Economic security for families and children

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We shall now debate report SfU3, Expenditure Area 12 Economic security for families and children.

I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

The objective for the expenditure area is that the economic family policy shall contribute to a good economic standard of living for all families with children and reduce the differences in the economic conditions between households with and without children.

The Sweden Democrats safeguard the family and place it high on the agenda. With secure families, we lay the foundation for healthy individuals and, in the long run, a healthy society.

Our starting point in family policy is the best interests of the children and creating good conditions for families to piece together their lives based on their unique life situations. All too often, family policy has instead been driven by personal political ambitions that have rather made things more difficult for families with children and have not had the children's best interests in focus.

By upgrading parenthood and family time, we benefit both children and society. Politics simply needs to take a step back and let parents make their own decisions about their own everyday lives.

We want to see a family policy that creates conditions for an equal and inclusive parental responsibility as soon as the pregnancy is a fact. Families should be given the right conditions to form bonds, not least during the first years of early childhood.

With a sound Sweden Democrat family policy, a good standard of living and well-being can be achieved. There, community and strong bonds can be forged. There, opportunities are created to jointly take responsibility based on each family's needs. There, those with poorer circumstances receive support. There, each unique family's priorities and choices are respected and encouraged.

There is a need for continued efforts to achieve greater economic security for families with children with a low economic standard. Large price increases, particularly in energy, fuels, and food, affect households with low income and small economic margins in particular, including some families with children.

Children should never have to pay the price during an economic crisis. There is therefore reason to support particularly economically vulnerable families with children. It is therefore positive that the government in the budget proposes that the temporary supplementary grant to families with children within the housing allowance should be extended until June 2023.

Parents should be given more tools and increased opportunities to use the parental leave benefit flexibly in order to strengthen freedom of choice and to increase the conditions for combining family life and high labor force participation.

Examples of measures from the government are that more days of parental leave can be used as double days, so that parents can be off together for longer, and that it will be possible to transfer parental leave to more people than is the case today. These are proposals within the family policy that the Sverigedemokraterna have long campaigned for. It is positive that the government is now addressing these issues.

However, there is even more that needs to be addressed in the long term. Among other things, the flexibility in the parental insurance needs to be reviewed further to facilitate the life puzzle for families with children.

We also see major deficiencies in the regulatory framework for compensation regarding the pregnancy allowance. It is difficult to have granted, and the compensation levels lag behind. We therefore hope that the government will carefully follow up on the government inquiry that is now being conducted regarding the pregnancy allowance.

Economic family policy continues to play an important role in strengthening the finances of families with children. Family policy has a clear distributive policy profile, and the means-tested supports have continued to have good accuracy.

The Government assesses that family policy is an important part of the work to create equal and gender-equal upbringing and living conditions and to reduce the effects of segregation. Family policy can contribute to a good economic standard of living for families with children. The employment rate and the possibility for men and women to work full-time, however, are of great importance for reducing the risk of economic vulnerability among households with children. At the same time, the marginal effects in means-tested benefits can act to keep parents in a situation of long-term low economic standard. The risk can be particularly great for foreign-born women who have a weaker foothold in the labor market than, for example, domestic-born women.

We consider a long-term important measure to increase the employment rate and integration to be to appoint an inquiry to review the multi-child supplement and replace it with a tax deduction instead.

The work with the economic family policy has only just begun. The Sweden Democrats will closely monitor the government's work and work to ensure that important reforms are implemented for safe and well-off children and families. The starting point for the family policy must, as I have pointed out previously, be the children's best interests. It should simplify the life puzzle for all families and create economic security.

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

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour and Eric Palmqvist (both SD) concurred.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! During the election campaign, the Sweden Democrats promised a gasoline price that would be 6.50 kronor lower. A high-cost protection for electricity was promised well before Christmas. This morning, the people of Söderhamn woke up to minus 20 degrees and an electricity price of 4 kronor and 40 öre per kilowatt-hour.

Regarding the high-cost protection, there has been nothing. Regarding the gasoline price reduction, it has been perhaps 14 öre, probably less. Still, the SD-supported Prime Minister says that one has done exactly what was promised in the election. Does Daniel Persson share that view?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your question, Member Anders Ygeman!

The previous government's policy has created an unsustainable situation. We have a relatively strong basic protection for families, but we need a policy that creates an economically sustainable situation for families.

We need to prioritize stable electricity production from nuclear power, which has been dismantled by the previous government. And we need to lower the reduction obligation so that families can afford to fuel their cars. This will create a more sustainable situation for families in the long run. We have only just begun.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! It was probably not only I who did not hear the answer to the question. Daniel Persson actually read out the points from the election campaign. That was what you promised the voters, Daniel Persson. Now the election has been. The Moderates have moved into Rosenbad, and you support them. The Prime Minister says that one has done exactly what was promised in the election. The same things you now listed.

Madam Speaker! My question remains. It is a very simple question. Does Daniel Persson share the Prime Minister's view? Has the government done exactly what it promised in the election, for example when it comes to electricity price compensation?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is much to be done after these eight years with the Social Democrats in various governing red-green variants. For example, safety on streets and squares, but also out in the countryside, must be prioritized. Crime affects ordinary families.

There is much to do. After three months, we now see that the first steps are being taken in the right direction.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Daniel Persson said many fine words in his speech about the best interests of the child and economic security. But why does the member want to lower the tax for the very richest instead of ensuring that single parents have enough money to make ends meet?

The temporary increase of the housing allowance, which you choose to maintain, is not enough when prices continue to rise now. The members should be aware of that. The equalizing factor of family policy has been eroded for a long time, and you choose to do nothing about it.

When the government parties have now also fatally failed to fulfill election promises regarding, for example, lowered electricity prices and fuel prices, the households' need for subsidies becomes all the greater. Why does the member and the government parties then choose to prioritize high-income earners?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your question, member!

The opposition falsely claims that we are lowering taxes for high-income earners. We are not doing that. It is the inflation that affects the threshold for state income tax. No decisions have been made regarding tax cuts. What we are doing is establishing the price base amount as inflation is high, which leads to the effects becoming larger.

We do not intend to depart from the legislation and the regulatory framework that has existed for many years. We mean that it is a prerequisite for stable and predictable tax policy, which we also safeguard. In fact, the basic deduction and the job tax deduction are affected by the new price base amount, which means lower tax for lower incomes.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It was clear in the first budget debate of the mandate period here in the chamber that the tax cut for high-income earners came as a surprise to the palace parties. The red side has extended a hand and said that we have placed another proposal on the table, so that you can make a different decision, Daniel Persson. But you in the palace parties have not wanted to do that. It is clear that this is a deliberate decision of yours. You choose to prioritize high-income earners over ordinary families.

The policy of tax cuts for the rich has been tested for 30 years. Now we see the result. People cannot afford food or to heat their houses. At the same time, some get away scot-free and can travel on vacations to Thailand.

Are those the priorities the member thinks are reasonable? Does the member stand for the single mother paying the price so that the person who has an income over 50,000 kronor shall get a tax cut?

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your question, member!

The government's work with the economic family policy has only just begun. From our priorities and the family policy, it is a good start. We have long pointed out the importance of targeted measures for the most vulnerable families with children. There, the housing allowance has effectively reached the most vulnerable. It is therefore positive that the reinforcement is now being extended.

We see that the government is now beginning the work on important reforms that we have pointed out for a long time to facilitate choice and flexibility in family policy, for example, extended double days and that one should be able to transfer days to close relatives. It shall facilitate the families' life puzzle.

This is only the beginning of the new government's policy. We will see greater effects in the future.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Christmas is just around the corner. Putin's warfare in Ukraine has driven up prices for electricity and fuel. Interest rates are rising. Inflation is eating into Swedish households' wallets. Many wonder how they will manage the winter and how they will manage Christmas. Staff in school cafeterias across Sweden are sounding the alarm about an avalanche-like increase in school meal consumption on Mondays and Fridays. On the weekends, many children have to go hungry.

Three months ago, there was an election. None of this was news in the election campaign. The Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Sweden Democrats talked about Magda prices and pretended as if Putin's war did not affect Europe's countries to any significant extent. Falukorv was waved around. It was shouted in falsetto. Only if the blue-brown parties got government power would they fix this, and the families with children would be able to celebrate Christmas. The gas price would be lowered by 6 kronor and 50 öre. It became 14 öre at most. Electricity would be fixed with a high-cost protection.

In the morning, Svegborna woke up to -28.6 degrees and an electricity price of 4 kronor and 40 öre per kilowatt-hour. The northern part of Sweden has now received notice that they will not receive a single öre in electricity price compensation, despite the highest electricity price in many years and despite the fact that they now have the same electricity price as the rest of Sweden.

It was supposed to be in place on November 1. Households were to receive compensation "well before Christmas," to quote the Prime Minister. These are lies and broken promises on a scale that I have never previously experienced in Sweden.

Instead, we got tax cuts for high-income earners. High-income earners can rely on the Sweden Democrat-supported government. Those who earn 70,000 kronor a month get a tax cut of 1,400 kronor a month. For the families with children, who were supposed to get high-cost protection for electricity and 6.50 kronor cheaper petrol, it echoes empty in the wallets.

We Social Democrats want instead to temporarily increase the child allowance so that families can manage through the winter. When we have to prioritize, we choose families with children over high-income earners. The Moderates, Christian Democrats, Liberals, and Sweden Democrats make the opposite prioritization. They let the threshold be compensated unreasonably much, but they do not increase the child allowance. How is it that families with children are supposed to have it so much easier to manage the cost increases than high-income earners? Is it really a reasonable prioritization in the state budget?

We want to introduce a thought discount that gives the rural areas more. We also mean that the government in this serious situation should have called for crisis talks. We have extended a hand to the government to hold such talks and be able to make reprioritizations in this difficult situation - give up the tax cut for high-income earners and compensate the families with children whom Kristersson promised would receive a high-cost protection for electricity "well before Christmas". Now they get nothing from the SD-supported Moderate government.

The strangest thing is not that the government is breaking its election promises, eagerly encouraged by the Sweden Democrats. The strangest thing is that they do not stand by their policy. Despite the fact that there will be no high-cost protection, despite the fact that there will be an electricity price compensation long after what was promised, despite the fact that no one in Norrland will get to take part in it, and despite the fact that the petrol price is lowered by a maximum of 14 öre, the Prime Minister stands and says that they did exactly what they promised. With that rhetoric, Madam Speaker, it is not strange that the government's confidence is falling like a stone in the opinion polls.

Madam Speaker! Our Sweden can be better.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am convinced that all parties here in the Riksdag have a goal of making Sweden better, even if our paths to succeeding in that differ significantly.

Regarding the Social Democrats' budget proposal concerning expenditure area 12, I have a couple of questions that I would like to have answers to from Member of Parliament Anders Ygeman. In the proposal, there is an item regarding compensation for high fuel costs. Anders Ygeman himself was involved in that. My questions are quite simply: How will this compensation be paid out, and to which households?

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Rinaldo Miller for the question. This is stated in our budget motion. We will prioritize those who live in rural areas and those who have multiple cars in the household, as they are those who receive the highest income. We do not choose to spend the money on high-income earners and lower the tax for them. I believe it is specifically 240 falukorvs in tax cuts that the Christian Democrat-supported budget includes.

I have answered Camilla Rinaldo Miller's question. Now perhaps she can answer my question. Does Camilla Rinaldo Miller share the Prime Minister's view that the government is doing exactly what was promised before the election?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the half-answer. I am still waiting for the answer regarding how this compensation will be paid out. You spoke about who would receive it, Anders Ygeman, but not how it would be paid out.

Before I answer your question, I would like to know if the Social Democrats intend to lower the reduction obligation or if they intend to continue to pursue their previous policy and raise the reduction obligation. If they do the latter, it means that they are giving with one hand and taking with the other. It is said that residents in rural areas receive support, but in that case, no support will remain.

Our government is now working to fulfill the promises that were made. I stand behind my party leader and my Prime Minister. We have lowered the tax by 1 krona. We will lower the reduction obligation. That gives a minus of approximately 5-6 kronor. When the fuel price goes down, the VAT is also lowered. Together, that would make 8-10 kronor on the fuel price. I hope that you can respond to that, not give a small temporary support and then take it back by raising the reduction obligation.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! This is becoming very strange. The Christian Democrats went to the election promising to lower the petrol price by 6.50 kronor. Now, the price has been lowered by 14 öre, but they stand there and say that they have done exactly what they promised before the election. No one believes that, Camilla Rinaldo Miller.

We have seen you stand at pump after pump and promise. We have seen your party leader stand in TV debate after TV debate and wave the falukorv that was supposed to mean lower costs for households. That did not happen. The households that were supposed to receive compensation "well before Christmas" are now standing there without compensation.

One has received a notification, the Prime Minister says now. But it is very difficult to go to the store and shop for toys or Christmas ham with a notification. It becomes even harder for the northern half of Sweden. On their notification, it says: You do not get 1 krona, even though we promised it during the election campaign!

Now you are standing there asking me what I should do with the reduction obligation when you are in government, Camilla Rinaldo Miller. I think you should update your talking points, because it seems that you will not fulfill your promises even regarding the reduction obligation.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats continue to mislead with their rhetoric about broken promises. But the electricity price support is in place, and payments are already being made in February. Residents of Västerås and other people in Västmanland can already today calculate what payment they will receive in February.

What is interesting is that the newly appointed government had to handle the failed policy of Member Ygeman's own government. Sweden has an energy policy that does not measure up and fuel prices that are skyrocketing. It is the result of the previous government's pursued policy. A little self-criticism could perhaps sometimes have been appropriate.

It is also interesting how Ygeman speaks of tax cuts for high-income earners, as he calls it, when he knows very well that it is an indexation increase occurring due to inflation. He then contrasts this with what he presents regarding the general child allowance. But for heaven's sake, the general child allowance is also given to high-income earners.

Then I would probably not call one of four midwives and three of ten police officers high-income earners. But we can probably leave that unsaid in this context.

We have had to clean up after Social Democratic policy. It is happening slowly and methodically, but it is happening with concrete policy that addresses the problems, which Ygeman's own policy obviously has not done and does not do in this budget either.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by thanking Caroline Högström for the praise regarding my rhetoric. I am perhaps sorry that I cannot issue an equally high grade in return. If the criticism concerns the fact that the Prime Minister said that families with children and households would have the money "well in time before Christmas," it is a poor consolation that someone in Västerås can calculate that one will receive the money in February.

I assume the message to the family with children in Västerås will be: You were supposed to get a big Christmas present in December, but you get a very small Christmas present in February. You were supposed to have a big Christmas ham on the table in December, but unfortunately, you have to wait for a small slice of Christmas ham in February. We did promise, in fact, that you would get a very big Christmas ham and a very big Christmas present this Christmas, but unfortunately children: It will have to be a different Christmas.

This, Caroline Högström, is a breach of promise. You promise a high-cost protection on electricity in September, say that it will be in place in November and that the money will be paid out well before Christmas. Then, after the election, to quote your coalition party's economic-policy spokesperson, reality sets in. Then you have a completely different policy. You cannot stand at a pump and promise that people will get a 6.50 price reduction on gasoline, and then it becomes 14 öre at the pump.

Families with children are supposed to celebrate Christmas now and not in February. You know what, families with children in northern Sweden are also supposed to celebrate Christmas. They were the ones who were supposed to get a high-cost protection. They didn't get a single penny. You can say what you want about my and your rhetoric. But it is not the same thing as people not getting a single penny when a high-cost protection is promised.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! We had to handle the previous government's order and investigation which clearly specified southern Sweden. It is a matter of trying to handle the situation after the fact. It is also on the Social Democrats' Facebook, which one can check after the debate. I do not know if it helps that the member shakes his head.

What is interesting is that you have no solutions to the problem in any way. The problem with energy prices is the poorly conducted energy policy in recent years. The problem with fuel prices is that we stand out compared to other countries. But you have no solutions to the structural problems. Instead, you scatter subsidies.

You have a thought-discount that is supposed to give certain parts of Sweden support instead of tackling the problem. A reduced reduction obligation in 2024 will have an impact on the price. Not index-adjusting the fuel prices upward has an impact on the price. You do the opposite.

You are presenting a proposal in the committee for 4 - almost 5 - billion on a fuel discount, a subsidy, instead of actually tackling the concrete problem. That is what the government does with 7 billion to remove the indexing of the tax on fuels. That is actual policy that makes a difference, covers the costs, and addresses the problem.

But it is peak social democracy to provide subsidies so that people can afford the taxes.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! "Actual politics that makes a difference." Unfortunately, I do not think that so many families with children recognize themselves in that description, Caroline Högström.

It was they who you promised in September that the price at the pump would be lowered by 6.50, when it is now lowered by 10 or 14 öre. That fuel discount that you are making a fuss about would have given that same family with children 1,400 kronor if they have two cars. It is 14 öre versus 1,400 kronor. It is about actually making a difference.

You promised a high-cost protection on electricity. You have now abandoned that. Now you promise an electricity price compensation. It was supposed to be paid out well before Christmas. For half of Sweden, it will arrive in February. For the other half of Sweden, it will not arrive at all, despite them having the highest electricity prices in ten years.

It is true that we want to increase the child allowance for families with children to cope with the electricity crisis. You do not want to do that. Instead, you promise tank discounts and electricity price compensations that do not materialize.

Swallow your pride. Have a conversation, and make sure that Sweden's families with children can put the ham on the table before Christmas instead of after, that the children can get Christmas presents before Christmas instead of after.

If you want to do something about the real problem, I will tell one thing to Caroline Högström. The problem is spelled Putin. It is his war that is driving up energy prices in all of Europe. This concerns the price of gasoline, diesel, fossil gas and electricity. That problem is something we Social Democrats are happy to be a part of solving.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! The government's budget is a restrained budget given a difficult economic situation and acute societal problems linked to the justice policy, the defense policy, and the households' economy. But the budget also contains important priorities to, among other things, protect vulnerable families in a time of recession, high inflation, skyrocketing electricity prices and high fuel costs together with widespread insecurity and an uncertain world.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in a difficult situation that is putting pressure on household finances. The Government therefore considers it important that the economic policy contributes to keeping price increases down, while certain measures are taken to compensate those who are hit hardest by inflation.

That is why, for example, the extended increase of the housing allowance for vulnerable families with children is an important element in the budget that actually reaches the most vulnerable and those who are in need of it. The allowance is granted to families with children with low income and small economic margins. It is a group that has been hit hard by the large price increases. It is both accurate and clear.

But at the same time, it is important to point out that this is temporary in a difficult economic period. We must be aware of the risk that the marginal effects in income-tested benefits can mean that parents remain in a situation of long-term low economic standard. The risk is particularly great for foreign-born women who have a weaker foothold in the labor market.

We see today too many women, often foreign-born, who never enter or enter the labor market too late. This affects not only the family's standard of living but also the women's future pension.

We know at the same time that just as a high school diploma can almost be seen as a vaccination against future exclusion, it is also to see one's mother go to work as a child that is a vaccine against the risk of future exclusion.

Well, a mother's participation in the labor market can lift not only the entire family's finances but also the children's future prospects. Therefore, we must also consider what lock-in effects our generous parental leave risks having.

It is a balancing act, but it is a balancing act we need to take and consider. Then, for example, qualification for welfare can be an incentive so that women can also be a part of the labor market both before and after the formation of a family.

It appears from the government's budget bill that it will appoint an inquiry with a mandate to propose a model for successive qualification for Swedish welfare benefits, for example through work. The government's assessment is that family policy is an important part of the work to create equal and egalitarian upbringing and living conditions and to reduce the effects of segregation.

There, employment has a great significance for reducing the risk of economic vulnerability for households with children. Therefore, it is important that family policy also goes hand in hand with the work principle.

Madam Speaker! The goal is that the economic family policy shall contribute to a good economic standard of living for all families with children and reduce the differences in the economic conditions between households with and without children. The economic family policy shall contribute to an equal parenthood.

Sweden can proudly boast one of the world's most generous systems for parents. The development towards more equal parenting, measured in the withdrawal of the number of parental days, is moving forward slowly but nevertheless in the right direction. Parents should be given more tools and increased opportunities to use the parental benefit flexibly in order to strengthen freedom of choice and to improve the conditions for combining family life with a high labor force participation. One such example could be more double days or that one can transfer days to other important people in the child's life.

However, I want to remind the Riksdag that politics should not step in and control at the kitchen tables. We should not micro-manage how families share their parental leave. The families themselves are best suited to decide. But they must have the right information and understand the consequences of different choices.

I also see a change in my own generation, which is now to a large extent starting families. Awareness is higher regarding both the fantastic opportunity that more time with one's children can provide and also the consequences it can have later in life.

Responsible conversations are held between parents regarding the division and compensation for the one who is at home a larger part of the time, and about how the finances should work out both today and later in life. Therefore, I am hopeful about the future but also aware that we should not solely get stuck on the number of days taken, since families' solutions look different based on different circumstances. This applies particularly in a time with flexible working hours, more home work, more self-employed individuals, and more shift work which creates different opportunities for different families. This can actually also mean an equal parenting.

Madam Speaker! The high fuel prices are something that many feel all over the country. All over our elongated country, both families and companies are dependent on the car. It is about the possibility of making the pieces of life fit together or that there is no access to reliable public transport.

The problem is, therefore, the unreasonably high fuel prices we have compared to other countries. The Moderate-led government has proposals that bring down fuel prices to more reasonable levels. Not index-linking the fuel tax is one such solution, which ensures that citizens avoid imminent tax increases.

Now, responsibility is required in a difficult time with inflation combined with a recession. In that case, it is important to prioritize. Households, and especially families with children, are under severe pressure. Therefore, the government's initiative to begin the work to achieve more reasonable fuel prices together with the electricity price support, with payment in February, are important parts to create better conditions, especially for families with children. This is being done at the same time as the work begins to solve other structural problems.

In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and thus also of the government's proposal for the budget regarding expenditure area 12 and vote against all other possible motions.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Member Caroline Högström mentions in her speech that it is important for children to see their mother go to work. That is something we completely agree on. It is an incredibly important part. She also mentions in her speech that it is important to contribute to the work line. That is also something we completely agree on.

What I am missing in the speech, however, concerns how one should easily be able to be an entrepreneur and on parental leave. Being able to be an entrepreneur is equally important considering the work line, both for the sole trader and for the employment opportunities generated by entrepreneurs.

There is therefore a point to me, as a self-employed person and on parental leave, being allowed to administer my work, my company, during the time I am on parental leave. It should not have to lead to me losing momentum in the business, or perhaps even go so far as that I have to end the business.

During the previous parliamentary term, one of the proposals that the Center Party put forward and that the Moderates also stood behind was to simplify entrepreneurship and allow parents on parental leave to perform smaller work efforts during the leave.

Where is this in the government's budget, and will it come during the mandate period?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Martina Johansson! I can, to some extent, be held accountable when it comes to when, how, and to what extent.

But I completely agree with Martina Johansson that we have previously identified a problem for many entrepreneurs in being able to balance family life even when the children are small. I believe there will be reason to return more precisely to the question of how one can look at reforming the parental leave in a wise and responsible way so that entrepreneurs can also work and be parents at the same time.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Member! It is positive that you want to keep the question. I hope that this will be addressed during the mandate period, because it is still a separate announcement that the government should be able to take action on.

There are a couple more things. The Member of Parliament himself mentioned more double days. There are also announcements concerning being able to share parental leave with more important adults for the child. It is also about equal withdrawal and that it should be flexible. I do not see these things in the budget either. I only heard that the Member of Parliament raised the question of more double days, but nothing about when.

The question is: Will I receive an answer to that question today?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, that is what I was about to say! The wording that I mentioned is included in the budget. Now I don't remember exactly on which page, but I believe that what I mentioned is on pages 22-23 in volume 8, expenditure area 12. It is therefore about increasing the number of double days and making it more flexible.

Then I believe that a certain investigation and that whole part will be required, but I can therefore please the member with the fact that the statement is included in the budget.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! The Member spoke about women's pensions and participation in the labor market. It is something that I myself consider to be extremely important.

One goal for the expenditure area is also that the economic family policy shall contribute to equal parenting. Therefore, it worries me when the member speaks of the double days in the parental leave being increased. It also states in the budget that the parental leave shall be able to be transferred to more people than today. How does that square with the idea that equality shall increase in the parental leave? More double days will mean that the guardians are home at the same time with their children and that fathers' full responsibility for children's care decreases.

How does the member imagine the possibility of transferring the parental allowance should look? We have not yet found that out. Can it be transferred to anyone? Is it private nanny companies that are envisioned to be stand-in parents? Is this the Moderates' line of work?

Why does the member want to increase the gap between men's and women's lifetime earnings by increasing the number of double days and increasing the possibility to hand over the responsibility to family and someone else?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I can take the opportunity to recommend that the member Mixter read the report that Försäkringskassan released in November, if I remember correctly. There, it is stated that parents who take out double days tend to have a more equal withdrawal.

I believe, therefore, that it is the opposite of what Mixter is trying to imply: More double days will lead to a more equal uptake. Then more people will notice, and people can help each other. You get the positive drivers, and this has also been identified by Försäkringskassan in its report.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the member is not interested in equality and that women should have a decent standard of living. The government's proposal in the area of family policy will mean that men will have less responsibility for the family.

The member does not answer my question either: To whom is the parental leave supposed to be transferable? Is it private companies that one should be able to hire with the help of the parental benefit, or who is it that should be able to take it out? Is it LGBTQ families that they have in mind? I think that is hardly what this government has in mind. Who is it that one should be able to transfer days to? And why does the member want to increase the gap between men's and women's lifetime earnings?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I would say it is the opposite: It is probably Member Mixter who needs to consider how to achieve an equal distribution. She completely ignores the authorities' clear reports that, for example, double days are good for achieving a more equal distribution. She ignores it completely for some kind of image of how families function.

I cannot give an exact answer as to who this will affect. But there will, of course, be an order regarding who one can transfer parental leave days to. Already today, one can to some extent transfer days to a wife or husband or a partner one lives with. It is clear that there will be an order in how one does this, and it is about important people in the children's lives.

I believe that one of the problems is that one fixates on the number of days instead of seeing what consequences this has. What other measures can we look at if one has an equal withdrawal or not? It could be about giving pension rights to the one who is at home a larger part as a way to compensate—something that is becoming increasingly common.

And as I said: One cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the labor market looks different. Families also look different and have different needs, and I believe that we politicians should have respect for that. We should not dictate in this chamber how one should be at home with their children. Just as we have good incentives in the locked days that we already have today, we need to have confidence in the families and give them the conditions to make wise choices even for the future.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! For a long time, we have been in an economic boom. During that time, many turned a blind eye to the great divides that exist in Sweden.

Sweden is a country that has become increasingly divided, a country where the billionaires have become more numerous and poverty ever greater. Sweden is one of the OECD countries where economic inequality has increased most rapidly. In the recession that we are entering, this will become increasingly visible. In Sweden, there has historically been an ambition to level the gaps in society. Now we find ourselves in a different time.

This government's and the Sweden Democrats' joint project is to portray immigrants as the big problem in Sweden. The last time we had a bourgeois government, it was health insurance and the unemployment insurance fund that they cut. Back then, it was benefit fraudsters and lazy people they attacked, and now it is immigrants. The ingredients in the cake are different this time, but they are still creating the same princess cake, a cake that the rich have served to them.

A contribution ceiling shall be introduced, and people shall be qualified for our safety systems. Ordinary people shall have it worse while high-income earners get a tax cut.

We stand in the middle of an economic crisis with devastating effects for ordinary households. Soaring food prices, electricity prices, and fuel and housing costs are difficult to manage for very many households. It is particularly tough for those who already had small margins before the crisis.

Single women are a group that live with very small margins: Nearly 40 percent of these live with a low economic standard. The equalizing function of family policy has for a long time lagged behind, which has left single women behind. Unfortunately, the government makes completely different priorities than ensuring that family policy contributes to equalizing differences.

I recently visited the Church of Sweden in Sundsvall. They reported that the applications for financial assistance through them have more than doubled over the past year. Likewise, the City Mission, the Red Cross, and several others testify that more and more people are turning to them for help with basic necessities. The Gothenburg City Mission testifies, just like the church in Sundsvall, that compared to last year, twice as many people are coming to them to eat food.

The Church in Sundsvall also looked with concern on the fact that those who are part of civil society are being held responsible for ensuring that people have a tolerable standard of living, that society's responsibility is being dumped on them. To rely on civil society to step up to help ordinary people who cannot afford food while the government prioritizes lower taxes for persons with incomes over 50,000 kronor per month - it feels like very strange priorities.

A friend of mine, a mother of two living in Västernorrland, wrote on Facebook on Wednesday: Lying awake with thoughts of the electricity price. If it continues like this, half of next month's salary will go towards electricity costs. Most of the remainder goes to petrol - no, there is no bus to take - and all the other prices that have shot up. I don't remember ever being so stressed about personal finances. Anyone else feeling this way in the middle of the night?

The government's broken election promises regarding electricity prices and fuel have really not eased the situation for my friend or other families, and other measures are conspicuously absent. The only thing the government and the Sweden Democrats have managed to muster as crisis support in the area of family policy is to maintain the temporary increase of the housing allowance by 500 kronor. That is good, but it is by no means sufficient.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party, unlike the Sweden Democrats and the government, has proposals that make a difference for people. We have a budget proposal that should be seen as a whole, with both substantial additions to, among other things, welfare as well as additions to the social insurance systems that would make a difference for ordinary people.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see a single-parent supplement in the form of an increased child allowance for single parents of 500 kronor during 2023. An extra 500 kronor for someone who needs to choose between Christmas food or Christmas presents for the children would truly make a difference.

The basic level of the parental allowance is also very low today, and it has not kept pace with price developments. Vänsterpartiet wants to see that it is indexed.

Nine out of ten who receive parental leave at the basic level are women, and an increased compensation would mean a big difference in everyday life for them. Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes that the basic level be raised to 299 kronor, which would mean 1,500 kronor more per month for the person who has parental leave at the basic level. It is no small sum.

Instead, you prioritize that the high-income earner who earns over 50,000 kronor should get 1,000 kronor more in their wallet. The difference is that it is not for hot dogs that the high-income earner needs the money, but for heating the summer cottage or for the holiday in Thailand.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the Left Party and the castle parties have very different priorities: more money for those who already have it or money for those who need it most.

For life to function for people, the welfare must be sufficient. Family policy is linked to a functioning social service. For parents to be able to work, we must have a well-functioning and expanded childcare, preschool, and after-school care. The government's budget unfortunately represents a fatal blow even in this area. Municipalities and regions need at least 20 billion just to maintain the level that exists today, and you choose to provide a mere 6 billion. This will mean cuts all around in our municipalities. Poorer accessibility in, for example, childcare is negative for participation in the working life and equality in the labor market. This is nevertheless a goal for the expenditure area - that family life and working life should be able to be combined and that equality should increase.

As has been said, it is good that the government chooses to maintain the temporary increase of the housing allowance of 500 kronor. But it is also sad that one does not choose to address the problem that those who receive social assistance do not get to share in the increase. The Salvation Army recently noted that the nearly 800,000 Swedes living on social assistance have 170 kronor left per month after the food is paid for.

Vänsterpartiet has a budget that takes the economic crisis seriously. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about the palace parties'.

With this, I refer to the Left Party's special statement.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats stand behind the government's policy, and I therefore want to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and the bill.

Furthermore, I would like to apologize already for the fact that I will probably be reading a lot from my notes today. I usually speak more freely from the heart even if there is a written text. But since this is my debut in the chamber, it feels a bit nervous.

Mr. Speaker! Humans need community and functioning relationships to feel well and to be able to develop. The family is the most fundamental form of community. There, people meet across generations in love and trust. This insight is a fundamental pillar in the Christian Democratic ideology.

During the election campaign, I, just like all of you, met many people. One of these meetings touched me extra much. In a conversation with a girl of middle school age, we came across this spring's high electricity prices. I asked if that specifically had affected her in any special way. The answer I received was that during January and parts of February, she had only eaten at school. I had to ask again: What do you mean? To which she replied that in order for the food at home to suffice for her younger siblings, she refrained from eating at home and only ate the school meals during this period. This was a common family where both parents had jobs, but they still could not make the finances work.

I still feel concern for families' finances. We also know that many families will have a difficult time financially even during next year.

Mr. Speaker! With the government's budget proposal for expenditure area 12, I feel that we can better provide security in difficult economic situations and ensure that there is economic security for families and children. Family policy therefore plays an important role in strengthening the economy and standard of living for families with children.

Mr. Speaker! The bill contains several proposals to provide economic security for families and children. We have already heard several examples. One such example is that the government, against the background of the worsened economic situation that child-rearing households with low incomes have experienced due to increased living costs and that there are no indications that the situation will improve before the turn of the year, proposes that the temporary supplementary grant to child families with housing allowance shall be extended until June 30, 2023.

During the debate on the culture grant yesterday, the leisure card was mentioned. It has also been mentioned here, but I also want to highlight it.

We know that when the economy is tightened, it is often the children who are affected first. As a measure to reduce children's vulnerability and protect children's leisure activities, the government wants to introduce a leisure card. We Kristdemokrater view this very positively from many different perspectives. Children benefit from physical activity and from feeling a sense of community and belonging in the association life. This can also prevent mental ill-health. Therefore, we very much welcome the proposal for a leisure card.

Mr. Speaker! My own upbringing was at times characterized by a tough economic situation. My mother, like many others back then, was at home and managed the household and took care of me and my four siblings. My father, among other things, had work as a travel agent, which meant that he was away from home for long periods. My mother was good at stretching every single krona. I never had to go to school hungry and I always had clean and whole clothes.

With that life experience, I have however learned that it is about prioritizing - but also that it is sometimes not even possible to make priorities when the economic margins become too small. For me as a Christian Democrat, it feels good then that we have a government that now wants to do everything to give families and children an economic security. Family policy can and shall contribute to a good economic standard of living for all of Sweden's families with children.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your speech, Camilla Rinaldo Miller! It is completely okay to be nervous the first time you are in the chamber. I thought for a moment: Should I request a reply or not? But I did it anyway, because then the member gets a chance to practice that as well. I actually also had a reply exchange after my first contribution in the chamber and survived it.

My reply concerns the housing allowance - however, not the temporary increase that the member was referring to. I am thinking of the housing allowance in general, which is to be an important economic protection for families with children. As the rules for the housing allowance currently stand, families risk falling into debt because the housing allowance is deducted on a full-year basis. This means that if I receive a higher salary or perhaps a job that I start during the autumn, there is a risk that I will fall into debt at the turn of the year because the income has increased in a way that I had not accounted for during the spring. This becomes a problem for many families with children.

In 2021, an investigation was submitted to the government at the time which showed how one could work with monthly reconciliation of the housing allowance, i.e., that a reconciliation is made every month so that families with children can avoid a full year's reconciliation.

A cautious question to the member is whether the government and the Christian Democrats, who are in the government today, will come forward with proposals in precisely this area.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Martina Johansson!

I wish I could say straight out: Yes, we will. I do agree: The current regulatory framework is not good, as it risks putting a family or a single mother or father in a position where they can end up in debt due to a changed salary situation during the year. A monthly reconciliation sounds to my ears like a very reasonable and good solution. However, I cannot say yes directly. I wish I could have.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for an honest answer, Camilla Rinaldo Miller!

I take the opportunity to move on to the topic of the housing allowance and the regulatory framework. I hope that the member can take this with them and push their colleagues in the government. It is also about what is counted as the family's income.

If the income of a young person who may have received their first summer job or extra job exceeds a certain limit, it is counted as part of the family's economy. It can also have an opposite effect. This young person who has the chance to break the family's economic situation, obtain their own income and take new steps in life may choose not to do so precisely because the family's total economy would then be affected.

This also counteracts the work line, which is important for the Center Party and which I also perceive as being important for the Christian Democrats and the government.

It was such a matter that I wanted to take the opportunity to bring up. Another thing that is important for entire families, and above all for children, is how the housing allowance is regulated between separated parents. As it stands today, even if a child lives almost half the time with one parent, it can be counted as that the child is not a resident child, as it is called. Then the housing allowance is reduced, and then we also have a potential conflict that increases the conflict between the parents. The children are then affected by both poor finances and by conflict between the parents.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Now I did not quite understand the question, but if I interpret you correctly, Martina Johansson, you want us to also work with that regulatory framework, especially when it concerns young people who live at home but who have received work. I also think that sounds reasonable. We are for a work line; we have talked about that. Then it is very strange if young people were to be encouraged to work and it should affect the family in the next step. I can say nothing other than that I take it with me. I think it sounds very reasonable that one works with and reviews it.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! What I heard from the member was classic bourgeois politics where people are expected to stand with their hats in their hands. Instead of ensuring that people have enough money to get by, the government wants to hand out leisure cards that one will need to show the assessment calendar to receive.

I would like to ask the member if she thinks it is reasonable that civil society has to take the hit for your missing support for ordinary people, that the Church of Sweden, Stadsmissionen, the Red Cross and several others will have to provide people with food bags now that the parental leave pay and the child allowance are not enough since your election promises have been missing and have not been implemented. Is that how the member thinks our insurance systems should function?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Isabell Mixter, for the question! Civil society has at all times meant a great deal for many people in difficult situations. But of course, it is not civil society that should take over, but we should be grateful that it exists.

I do not like to complain and look backward, but it is not reasonable to place all the blame on this government, which has been in office for eight weeks. Someone else has had eight years to set the path. I do not know if I want to stand here and take on my shoulders that it would be our fault that people currently have problems with their finances.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Camilla Rinaldo Miller's government chooses, together with the Sweden Democrats, to spend 13 billion on reduced taxes for high-income earners. To abdicate responsibility for the fact that ordinary families are having a tough time, I think, is quite bold.

People cannot afford the most basic things. At the same time, it states in your budget that you want to investigate contribution ceilings. I can see it in no other way than that you want to lower the contributions even further. How are people supposed to manage? And it is still unclear what the qualification for the security systems means, which you write about. But it will lead to even more people needing support from civil society. Why do you want to hand over the responsibility for people's finances to civil society?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We do not want to relinquish responsibility. We have the responsibility. We promised the voters that we dare to take responsibility. We dare to rectify that which has not functioned during the recent years. It is this responsibility we have taken.

I can hope that our voters want to give us a little more time than eight weeks. I am sorry and feel bad for the people who are having financial difficulties right now.

Today we have -20 degrees. The government may not be able to control the minus degrees, but we know that it is cold at this time of year.

In my speech, I told you about where I come from. I know what it is like to have it tough financially. Not my mother, but my father also chose in some cases to use some of the money for things that one could have foregone. I do not think that is what one does today. Today, one is only concerned with managing what is absolutely most important.

In our budget, there are the conditions to also provide those who have the very worst with good economic conditions to manage their everyday life and their life situation.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The purpose of economic family policy is that children should be able to grow up and have access to their parents when they are small and perhaps most when they are at their weakest. It is then that someone needs to be at home and be on parental leave.

I and the Centre Party believe that it is important that families take an equal responsibility for the family and the children. It relies heavily on norms and values, the choices we make. But how we view families is also influenced by legislation. It is about how one views mothers and fathers and on families where one lives in a different way than just as mother and father, which according to the legislation is the most traditional.

The norms and values we carry with us are visible at different times. At different times, we have regulated in the parental leave how many days one party, so to speak, should be required to take. The last time we did that, it turned out that the fathers, who statistically are those who take the fewest number of days, took more days, but the mothers did not take fewer days. The mothers took as many days as before but used the minimum level days and thus received a lower compensation.

It is not wrong to work with this type of incentive, but we must also remember to work with norms and values. For this actually shows that it is not the only thing that helps for there to be a more equal uptake. We therefore need to work both with legislation and with values, information, and dialogue.

Why is it then so important that we share the parental leave? Besides it being important that the child has access to both of its parents, it also affects the lifetime income that one has as a parent. More than I have mentioned the pensions earlier here today. It is indeed an important factor, because the life choices we make ultimately affect the pension. It affects the wage development, which determines the pension.

I believe that this with double days can truly be a way to work with norms and values. With more double days, parents have the opportunity to be at home at the same time and see how they can take responsibility together.

I also want to see that we return to the equality bonus in parental leave. We in Centerpartiet also want to see some form of vab bonus to provide incentives for more people to share the leave and the responsibility for the children.

We must, however, not forget that we also need to review the parental leave, as the other adult is also important for the children. Not all families consist of a mother and a father. They can consist of other constellations.

We believe in a work line. All people are needed in the labor market, whether they are parents or not. Therefore, it is important for us to also here work with different incentives to get parents to be in the labor market.

For our part, it is about proposals to change the parental leave rules so that more days are taken earlier than the current regulations state. We would like the majority to be taken before the child turns three years old in order to counter the fact that a parent is away from the labor market for far too long. It is also to counter the lock-in effect that parental leave can lead to if it is not shared.

Mr. Speaker! The housing allowance is also a financial protection for families with children. In an exchange of remarks, I have touched upon the risk that today's regulations create debt for many families with children. This is truly something that we need to review.

We also need to review the regulatory framework for separated parents, so that the housing allowance does not become an additional cause for potential conflict. We also need to review which incomes are counted towards the housing allowance. It is important that one should be able to get out of this situation.

Maintenance support is also an important part of the economic protection when two parents have chosen not to live together and one parent cannot afford to pay maintenance support. In that case, it is important that Försäkringskassan is there.

Another area, besides children's right to their parents, that is important for me and the Center Party is this with entrepreneurship. It is also a very important issue for the Center Party. It is very close to our hearts.

That is why it is important that we get delivery from the current government when it comes to entrepreneurs' opportunity to manage their company on a smaller scale even during parental leave. An announcement was made during the previous mandate period, partly based on a motion from Centerpartiet. Both Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna also stood behind it. I expect that the government will deliver on this during this mandate period.

Another important issue concerning entrepreneurs' opportunities is calculating SGI based on historical data - not what we think about the future, but what has actually been. It would simplify things for both Försäkringskassan and for the companies. It also becomes easier for entrepreneurs to plan when they choose to become parents.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! The objective for expenditure area 12, Economic security for families and children, is to 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. The economic family policy shall also contribute to equal parenting.

In order to achieve these goals, the budget bill allocates just over 105 billion kronor for 2023, with the child allowance and the parental insurance as the heaviest items. Among the specific measures included in the budget bill, a very welcome extension of the temporary supplementary allowance to families with children can be mentioned.

Mr. Speaker! The goals of family policy are important and worthy of pursuit, but we must unfortunately conclude that these goals have hardly been fulfilled in a satisfactory way. This applies in particular to the goals of contributing to a good economic standard of living for all families with children and reducing the differences in the economic conditions between households with and without children.

To truly be able to achieve these goals, completely different measures are required, such as measures to facilitate the transition from benefits to work and, not least, self-sufficiency, something that is absolutely crucial in this context.

This deficient fulfillment of the goals is stated several times in the budget bill, but I would like to delve deeper into this very important aspect. To that end, I will use Försäkringskassan's report "Barnhusens ekonomi. Resultatindikatorer för den ekonomiska familjepolitiken 2022" as a factual basis.

Mr. Speaker! The overall picture that the report provides is not particularly bright. This applies with emphasis to a particularly vulnerable group, namely families with children where the parents were foreign-born.

The first thing that can generally be said about the development since the turn of the millennium is that the economic differences between different households with children are not only large but are increasing over time. Single parents show the most concerning development. The proportion of single parents with minor children with a relatively low economic standard, that is, with a disposable income that is below 60 percent of the median for the whole society, has tripled between the end of the 1990s and 2021.

Every third single-parent household had a relatively low economic standard in 2021. This is a bleak development in itself, but the development for certain groups is significantly bleaker, for example, the development for those born abroad who are single parents.

In this case, we can observe that the proportion of households living with a low economic standard increases from barely 20 percent in 1999 to 60 percent in 2008, to then remain around 60 percent or just below. In this regard, it is evident that the family policy has not achieved its declared purpose. At the same time, it can be observed that almost 30 percent of the single foreign-born mothers with minor children received social assistance, that is to say, almost five times more often than single Swedish-born mothers with children – five times more often, Mr. Speaker!

Despite this high dependency on social assistance, it is noted in Försäkringskassan's report that almost one-third of foreign-born single mothers with minor children had a low standard of income. This means that the disposable income was less than the household's calculated basic consumption, and therefore these households could be eligible for social assistance if they applied for it.

Mr. Speaker! This distressing situation, which causes thousands of children with an immigrant background to grow up in a situation characterized by relative or absolute poverty, is rooted in a very deficient connection to the labor market and an even more neglected situation regarding self-sufficiency, which is the absolutely most important aspect in this context.

We must remember here the report When will foreign-born people become self-sufficient? which Entreprenörskapsforum published a couple of years ago. It is a very extensive study that includes all the people who immigrated between 1990 and 2016.

One of the report's conclusions reads as follows: "A majority of foreign-born individuals of working age have not achieved self-sufficiency during the period 1990 to 2016. In 2016, just over 600,000 foreign-born individuals of working age were not self-sufficient. At most, 38 and 36 percent of individuals with origins in Africa and the Middle East respectively were self-sufficient in 2016."

Another important conclusion is the following: "For half of all foreign-born, it took an average of four to five years to achieve employment during the entire period under investigation (1990-2016). At the same time, it took an average of 12-13 years for half of all foreign-born to achieve self-sufficiency."

I repeat, Mr. Speaker: It took 12 to 13 years for half of all foreign-born people to become self-sufficient. It is this grim reality that we must address if we truly want to change the situation of the most vulnerable population groups, not least the families with children in these groups.

Mr. Speaker! There are two different perspectives or two alternative paths to take in the face of this challenge. We could take what we might call the contribution line, that is, to drastically increase family policy measures for the most vulnerable families with children. This would obviously alleviate their economic vulnerability, but it would, in addition to the significant costs it would entail for society at large, weaken the already very weak incentives to move from benefits to work and self-sufficiency. It would constitute an almost complete benefit trap, which would permanentize a very harmful exclusion for everyone.

The government wants to choose a different path and invest in a work line, that is, a line where work always pays off in relation to what different benefits can provide. It is not an uncomplicated path, but we liberals consider it absolutely necessary if we are to be able to break the exclusion that affects so many adults and children with immigrant roots.

The benefit line is much easier to implement, but its long-term consequences are devastating. The work line requires much more of us all - of those who are to move from benefits to work, but also of society, which must solidarily provide resources to enable the transition to work.

This joint effort is, in my opinion, the only way forward, towards a more cohesive and prosperous Sweden. Work and being able to provide for oneself and one's loved ones has a value in itself that can hardly be overstated in an integration context.

We who were not born in Sweden, we who for various reasons migrated here from all corners of the world, we who did not have a natural right of residence in these Nordic latitudes - we need to conquer a worthy place in this our new country, and I am convinced that this we can only do, as it stands in the Book of Moses, in our faces' sweat.

Mr. Speaker! With these words I wish to conclude my speech and move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by apologizing for the fact that my voice may not be completely steady today. I hope that my speech is all the more concise.

Mr. Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats are currently making a major investment in increasing Sweden's climate emissions and stopping the protection of valuable nature. They are presenting an electricity subsidy that gives the most to the richest while the very poorest are left behind. The poor pensioners in northern Sweden do not receive 1 krona more in electricity subsidies. The child benefit and the maintenance support for single parents remain at the same level despite the fact that both food and winter shoes have become more expensive.

Miljöpartiet shows in its budget motion that it is possible to do exactly the opposite. Instead of giving the most to the richest, we are the only party that increases both the maintenance support for single parents and the child allowance. We are transitioning to meet the climate goals while simultaneously distributing more money to the poorest both in Sweden and in the world.

With our budget proposal, both the maintenance support and the child allowance would also be inflation-proofed, and if it is anything we have learned recently, it is that we need to do just that. We have enormous price increases.

Mr. Speaker! Child poverty is one of the greatest social problems we see today. We in Miljöpartiet are deeply concerned about the Tidö Agreement and what it will mean for families and children in Sweden.

Instead of investigating how certain families with children will become even poorer and causing distrust to increase in society, we in Miljöpartiet want to appoint a crisis commission against child poverty. The commission should be tasked with developing proposals to combat child poverty based on a children's rights perspective. It should address both the safety nets and compensatory measures directly aimed at the children. We want children to be given space to participate in the process and that children's opinions should be taken into account even when measures are being developed.

Mr. Speaker! In our budget, we also move forward with the proposal for a more equal parental leave. We know that the first period in a child's life is central for attachment to both parents. It begins right then. It is also when the first child is born that we see how men's and women's working lives become dramatically more unequal. An equal take-up of parental leave is the single most important reform to reduce the difference in lifetime income for men and women and the difference in unpaid home and childcare work.

But since Miljöpartiet is investing much more money than the government in the economy for children and families, I cannot move for our proposal today. The Riksdag has already made decisions on lower budget frameworks. But with our budget, where all expenditure areas are to be seen as a whole, we show that it is possible to both meet the climate goals, strengthen welfare, and ensure that the children and families who have the very smallest economic margins get more in their wallets. We show that one does not have to pit the weakest in society against each other, but that we can make each other stronger together.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 December.)

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