away from us. Today we see how the gaps are growing. More and more children live in economic vulnerability and single parents, mostly women, are being pressured harder and harder – so hard that one in three during the last year has refrained from eating their fill themselves in order to be able to give their children food, and so hard that 276,000 children live in economic vulnerability.

At the same time, our safety systems are not keeping up. Our safety nets are under attack. The child allowance has not kept pace with the cost developments, the housing allowance has been eroded, and the government has chosen to remove temporary reinforcements despite the need remaining – this despite the extreme cost developments we have all been affected by and despite the government seeing how hard families with children are forced to struggle. That, Madam Speaker, is nothing less than scandalous.

We in Vänsterpartiet think that instead it is high time to strengthen the economic family policy and take a firm stand against economic vulnerability. We therefore want to increase the child allowance by 400 kronor, introduce two extra child allowances during the summer and index the family policy benefits so that they follow the cost developments. We want to introduce a permanent increase of the housing allowance. We want to raise the income limits so that more people are entitled to the support. We also want households without children to be included, because fundamentally this is about what kind of society we want to be.

I know how it feels not to be able to give your child what you want. But I also know what happens when security is there, when the finances add up and when the stress lets go. That is when people grow. That is when opportunities open up. That is how we get people to become part of a larger community and give a real chance to a brighter future for our children. We do not reach that by making poor people even poorer.

Madam Speaker! We cannot talk about family policy without talking about equality. A few weeks ago, we here in the Riksdag were informed about how equality is actually faring in Sweden, and it is, frankly, a grim reality.

The statistics speak for themselves. During the government's time in power, women's wages have developed in the wrong direction. Sick leave has increased. Women take even greater responsibility for parental leave, for the home, and for unpaid work. Instead of moving forward, we see how the inequality between women and men is now increasing.

A decisive factor behind this is how we distribute time with our children. Today, women take around 70 percent of the parental leave. That is more than double that of men. This is not a detail in the statistics. It is one of the strongest drivers behind unequal wages, poorer career opportunities, and lower pensions for women. For a long time, the development has nevertheless moved towards a more equal distribution, albeit slowly, but now we see how even that modest development has stalled. Then we must begin to speak plainly.

The argument that politics should not interfere in families' decisions sounds appealing, but in practice, it means that we accept a system where women continue to take a greater responsibility and also pay the price for it throughout their lives. It is difficult to call it real freedom, because what happens in the home is not isolated from the rest of society. The consequences are visible in the paycheck, in the sickness absence rates, and in the pensions. Freedom with responsibility is an important principle, but when the responsibility repeatedly falls unevenly, we cannot turn a blind eye. In that case, politics needs to step in.

At the same time, we must be honest that it is not just about norms but also about economics. The wage gaps make it often appear more rational for the woman to stay home longer, and the one who stays home longer in turn falls even further behind. It is a pattern that reinforces itself. Precisely for that reason, we need to break it.

We mean that it is time to take the next step and introduce an individualized parental leave. But that is not enough. We must also raise the ceiling for the parental benefit so that more people can afford to actually share equally. The goal should be that at least 80 percent of wage earners receive 80 percent of their salary. The basic level must be raised. It has stood still for far too long and risks cementing the inequality further.

Let us be honest: It is difficult to say, with honor intact, that one is investing in economic family policy if one does not simultaneously invest in equality.

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposed decision in the report and rejection of all motions.

Madam Speaker! Hearing personal stories always touches one. I believe that all of us in some way have gone through, or have someone in our vicinity who has gone through, tough economic situations with children.

I studied myself. I was in my final year of upper secondary school when my first child was born. That meant that our economic possibilities were not the best. Yes, now you see me – I was 26 years old when I started upper secondary school, so I was a bit older than one usually is. But that also makes the economic situation different.

I do not know if my upbringing today would have fallen under what we talk about as child poverty. I was the youngest of five siblings in a family with one income. I got my first new bicycle when I was twelve years old. I do not know if that is a sign of child poverty. I do not know if our economic situation would have been classified as what we call relative child poverty. But there was always money for tobacco and alcohol. My mother turned and twisted the coins. I have not had to go to school hungry. I have always had clothes to put on. But I know that my mother struggled to make the finances work while my father made other priorities.

For me as a Christian Democrat, today's debate topic is very important. Economic family policy is, of course, about economy, but just as Ulrika Heindorff touched upon, it is also about security. It is about responsibility, and it is about trust.

For us Christian Democrats, the starting point is clear. We believe in the family. We believe in the parents. We believe that parents are those who are best suited to take care of their own children. All research shows that for children up to three years of age, the parents are the only adults the child needs. The task of politics is therefore not to rule the family but to support it.

Madam Speaker! We see that the government has recently implemented changes within the parental insurance which in some parts are moving in the right direction, not least when it comes to simplifications.

For example, we heard earlier here that the requirement to report withdrawals of parental leave will be removed. This means that it is sufficient to apply directly, something that makes the system simpler and more flexible for parents. That is good – every step that reduces hassle and increases trust in parents is a step in the right direction.

At the same time, changes have been implemented which mean that the rules for the withdrawal of parental leave have been tightened. There are now clearer requirements for actual leave in order to receive compensation. It shows that the policy balances between control and trust.

Madam Speaker! For us Christian Democrats, it is nevertheless crucial where the emphasis lies. We believe that the parental leave system should fundamentally be designed so that it gives families freedom and is not governing how parents share their time or organize their daily lives. Families are different. Children are different, and life looks different. Therefore, the systems must also provide room for different choices.

At the same time, there is a clear tendency in Swedish politics that the desire to control creeps in. There become a few more rules and a little less flexibility and trust. In the end, we are left with a system that says: We trust you, but only if you do as we think.

Madam Speaker! There is a very clear dividing line here. For the Social Democrats and the Left Party, it seems to be more important that things become equal than that they become best for each family. For us Christian Democrats, it is the opposite. Justice is not that everyone does the same, but justice is that each family gets to do what is best for them.

In addition to changes in the regulations, we have also seen important economic reinforcements for families with children in the budgets of recent years. In a time of high inflation and pressured household economies, it has been necessary to strengthen the support. This includes, among other things, an increase in the housing allowance and, as we have heard, also other targeted measures to make it easier for families with children to make ends meet in their daily lives. This is fundamentally positive, but it also places demands on the systems being used correctly and reaching those who truly need the support.

Madam Speaker! I want to be clear: Economic reinforcements are important, but they must never become a way for the state to take over the family's role. Money can facilitate, but it is the parents who create the security. It is in the family that children receive their first values, their first sense of community, and their first sense of responsibility.

Christian Democratic family policy is about three things: freedom, responsibility and security. Therefore, we want to continue to work to reduce the micro-management in the parental leave and increase the flexibility so that life actually works out and families get greater power over their own everyday lives. Parents are not a problem to be solved – they are a resource to be strengthened.

Madam Speaker! Kristdemokratisk policy is based on the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions should be made as close to the individual as possible. In practical terms, it means that parents should have power over their own everyday lives and that families should be able to make their own choices. The state should support parents and the family, especially when life is difficult.

When we discuss family policy, we must therefore ask ourselves a decisive question: Are we building a system based on trust in parents or a system based on the assumption that the state knows best? For us, the answer is obvious. We choose trust in the parents. We choose responsibility, and we choose to stand up for the families' freedom. Let us therefore continue to develop family policy in a direction where we do not rule but strengthen and support, and where we do not complicate things but simplify and trust that parents are exactly what they are: the most important people in their children's lives.

(Applause)

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

Madeleine Atlas (C)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the Center Party's reservation 24 under point 9.

The child allowance was introduced in 1948 to encourage higher birth rates. This was after the war and after the introduction of contraceptives and a begun equality in the labor market. The economy was quite meager, and there were not such large incentives to have children.

In the book *Kris i befolkningsfrågan* by Alva Myrdal and Gunnar Myrdal, which was published in 1934, the policy that existed at that time regarding the family situation is described. It concerns the declining fertility in Sweden at that time. One can read that a constant population in Sweden requires a high average fertility of three children – lo and behold – marital fertility; it is a bit nice.

They meant that the public should share the burden of child costs in solidarity, while simultaneously emphasizing that large numbers of children are not socially desirable. The book contributed to the introduction of a means-tested child allowance in 1937. About ten years later, this transitioned into a general child allowance, similar to the one we have today, at a total of 260 kronor per child per year. This corresponds to approximately 6,000 kronor today.

Do we have the same situation today? One can read in the newspapers that we are having too few children. We have the lowest birth rate in 23 years, and every woman gives birth to an average of only 1.43 children. One can notice that the concern over this is palpable – but do we really want to encourage higher birth rates when today we burden the globe with far too many people and we pollute, spoil, and do everything we can to end our world? We do not even have food for all people.

Of course, the response will be that it is the other countries that have too large a population, while we in Sweden have a shortage of children. At the same time, however, we are sending children out from our country. Is it only I who do not understand this?

A child costs the state millions of kronor, and when the child becomes an adult, this individual is in many cases a drain on the coffers. Increasing Sweden's population through the immigration of children of older age, i.e., young adults, would have brought money into the coffers.

Mr. Speaker, back to the child allowance! If a family wants and can take on the great and wonderful task of having children, the child allowance is, of course, a great relief. It can contribute to creating somewhat greater opportunities to give children a more equal childhood.

Centerpartiet wants to strengthen the economy for the families who need it most. We want a child benefit that is there without complicated bureaucracy or mistrust. At the same time, one needs to review how the system can strengthen the families who need it the most. We must keep in mind that this fairness does not hold up for very long.

I have had the financial possibility to set aside some of the child allowance for my four children so that when they have reached mature age – i.e., become of age – they have been able to take part in these funds. I also have very many friends who have been able to set aside the entire child allowance, and their children have received it when they became of age. Those children have been able to buy their own apartments, and there are many today who cannot buy their own apartment.

Suddenly, we have now created a huge gap between the children who come from financially stable families and those who do not. It is an inequality that we might not solve here today, but I still think it can be worth taking with us.

We in the Center Party will continue to stand behind today's model with a general child allowance for everyone, but we believe that the multi-child supplement should be reviewed. It has shown that the supplement for the second child does not provide any real precision, and in that case, it might be better to consider if those funds can be used for something better.

I also want to take the opportunity to mention another thing in the proposal. Of course, one must keep their own company alive if one is on parental leave. For my own part, it was absolutely crucial that I could give my company a little love during the time I had children. Starting your own company is about daring to take the step, and an unfavorable family planning can unfortunately be what makes one not dare.

Finally, I want to mention that the bill, with the Center Party's proposal, is good.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is somewhat unfortunate that we are having this debate today and not in a week, because it is actually the case that this year's report on the economic situation of families with children will be released this Tuesday by Majblomman, Rädda Barnen, Röda Korset, and Hyresgästföreningen. With only half a year left of the parliamentary term, that report will serve as a kind of closing balance for how well the Tidö Government has handled economic family policy, and it would have been interesting to have it to refer to.

Even without leaning on that specific report, I nevertheless feel confident in the following assessment of the government's policy: It has been really, really bad. During this mandate period, child poverty in Sweden has spiraled out of control. According to Statistics Sweden, the number of poor Swedes has doubled in just five years, to 730,000 last year. According to Save the Children, every eighth child in Sweden grows up in poverty, which means one in three of the children in a normal-sized Swedish school class. This is the legacy of the Tidö parties.

Even though different actors have different measures and arrive at slightly different figures, all assessors agree: The situation has worsened for Sweden's families with children and low-income earners during the Tidö parties' time in power. We do not see it only in abstract poverty figures, but we see it in everyday life.

The number of evictions has increased by 30 percent in three years, and 824 children were evicted last year. That is almost twice as many as five years earlier. In addition to them, there are all the families who choose to move before an eviction has managed to be carried out. The most common reason for an eviction is simply that people cannot afford to pay the rent. We also see that more and more children and parents cannot afford to eat their fill, and we see that more and more families must turn to civil society to get money for leisure activities and for clothes.

Madam Speaker! During this parliamentary term, the government has lowered the housing allowance by up to 1,100 kronor a month for the most vulnerable families with children – and called it a historic increase. They have allowed the child allowance to be eroded to its lowest value in over 50 years – and claimed to support families with children. They have accelerated the tapering of the unemployment insurance – and called it a reinforcement. It is verbal gymnastics that is impressive.

The Tidö parties' disregard for subsidies has actually gone so far that the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its latest review, criticized Sweden because the compensations in the social security systems are too low to secure the human rights of Swedes. One of the committee's three primary recommendations to strengthen human rights in Sweden was therefore to increase and index the compensations in the social security systems, to ensure that they correspond to the actual cost of living.

Instead, the government and the Sweden Democrats choose to go all in on dismantling our common safety systems, through a benefit ceiling and a qualification requirement for welfare – reforms that all experts agree will lead to increased child poverty, increased segregation, increased mental ill-health, and poorer school results. The Tidö parties call it a work line, but we all know what it really is: a poverty line.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet offer a real alternative in our budgets and in the motions that we are debating here today. We want Sweden to have a security system that actually offers people economic security when times are difficult.

It means an increase of the child allowance to 1,600 kronor per month, as well as an indexing of it, so that families with children can afford to buy clothes suitable for the weather and go to the cinema once in a while, even when prices rise. It means an indexing of the maintenance support so that single parents receive the support they need when the other parent fails. It also means that the housing allowance is fundamentally restructured so that all families with children actually can afford to pay the rent and do not need to live in excessively cramped and substandard apartments when rents rise.

Miljöpartiet wants to see a comprehensive reform of the housing allowance where new goals are established, where the limits in the allowance are raised and indexed, where the age limit is removed, where lodgers are given the right to the allowance and where pre-notifications can be given. In this way, we can get a housing allowance that actually fulfills its purpose and which ensures that families with children, students and adults with low incomes can afford a secure and good home.

Madam Speaker! Economic family policy is also about the parental leave, and there we should not mince words in that Sweden is world-class. As someone who will soon become a father for the first time and take out his first weeks of parental leave before the summer, I can only express my gratitude to the politicians, of all party colors, who have led the way and ensured that we have the fantastic system that we have today.

However, it does not mean that there is no room for improvement – what kind of politicians would we be if we could not come up with ways to make good things a little better? For example, the possibility of parental leave for sole traders needs to be strengthened, and the conditions for students who go on parental leave or need to take time off for childcare need to be improved.

Some problems can be solved by adapting the SGI protection for entrepreneurs and students based on the final report A security system for everyone, which was presented in 2023. Other problems can be solved through concrete proposals that we suggest in our motions.

Other reforms we want to see are that the parental leave is divided into three equal parts to promote a more equal take-up of parental days. We also want to extend the protection of the parental benefit for part-time working parents, the so-called "speed premium," so that more parents get the opportunity to work part-time without, for that reason, as is the case today, being forced to have children more frequently than they might actually want and more frequently than what might suit the family, the work situation, and health.

Madam Speaker! I shall conclude this speech by quoting the objective for expenditure area 12 in the state budget, that of economic security for families and children: ”The economic family policy shall contribute to a good economic standard of living for all families with children as well as reduce the differences in the economic conditions between households with and without children.”

Sweden today has a government that conducts a policy that counteracts these goals. We do not need that. On September 13th there is an election, and then the Swedish people can choose a new government – a government consisting of parties that want to strengthen the safety systems, not erode them. They can choose a government that invests in welfare, does not condition it, and a government that understands that children fare best with food in their bellies and a secure home to live in.

Sweden deserves better than the Tidö parties' poverty line. With Miljöpartiet, Sweden can also get better. I move for approval of reservations 4 and 19.

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) concurred.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 March.)

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