Economic security for families and children

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Social Insurance Committee's report SfU3 Expenditure Area 12 Economic security for families and children.

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

The goal 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 economic family policy shall also contribute to an equal parenting.

The Sweden Democrats safeguard the family and place it high on the agenda. Our starting point in family policy is the children's best interests and providing the conditions for families to piece together their life puzzle based on their unique life situation. The Sweden Democrats' firm conviction is that secure families are a cornerstone of a prosperous society.

Politics has all too often wanted to regulate family policy in detail, which has rather made things more difficult for families with children, and has not always had the children's best interests in focus. Politics needs to take a step back and let parents make their own decisions and manage their own everyday lives in order to piece together the puzzle of life.

Mr. Speaker! We want to see a family policy that, in large part, promotes an equal and inclusive parental responsibility as early as when the pregnancy is confirmed. Families should be given the right conditions to form bonds, not least during the first years of early childhood. Opportunities should be created to jointly take responsibility based on each family's needs, and those with poorer conditions should receive support.

With a sound family policy, a good standard of living and well-being can be achieved, where community and strong bonds are forged.

Every family's priorities and choices must be respected. There is a need for continued efforts to achieve greater economic security for families with children with a low economic standard.

Mr. Speaker! Large price increases, particularly in energy, fuels, and food, affect especially households with low incomes and small economic margins, including a large number of families with children. Above all, the price of fuels is a priority issue for the Sweden Democrats and the government, which must now ensure that it is lowered.

Children should never have to pay the price during an economic crisis, and there is therefore reason to support particularly economically vulnerable families with children. Sverigedemokraterna and the government propose that the temporary supplementary grant to families with children within the housing allowance shall be extended until June 30, 2024.

Economic security for families and children

Parents should be given more tools and increased opportunities to use parental leave more flexibly, in order to strengthen freedom of choice and increase the conditions for combining family life and participation in the labor market. Examples of measures from the government are that more days of parental leave should be able to be used as double days so that parents can be off together for longer and that it becomes possible to transfer parental leave to more people than is the case today.

These are proposals that the Sweden Democrats have championed within family policy, and it is positive that they are now becoming a reality. The Sweden Democrats argue that the flexibility in the parental leave needs to be reviewed further to facilitate the life puzzle of families with children.

Mr. Speaker! 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 continue 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 both women and men to work full-time also have great importance for reducing the risk of economic vulnerability among households with children.

At the same time, the marginal effects in income-tested benefits can contribute to parents remaining 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.

The work with the economic family policy has only just begun, and the Sweden Democrats will carefully follow the government's work and work to ensure that important reforms are implemented for secure and well-off families. The starting point for the family policy must, as I have pointed out previously, be to see to the child's best interests, to simplify for families to put together their life puzzles, and to create economic security.

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

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am aware that the member is replacing another member in this debate, so he may not be able to answer all my questions. I believe, however, that those listening to the debate may be interested in hearing a bit more.

When one listens to the Tidö parties and the speech that was just delivered, one almost gets the feeling that they still believe in Santa Claus. It is someone else who is going to come and give households Christmas presents this year, not those who actually sit in power and now have the ability to give the families with children enough money to get by.

Yesterday, reports came out that 40 percent of single-person households need to borrow money for food. In that situation, the Member of Parliament speaks about wanting the child's best interests and that one must ensure that there is a good standard of living for all households.

A year into the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy, households are poorer than ever. The Tidö parties are doing nothing about the high interest rates, food prices, and electricity prices. They have obviously been far too busy talking about mosques and drag queens. We see nothing of any supplements for households. The few kronor that a normal household gets back from the electricity tax cut are quickly eaten up by the more expensive grocery bag.

Why do you prioritize an increased standard deduction over an increased child allowance for families with children? Why is it that those living in luxury villas in Stockholm who have cleaning help are in greater need of subsidies from the state than a family in Sundsvall, for example, who cannot afford a new winter overall for the child? That is what I want to ask the members.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your question, Member Isabell Mixter!

The budget that the government and the Sweden Democrats are presenting shall tackle inflation, low growth, and recession. It is a difficult economic situation.

Vänsterpartiet wants to increase taxes on labor, on capital, on households, and on corporate profits. You want to increase the property tax, increase the energy tax, increase the carbon tax, increase other taxes in the energy and environmental fields, and so on. Then you want to increase all benefits. The incentives to work disappear when there is no difference between working and receiving benefits. You want to increase the national debt and increase inflation, which means that families are placed in a greater economic crisis.

The Sweden Democrats and the government are presenting a budget that takes responsibility for Sweden in a difficult economic situation. The question to Isabell Mixter is: Who is going to finance the welfare with your proposal?

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member does not answer my question. It is you who are lowering the taxes for those who have the most money. That is the effect of your large tax cuts. The ordinary household may get 14 kronor. That is not enough for a single falukorv. Your rut and rot deductions cost the taxpayers enormous amounts of money, and it does not go to the families with children who are now in acute need of these funds.

Why does the member care more about those who live in luxury villas in Stockholm than about the ordinary family with children, who now find it extremely difficult to make ends meet? I still want an answer to that from the member.

Do not also try to dodge the cards by saying that we are raising taxes on everything and everyone, because that is not true! Then the members have not read our budget. The investments we want to make in our budget are also things that will take us through the crisis and get Sweden out of the recession that we are currently in and that you have put us in. It is your government that has ensured that we now perhaps have the worst economic development of Europe's countries. It is your government that has put us in that situation. You are also doing nothing about inflation, and it is the households that have to pay for it.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Isabell Mixter, for your supplementary question!

I can only state that in your budget proposal you are raising taxes, increasing the national debt, shifting the costs onto future generations, and fueling inflation. You are raising the benefits. The difference between moving from benefits to work is being erased. It is unclear who will pay the skyrocketing national debt and who will finance the welfare if you were to govern.

It is a tough economic situation, and difficult and necessary trade-offs must be made. Sverigedemokraterna and the government make these trade-offs and take responsibility for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In the previous exchange, it sounded a bit as if Daniel Persson had a note with him that said: Say this if the Left Party requests a reply! I expect that he has a similar one in case the Green Party requests a reply. Therefore, I have moderate hopes of getting an answer to my actual question, but I intend to ask it anyway.

It is still our task as the opposition to scrutinize those who govern. The Sweden Democrats do not sit in the government, but the Sweden Democrats have been involved in every comma in the budget that will now apply for Sweden.

We are in a time where many experience that it is tough to make the finances work. Many will borrow for the Christmas presents in a week's time. This situation hits a group harder than many others: the single parents, most of whom are mothers.

We have several supports that are specifically targeted at families with children and single parents: the child allowance, the housing allowance, and the maintenance support. Other supports are adjusted for inflation, but that is not done with the child allowance, the housing allowance, and the maintenance support. We need to ensure that we raise them. Now, single mothers are standing in food lines at the Red Cross and Stadsmissionen. They are dependent on charity, despite working, in order to be able to put food on the table.

Then I ask: Why does SD instead prioritize giving support only to those who have a car? What about those who need to take the bus to work?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for your questions!

Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet make almost identical priorities in the budget. You also want to raise a lot of taxes and increase the national debt at a worrying rate. That would fuel inflation. Fueling inflation further would make it worse for families with children and put them in an even worse economic position. You also want to remove the incentives to move from benefits to work.

I am wondering how you intend to finance the welfare state in the long term when you increase the national debt to finance the increased benefits. That is my question to you.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It was really a bit of a "good-day-axe-handle" answer as to why the Sweden Democrats prioritize providing financial support only to those who drive cars and not to all single parents and families with children who do not drive, who perhaps do not even have the means to own and use a car and who are dependent on public transport or walk and cycle to work. There are families with children and mothers who go to Stadsmissionen and the Red Cross to pick up a food parcel. That is what the question is about.

One can choose what to spend money on and how to support households. The Sweden Democrats have chosen to spend gigantic, historically large subsidies on gasoline and diesel instead of providing financial support to the families in the countryside who need it and instead of indexing the support to the households that are most affected. It is single mothers and families with children who now have difficulty affording the most necessary things: food on the table and winter clothes. It is not because they do not work, but despite the fact that they do work.

It is a choice that the Sverigedemokraterna have made. My simple question is why they chose to give support only to those who drive cars and not to all families with children. It would have been better and would have hit those who are most vulnerable to a greater extent. At the same time, of course, those who drive cars could have used that money for it.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your supplementary questions, Annika Hirvonen!

We have seen large price increases, particularly on energy and fuels. But these are issues that the government and the Sweden Democrats have now begun to tackle. Fuel prices are to be lowered. It is a priority issue. It will benefit both companies and private individuals. Probably, the prices on food and other goods will also be lowered.

The child allowance, which the member is speaking about, does not accurately target families with children who have a low economic standard. If the child allowance is increased, for example, I too would receive a share of it. It is not accurate. The Sweden Democrats and the government propose instead that the temporary supplementary allowance to families with children and the housing allowance should be extended. That is a more accurate method.

I still see that Miljöpartiet wants to raise taxes, increase the national debt, and fuel inflation. In that case, families with children would be in an even worse economic situation than today.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has become poorer and more dangerous. It is a historically uncertain time. We have low birth rates, and a third of households say that they have difficulty making ends meet. Many of these are families with children.

It could be a description of Sweden in the 1930s, but it is Sweden today. For us Social Democrats, the solution is the same now as then: an offensive family policy built on the foundation of the universal welfare state, where the precision of the support is high and the collective responsibility is great.

We know that families with children are extra vulnerable. They have many and long-term needs that must be met, especially now during the Christmas period. This Lucia Day will make it extra palpable, Mr. Speaker. Lucia crowns must be bought, Santa hats as well. Then come Christmas presents, trips, and food. Food constitutes a large part of Christmas. How are already pressured families supposed to afford it? From the right side, the advice is dripping: Bite your lip! Eat oatmeal! No wonder the country is becoming poorer.

Just because Christmas is coming, the ordinary needs do not disappear. Diapers still need to be procured, and children continue to grow out of their clothes. On top of that, we have high electricity prices and rent increases, which are already hurting this year and will become even worse next year. Furthermore, we have the constantly recurring high food prices. At the same time, ICA retailers are taking out 87 million in dividends, which we read about yesterday. That is enough for many gingerbread cookies and princess sausages. Simultaneously, the Red Cross and Stadsmissionen are alarming that they are distributing more and more food bags, primarily to families with children.

That is why we Social Democrats have an alternative to the government's budget. It is proactive policy to take Sweden out of the recession and support ordinary people, especially families with children, during the cost-of-living crisis. It can be done in several ways.

The child benefit needs to be increased by an extra amount during 2024. We need to invest particularly in strengthening the single parents who have it extra difficult in life. Therefore, we want to increase the maintenance support by 500 kronor during the first six months of next year. It would be of great help for a group that already has it tough but is hit particularly hard by the cost crisis.

In a crisis, we must take care of those who have it hardest. Therefore, we believe that those who have it easiest can contribute a little more. We propose a temporary bank tax that shall help us out of the cost crisis. It is such a good proposal that I am completely overwhelmed. In today's Sweden, children stand against banks. Then we Social Democrats, of course, choose the children.

Mr. Speaker! This budget bill is about more than just crowns and cents. Within this expenditure area lies also one of the crown jewels of the welfare state: the parental leave. We know that parental leave is crucial so that, above all, women do not have to choose between starting a family or having a career. One should be able to do both. That is possible in Sweden, because one can be on parental leave with generous compensation.

But in this report, it is proposed that 90 of the parental leave days shall be able to be transferred to someone else. The motive is flexibility. As a Social Democrat, I have no problem with flexibility, but the government's proposal is problematic. It is problematic because the CEO of Nanny.nu is rubbing his hands together and stating in DN that one can now create matching services. It is also problematic because it opens up for tax-funded babysitters who themselves are children. And it is problematic because equality risks taking a major blow.

We already know that the largest part of the parental leave is taken by women. Until it is taken, the wage differences are small, but then they shoot up. Then the wage gap between men and women increases. It does not only affect the salary but in the end also the pension. It also creates male-dominated workplaces where one can say to a father: But can't grandmother or maternal grandmother look after the child?

When the government actually has an equality goal, is it not right to choose to pursue a policy that risks increasing inequality? We have an equality goal, and it is binding for the government.

Finally, I want to focus on the most serious aspect of this proposal. In a time when gangs are running HVB-homes, Sis-homes and health centers, the Economic Crime Authority comes to the Social Insurance Committee and points out escalating systemic risks if this system is introduced. Every legislator in this chamber must ask themselves whether it is reasonable to introduce a system that entails escalating vulnerabilities so that it can be exploited by criminals?

We have seen before in this country that market-liberal systems have been introduced that have been ruthlessly exploited within personal assistance and within the aforementioned measures. We saw today that, for example, Capio exploits the wording regarding emergency visits versus regular home visits to pump money. It therefore does not even have to be the gangs who do it; it is enough that we have a creative company that wants to empty the state treasury of common resources.

I do not understand how a government basis with the Sweden Democrats at the helm, which claims to want to stop the gangs, chooses to introduce systems with escalating vulnerabilities. It may be easy to brush me off as just a Social Democratic opposition politician, but it is not only I who is saying this. It has been clear from TCO, LO, the Economic Crime Authority, and the Social Insurance Agency. Even a large number of media outlets have raised this issue. Still, the government and the Sweden Democrats choose to move forward with the proposal.

I think it is irresponsible. If one is to do it, one could perhaps start by giving it to single parents on a small scale, because the question is how this is to be followed up. Through home visits? Already in the proposal being presented now, one can point out how this can be exploited in various technical ways; this has already been accounted for in all the criticism that has been received.

The Swedish Economic Crime Authority points out at a committee meeting that there are escalating vulnerabilities, and the government and the Sweden Democrats are burying their heads in the sand.

With this, I wish to refer to our specific statement in the report.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. As I understand it, the member has stepped in at short notice. I will nevertheless, in conclusion, pose a question to the member.

If one compares the Sweden Democrats' and the government's budget alternatives with the Social Democrats' proposal, one sees that the differences may not be so huge. It would be different if one compared them with the Left Party's or the Green Party's proposals. But there are absolutely differences, and we must be clear about that.

The Social Democrats propose, for example, an extra payment of the child allowance. Even I and other Members of Parliament with children, and those who earn more than we Members of Parliament, will be entitled to receive this extra child allowance. My question to the Member is whether it is reasonable to give high-earners an extra supplement in the form of an extra child allowance.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Daniel Persson for the question. The answer is: Yes, it is reasonable. The underlying principle for the child allowance has been the same since the 1930s. It is based on the idea that if everyone receives a share of it, everyone will also have the will to pay for it. It is called universal welfare policy, and it is this that has built Sweden as strong as it is.

The day when the Sweden Democrats remove the child allowance for those with our incomes, those with our incomes will also say: Those other people are benefit recipients; they should have less money.

We heard the member say earlier that the incentives to work decrease when one increases the benefits. It will only mean that all those who today receive a higher child allowance will receive a lower child allowance in the future, because the willingness to pay among the group that does not receive a share of the welfare will decrease. This is the supporting principle of the general welfare. It is extremely important.

Every time the right comes to power, they attack these systems, as when I worked with housing policy previously. Then, suddenly, one was supposed to solve everything with housing allowances. All other supports were to be removed because they lacked precision. It meant that one withdrew the subsidies for housing construction because they were not precise enough, and then housing construction collapsed. Instead, we are left with a housing shortage for practically all social classes.

I would like Daniel Persson to mention a few words about the escalating vulnerabilities that he intends to introduce into the system. Is it not worse that one can withdraw 25,000 kronor by hiring a nanny for 90 days than that we give an increased child allowance to Daniel Persson and all other families with children?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. I would first like to say that the child allowance is not under threat.

Regarding the vulnerabilities that the member points out, they actually already exist today. It is difficult to control that parents are at home with children already today.

I continue with the child allowance. The extra payment that you propose does not hit the families with children who are in greatest need of it, but it hits, as you say, everyone. I think it is a misguided reform, and I wonder if the Social Democrats have abandoned the idea of supporting the particularly vulnerable families with children.

It sounds nice, and the purpose is surely to attract voters with an extra child allowance that even high-earners will also get to share in.

The government and the Sweden Democrats consider an extension of the temporary housing allowance to be a more accurate method than an extra child allowance. My question to the member is: Do the Social Democrats not think so? Why do you, with your proposal, also want to benefit high earners?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The escalating risks are already present today, says the member - and then the Sweden Democrats and the government choose to expand these instead of focusing their energy on removing them. How can this be a logical path to take? It is very strange. We already have problems with gangs in the welfare system - then we let in a few more: This is what the member just said.

When it comes to the need for the child allowance, it is clear that it hits those who have the greatest need. That is the whole point of the child allowance. Instead of an expensive means test where one has to submit income data - which is the case with, for example, the housing supplement, which means that some do not apply for it - we choose to have a cheap general solution where we remove transaction costs. Then it hits those who have the greatest need for it, and we maintain the willingness to pay among those of us who are better off. We also want to increase the maintenance support in our budget because it specifically hits single parents, so that we give them better conditions.

I think it is good that the government is extending the temporary housing allowance and furthermore increasing it. When I go live on TikTok, I usually praise the government for this. I think it is a good initiative. But it is not enough. We see that families with children are standing at Stadsmissionen and need food bags, even though they are working, as MP Mixter mentioned here earlier.

It is still the case that people need even more support. And if one does not have the right to housing allowance, one is left without it. It is not certain that one has it when one has been laid off at Hennes & Mauritz and cannot support oneself. A third of the retail employees in stores live below the poverty line. It is these women who this affects, and it is these women Daniel Persson wants to deny a good Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ola Möller for his very interesting speech.

The Speaker of the House strikes his chest in his speech, but your budget is, in practice, a castle in the air. It is 10 billion in a bank tax that we know will not be possible to implement on January 1. What are you then going to cut? Is it the 3 billion in increased child allowance or is it 500 million in the maintenance support? Your budget simply does not add up.

Furthermore: If one seriously wants to protect families with children, where we know that housing costs are the largest share, it is extra strange that one proposes a bank tax that probably risks being passed on to just the mortgage borrowers, including the families with children, in a situation where people have tough interest rates and difficulty paying their bills.

I may take this in the next turn of the floor, Mr. Speaker, but many of the points that Möller raises in his speech simply do not hold up. There is talk about the nanny system, but we can state that one must refrain from working to receive parental leave. The entire argumentation thus falls apart on its own absurdity.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is still good that we have debates here in the Swedish Riksdag so that all families with children can hear that when the Moderates choose, they choose the banks' balance sheets and profits over the families with children's household budgets.

It is just so, Member Högström, that if one wants to introduce things quickly, one can introduce things quickly. One example is the visitation zones, where the requirement for preliminary investigations is now not even considered at all. One sends things out for consultation during the Christmas holidays so that the municipalities will not be able to respond, because there is such a hurry. But to introduce a bank tax is apparently impossible; it cannot be done.

The advantage of our budget is that it shows a different way forward for this country that does not make the country poorer and more dangerous because our budget does not contribute to escalating risks in the system. It does not mean that we increase the vulnerabilities, and it does not mean that people become poorer. It means instead that we support families with children but that the banks have to join in and pay. It is entirely possible.

I understand that Caroline Högström does not feel this when one has a Finance Minister who stands in the chamber and does not even complete their remarks because it becomes difficult to explain why the banks should have 10 billion when the families with children are having a tough time.

Please be so kind as to explain this regarding the escalating vulnerabilities! When the Economic Crime Authority, the government's own agency, says this, when the Social Insurance Agency is clear that this is problematic, and when the member's government basis colleague stands and says that it already occurs today – why does the member's basis then choose to expand the escalating vulnerabilities?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates choose a budget that balances and that takes responsibility for the whole.

I can nevertheless take the opportunity to address the rather exaggerated fears that the member is trying to play up here regarding the transfer of parental leave. We can actually develop freedom reforms that improve things for parents, especially single parents, entrepreneurs, and large families, while simultaneously curbing, for example, welfare crime, which is what this is about.

Fraud in, for example, parental leave or vab is nothing new; the National Economic Agency has recently reported on this in several instances. But in, for example, vab, we have a transfer today to a cohabitant. We do not see the fraud within the parental leave or vab in the transfer itself, but it concerns the insurance itself.

Madam Speaker! I can state that one can tackle the subsidy crimes at the same time as one carries out freedom reforms. One can also state that it is the Moderate-led government that is implementing the measures. It is with the Utbetalningsmyndigheten that we will, and it is with it that we seriously begin to break the secrecy between agencies. It is with it that we give the Försäkringskassan the assignment to get better order on its own control functions with a new data protection regulation. It is therefore possible to carry out freedom reforms at the same time as one curbs welfare crime.

At the committee meeting that Ola Möller refers to, I asked the Swedish Economic Crime Authority: Do you see the same vulnerabilities within, for example, vabben, where there is a transfer? They answered: Yes, it is the same, because the problem is not the transfer itself, but the problem is that where there is money, there are unfortunately also criminals who want to exploit the system.

One of the examples the authority raised was false personal data. We have that today. By giving Försäkringskassan expanded possibilities to check the data, we curb the fraud. We do not do that by denying parents the right to plan their own parental leave.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker and Member Högström! It is fascinating to follow the moderate logic. In the liberalized market systems that are introduced time and again in order to safeguard freedom, cheating occurs, and we now see that gangs have taken over Sis-hem in Södertälje. We see that gangs are running health centers.

We see that in the budget it was 44 million SEK in 2021 that were required back. But it is indeed the insurance that is wrong. Shall we remove it, then? Or shall we have to live with a bit of cheating here? It doesn't usually sound like that when it concerns the sick. Then it is not a matter of living with a bit of cheating, but then it is suddenly strengthened controls, a tougher rehab chain and the introduction of a second quarantine day, which the Moderaterna went to the election on. Then it shall be tightened. But when the nanny companies see that they can create matching services, we apparently have to live with escalating vulnerabilities in the system and expand them.

If the member had meant seriously that one now wants to protect the parental insurance, they would have gone in the other direction, that is, to ensure that an attempt is made to remove the fraud in order to increase the legitimacy of the insurance. This undermines the entire system. But the member does not see that, because she is driven by the Moderate mantra of freedom and flexibility. That only means one thing: greater opportunities for companies to make money from our common welfare.

That is why Capio goes there, that is why gangs run health centers, and that is why the market school is ravaging our system. That is why we will see that even the parental insurance will be exploited by gang criminals in the future. And it is all the fault of Member Högström, her government, and the Sverigedemokraterna.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

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

Family policy shall contribute to children growing up under safe and good conditions. It shall strengthen families' finances with good precision, provide good conditions for equal parenting and give children more time with both of their parents. Family policy shall also contribute to increased flexibility and strengthen the opportunities for men and women to combine family life and work life.

The work line is central, not only for the individual to gain a sense of purpose but also for the entire family. This applies economically, but it is also about one of the best insurances we can have against future exclusion, beyond completed schooling, is that children see their parents go to work.

Madam Speaker! We have a family policy and a parental insurance to be proud of. It enables parents to both be parents and be able to work and build a career. It makes it possible for me to be both Caroline and a mother. It makes it possible for us across our country to combine parenthood and career for those who wish to do so. It also makes it possible for fathers to be able to be just fathers.

The parental insurance is based on conscious choices and conversations at home at the kitchen tables. But that presupposes that one understands the consequences in both the short and long term. Families must be allowed to choose based on their unique situation. We must let the parents make choices, not limit them with coercion. There are others who have tried, with the result that more women completely step out of the insurance systems. Caution is therefore required here.

On the other hand, there are risks with the unequal uptake of parental leave that we see. Women risk falling behind in the labor market and in their careers, which can also contribute to families having children much later. But above all, we see the consequences of this later in life when it is time to retire.

We will probably never finish discussing the parental leave, both its great opportunities and its challenges. But society and politics must enable conscious choices at every individual family's kitchen table, based on their circumstances.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the budget for expenditure area 12 Economic security for families and children. Here are the funds for child allowance, parental insurance, and other supporting parts to help families with children.

The budget bill contains many important parts. For example, the government will review the minimum level days, prepare for the introduction of the so-called monthly figures regarding the housing allowance and the maintenance support, and increase the temporary supplementary allowance for families with children within the housing allowance. These are important proposals to both reduce the indebtedness of the most vulnerable who are in need of support and help, and to strengthen what is the intention with the parental allowance through the review of the minimum level days: that it is intended for the care of the child.

Madam Speaker! Today we are also debating a number of freedom reforms to simplify families' life puzzles. To begin with, I want to talk about the possibility of twice as many double days. It is a fine and expanded opportunity for parents to be at home at the same time. There are also reports showing that couples who use double days tend to have a more equal uptake. But above all, this provides the opportunity to be two during the first sensitive period, when the mother needs to heal and new routines are to be established in the expanded family.

Another freedom reform in today's budget is to enable the transfer of at most 90 days to another person close to the family. It will still not be possible to transfer any of the days that are reserved for the respective parent. We see that this proposal benefits single parents and "star families" but also entrepreneurs and other people who currently have jobs that make it difficult to be on parental leave.

This proposal is intended so that the child can start life in a calm and secure environment and be able to bond with the important adults who will be in the child's life. Often it is a mother and a father, but we know that families look different and have different circumstances. Sometimes it is two fathers and sometimes two mothers. More and more people are also choosing to have children on their own. Many may have other important adults in their vicinity, with or without family ties, who want and can be involved in caring for the child. This can involve both star families and two guardians who choose to form a family together, or surrogacy or adoption.

This change will likely not be used by everyone; on the contrary. The majority will continue to economize with their parental days and use them to be at home with their little one themselves. But for those who will use this opportunity, it is not only necessary but also long-awaited. For the entrepreneur, the single mother, or the large family, this can be that final piece of the puzzle that makes the life puzzle easier. It can also mean that one can make decisions to a greater extent that have a positive impact on the household economy.

Madam Speaker! Critical voices have been raised, especially by other parties in this Riksdag, with babble about nanny systems or avalanche-like fraud - as if parents as a group are not mature enough to manage the responsibility of distributing their own parental leave. Here, we as politicians in the Swedish Riksdag must be able to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. It is possible to implement freedom reforms while we continue the work of curbing subsidy fraud.

Reforms are also required here. The Payment Authority, confidentiality-breaking provisions that make it possible for authorities to share information and resources with the justice system are some examples. This government has truly kick-started this work. There are those who exploit our social insurance systems, so also the parental leave benefit. But that does not mean that we should deny all parents the opportunity to make wise and well-considered decisions regarding the distribution of their parental leave.

I also want to mention that these proposals have been handled according to correct, established rules. The Council on Legislation submitted the proposal without reservation. The proposal comes from a government commission that has been out for consultation, and the consulting bodies were generally positive towards the proposal. The reasons to oppose this are exaggerated, but obviously, it shall and will be followed very carefully. As I have already touched upon, Madam Speaker, it will probably be used very sparingly, but it is important for those who truly need this opportunity.

With a Moderate-led government, all families, regardless of family constellation, will receive more tools and expanded opportunities to use the parental leave in the way that best suits their own family. That is gender equality policy 2023.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet have long worked for a more equal and more flexible parental leave, which should suit more families. Making it possible to transfer parental days to a relative other than the child's guardian or their partner would be a way to simplify the everyday puzzle for single mothers, entrepreneurs, and multi-child families.

One might think that we could have broad agreement on this proposal, for the fact is that almost all parliamentary parties are in favor of a possibility to transfer parental days. But this proposal has been rushed through, and it has large gaps. There is a risk that the completely free system that the government is now proposing could be exploited by criminals for benefit fraud.

The main reason for this is that a change was made compared to the investigation's proposal, and now it is opened up so that even those who do not have a job can be on parental leave with someone else's child. This will make it very difficult to control if the system is being abused. It is much easier to control if it concerns a person who is off from their work.

This could be used to give individuals within the criminal environment a white income, which would make it easier for them to evade the police's eyes. It could also lead to the fact that newly arrived women, whom we have jointly tried to strive to get into jobs, can be on parental leave for as long as they want, not only with their own but also with others' children.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I can agree that it is a pity that we do not have a broader consensus and that Miljöpartiet chooses in this case not to support the proposal. This is not something that has been rushed through. The investigation came, if I remember correctly, in 2018. The Riksdag even issued a notice to the then government to speed up and come back with the transfer. Then a few years passed before we in the Moderate-led government finally took over, moved into Rosenbad, and could begin the work. This is, therefore, not something that has been rushed through.

If I don't remember entirely incorrectly, transfer was also mentioned in the budget for 2023; a proposal of that kind was to be presented. The process is therefore not rushed, on the contrary. Some families have actually waited a very long time for this opportunity.

I think it is a pity that you are not on board when we enable this. I look back at the investigation, which had some reasoning regarding whether or not to introduce limitations. In broad strokes, one lands on the fact that it must be a simple system that is easy to process but also easy for parents to understand. I believe that the possibility of transfer we now have on the table is important and correctly designed. Then, of course, we must follow the development very closely.

I believe that limiting it by saying that a grandparent or a close friend who does not have a job is not allowed to help is a bigger mess, and it also creates a greater issue regarding boundaries in family life and the life puzzle. I believe that this is better, and I trust that Sweden's parents can make wise judgments regarding their planned parental leave.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I also trust Sweden's parents and that they want the best for their children. And I actually also trust that Sweden's criminals will do everything in their power to cheat with the systems that we leave large loopholes in. That is what you are now choosing to do. You have changed the proposal compared to the commission's proposal, which has caused referral bodies that were positive to call us in a panic and say: My God, don't do this!

This increases the risks of abuse enormously, and it also increases the risks that the parental insurance is used commercially. And do you know who I also trust? I trust that everyone who wants to make money from the welfare system will find ways to do so. And the government chooses to turn a blind eye.

It would have been simple to close some of the biggest gaps with small changes to this proposal. This concerns, among other things, the question of who should be covered. It is said now, as the minister did when she was in the committee, that retirees must also be able to participate in this, and they do not have any sickness benefit-earning income. No, but they do have a pension, so they do not need parental leave to afford helping to take care of their grandchildren.

I believe that the consequence of this will be that we get nanny companies that make money from the system. We will see purely criminal abuse. We will also see how it can be exploited in criminal circles.

We will also see fewer newcomers going to work. This will be a much easier way for those women, not least immigrant women, who have never managed to get a foot into the labor market, to support themselves. It is wrong that this has been botched here when we could have done something good.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I take this to heart because Miljöpartiet will in fact support the crime-preventing proposals that will come when we talk about qualification for welfare and benefit ceilings. It is such things that seriously get, for example, foreign-born women into work. I look forward to it.

I also want to remind the House once again that it is possible to carry out freedom reforms and simultaneously curb welfare crime. The Member of Parliament is completely right that we see fraudsters in our insurance systems, and we have problems with that. That is why we need a payment authority and expanded opportunities for controls at Försäkringskassan and at law enforcement agencies. All of this is connected.

The Economic Governance Authority notes fraud today. That fraud must be curbed, absolutely. But it does not mean that we should take away from parents the opportunity to plan their parental leave in a better way. It means that a single mother might be able to work one day a week, because she gets help from a close friend or a relative in some way. It means she can get a boost to her household economy. That opportunity, you therefore want to remove, limit, or complicate.

Clean systems are also easier to audit. There are other methods to curb the concerns that have been raised, for example, the data protection regulation coming in just a few weeks, which we have now begun processing in the committee. That is one way to do it, and it is something that Försäkringskassan requested already in 2020. Now this is becoming a reality, and it makes it simpler to control data. But it is not in opposition to families being allowed to choose.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It was with a certain surprise that we received the government's budget, as it not only contained the distribution of funds but also this legislative change regarding the transfer of parental leave.

The chairman spoke in his address about the importance of equal parenting. Therefore, I wonder why one is now backing away from that goal. This change will not bring us any closer to the goal of equal parenting.

It will now be possible for fathers to transfer days to a grandmother or to some other woman who can take care of the children, or why not to a nanny, as previous speakers also pointed out?

I have previously asked the responsible minister questions regarding the transfer of parental leave and about the risks of this being used on a market. Her answer was that she sees the risks as small, but others do not seem to share that view. As Member Möller pointed out in his speech, the CEO of Nanny.nu has already managed to comment positively on this.

Member of Parliament Högström was arguing that this would not be possible, because one must work for acquisition, and therefore one cannot take this out in a company. But one could, for example, have a nanny employed at 75 percent. The remaining 25 percent can then be taken out by the nanny as parental leave and receive a full salary.

As an event, the government has also increased the standard deduction to 75,000 kronor per year. This means that as a high-earner, you could have a nanny full-time for an entire year if you calculate the 90 days at 25 percent.

I see an imminent risk that the system will be exploited in a market. Why does the member think it is reasonable that we should use our insurance systems in a market?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the question! Let me begin with this regarding equal withdrawal.

As I mentioned in my speech, the 90 reserved days for each parent will also continue to be reserved. What we are now discussing concerns the remaining 90 days.

I believe that equal uptake must be about something other than coercion. It is not with coercion that we solve the equality problem within, for example, parental leave, but it is with conscious choices and information and also with an understanding that all families look different and have different needs. I believe that we do ourselves a disservice by believing that we can and know more about families' life puzzles than they do themselves.

Let me move on to the second part of the question, regarding the nanny system. I can reassure Mixter and the Chamber that it is incredibly exaggerated criticism. I cannot take responsibility for what individual companies state, but I can state that as the system is structured, one cannot be employed and collect parental leave benefits in the way that some are trying to make it appear.

Then I also actually think that the member's party displays a rather problematic view of people in general. The way one expresses oneself about those one calls rich shows something. I turn quite strongly against that description of Swedish citizens.

But I believe, as I have said, that it is possible to curb welfare crime while simultaneously implementing prison reforms. I want to emphasize this again, because it seems that this has not been fully grasped in Vänsterpartiet.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It is very easy for the member to say that we are talking about it being the rich who exploit the system. But the member's own government is very keen to put a stop to all possible benefits that those who truly need them could receive. Your government has now seen to it that households are poorer than ever, and you have the nerve to stand here and say that I exaggerate the criticism when I say that our insurance systems will break down with your reform!

I also wonder how far the government is prepared to go in its eagerness for freedom. Is this the first step? Now it is about 90 days. Will the next step be about 120 days or 150 days – how far is the government prepared to go so that parents can have freedom of choice?

The truth is that we nevertheless have a common ambition, and that is that we shall have an equal parenting. The only thing that has brought us closer to that goal in recent decades is to dedicate months of the parental leave to fathers. There is nothing else that has had an effect on equality, no matter how many campaigns one has to talk about how it benefits the families' economy that one shares the parental leave and that women will get better pensions and salary development and so on. It does not help, and this is shown report after report.

Why then do you not do what helps? In the original investigation, it was proposed that there should be both a possibility for the transfer of parental leave and an increased number of reserved days. Now, you have removed that part and instead only implemented what you yourselves find fun.

I see a very great risk that this will tear apart the parental leave and also increase inequality. Why does the government want to carry this out?

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I must conclude that Member Mixter and I do not agree on very much in this chamber today.

We have a large reform package to tackle subsidy fraud. The member is completely right about that. We have quite well-developed reforms there, both those that are on the way and those that are already on the table. We are working very hard on that part. But this is not in opposition to facilitating things for families with children with their life puzzle.

We are absolutely in agreement that the unequal uptake is problematic. But if we examine the reports, we can see that the third father's month did not have a particularly large effect compared to the first two. It might be other things than compulsion that are the solution when it comes to achieving an equal uptake. That is what I am quite convinced of. If we look at other countries, including Nordic countries, that have introduced this, we can see that it has rather resulted in women completely stepping out of the insurance system. Then we are talking about a real woman trap.

One must be cautious with the reforms here. In the investigation that was submitted, there were parts that were very good and parts that we needed to look further into.

There are reports that the group of women who take out the most unpaid parental days are in what the Swedish Pensions Agency calls resource-strong families. They are resource-strong mothers. They take out the largest share of unpaid days.

One must consider here: How can we ensure that people make conscious choices without us, for that reason, completely devaluing them? We must not devalue Sweden's families and parents in their choices, because families look different. It could be about a mother who is a farmer and who therefore cannot be on parental leave. There, perhaps the father or someone else needs to carry the heavy load in the family. It could be about the entrepreneur, but it is also about single parents.

I think that making it so easy for oneself by saying that we should not let families decide and choose is doing Sweden's families a disservice.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Santa Claus will have major delivery problems this year, and this time it is not Postnord's fault. It is actually the government and the Sweden Democrats who are leaving families in the lurch in the economic crisis. Every third household is currently struggling to make ends meet.

On many children's wish lists this year, there will be no expensive video games, toys, or new skis. The children's hopes of receiving cool packages have already been extinguished. When Majblomman received this year's applications for money from their fund, it was an unusually high number of applications concerning bus cards for the children - so that they can get to their leisure activities or summer jobs. A bus card is a very modest wish, but that is how reality looks for many children.

The government parties have on repeated occasions said that the most important thing for households is that inflation is brought down. After just over a year with this government, we can state that the government's talk has had very little effect in reality. On the contrary, the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have passively watched as inflation has increased. Instead of acting, they have let the households take the hit. The food giants and the banks get to continue making record profits.

Ordinary people see in their wallets how much more expensive it is to pay their housing costs, their grocery bag, and their electricity bill. The government could have acted against that, but one watches passively. The government has also actively placed municipalities and regions in the worst situation in decades by choosing tax cuts over welfare.

Repeatedly, the government has said that it intends to help the weakest households through the crisis, but it is doing exactly the opposite. The government and SD prioritize rot- and rut-deductions for the well-off over higher child allowances. What one needs to ask is whether it is the one who can afford cleaning help at home who needs a tax deduction from the state, or whether it is the family who cannot afford to buy a winter jumpsuit for the children who would need a higher child allowance. The government has a priority. We have another.

In our budget, we propose an increase of the child allowance by 400 kronor per child. The increase we propose is a permanent increase, not temporary. When Vänsterpartiet got through an increase of the child allowance in the budget negotiations with the S-MP government in 2018, it was the first time the child allowance had been increased since 2006. In connection with the rapid price increases, the child allowance has once again been eroded. Swedbank stated in April that the costs for children have increased by 23 percent in two years and that the child allowance now only covers 28 percent of the necessary expenses for a ten-year-old. Compare that with 40 percent in 2018! We believe therefore that it is urgent to increase the child allowance.

Madam Speaker! Among single parents, mostly women, it is significantly more than among cohabiting couples who live with a low economic standard. For those with low incomes, benefits such as child allowance, maintenance payments and the like become even more important.

Many single parents are also in need of housing allowance. It is a benefit that has been significantly eroded over time. The number of households with children receiving housing allowance has almost halved between the years 1997 and 2022. The highest rent that can serve as the basis for housing allowance has not been increased since 1996. If the explanation for fewer people receiving housing allowance had been that the households' finances had become significantly better, that would have been great, but that is not the case. Among single parents with children, the proportion living with a relatively low economic standard has increased from 10 percent in 1999 to 33 percent in 2021.

Neither the income limits nor the size of the housing allowance are adjusted automatically, which means that they are eroded in this way. Fewer and fewer households are able to receive the allowance. If the levels for how much one can earn to be eligible for the housing allowance are not adjusted, soon no one will be able to receive it. That the government has made a temporary increase of the housing allowance is good, but it is not enough if those who need it do not receive it.

Vänsterpartiet proposes a reform of the housing allowance. Given that the price of housing has increased sharply, which contributes to many households being under economic pressure, Vänsterpartiet considers it reasonable that more groups should receive the support. Therefore, we propose that households without children should also be covered by the housing allowance from 2025 onwards. Fully implemented, the proposal would mean that nearly 500,000 more households than today would be able to receive the housing allowance. For households without children, the maximum allowance would be 3,250 kronor. For households with children, the allowance would increase by between 2,200 kronor and 2,650 kronor from today's level with our proposal.

According to a new report from UNICEF, Sweden has the highest relative child poverty in the Nordic region. 18 percent of children in Sweden live in relative poverty. In that situation, the government wants to remove the multi-child supplement. It is a completely out of touch policy. It was decades since households had such weak finances as now, and then those in power want to make the families with children even poorer. It is a shameful policy, which is very far from the cohesive Sweden that we could once be proud of.

Vänsterpartiet also proposes increases in parental insurance benefits to improve families' finances. We propose a raised basic level in the parental insurance but also a raised ceiling, so that 80 percent of wage earners shall receive 80 percent of their salary.

Madam Speaker! As I pointed out in my previous exchange, it was with some surprise that we received the government's budget proposal. It also contained a legislative change regarding the parental insurance. It will now be possible to transfer 90 days of parental leave to someone other than the child's guardian. There is no restriction on who that person may be. It could be the neighbor, grandmother, or a paid nanny.

The proposal originally comes from an investigation conducted in 2017, but at that time it was part of a larger package. There was also a proposal for a three-part parental insurance, which is a proposal that would increase equality.

We know that women still take the very largest part of the parental leave. This applies to both paid and unpaid parental days. During the year, reports have been received from, among others, TCO which show that the unequal uptake of the parental benefit is more unequal than what was previously known, if one counts the unpaid leave.

There is a politically established ambition in the committee that the economic family policy shall contribute to equal parenting. The government is now implementing a policy that does not bring us closer to that goal. On the contrary, it now facilitates for fathers to hand over the responsibility to some other woman. That one should be able to hire a nanny with money from the parental insurance fundamentally changes the system. One question that is asked is: Who is the parental insurance supposed to be for?

The Swedish parental leave is something that I have been proud of. It enables parents to be at home for a long time with their children without losing their connection to the labor market. In many ways, it has been part of a feminist liberation. Women have had the right to be off with compensation without being fired from their jobs. We would now need to take the next step in the liberation of women, so that they are not punished with lower wages and pensions. Therefore, men need to take a larger share of the parental leave.

The steps that the government is now taking for us do not bring us closer to the goal of equality, but rather closer to a torn-apart parental leave system where market elements and fraud can find their way in.

When the Committee on Social Insurance visited Försäkringskassan, the question was asked whether it is possible to control who is at home with the children and who is not during a transfer. The answer was no.

The government has also not expected the reform to entail any cost increases. However, we have had the Riksdag's investigation service calculate what the cost increases would be if the minimum level days that are not currently paid out were to be paid out. With this change, one could let the neighbor girl who watches your children receive a minimum level day, as no sickness benefit-qualifying income is required to be eligible for it.

If these days were to be taken, it would mean an increase in costs of 100-190 million kronor per year. The government has not calculated that risk. Many of the minimum-level days are currently burning inside because the compensation is too small. But with the government's change, it could be the case that more of them are taken. It is therefore a deficiency that the government has not sufficiently highlighted what the effects of the reform are.

Several of the previous referral bodies, both LO and TCO as well as Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer, have directed criticism towards the legislative change now being implemented and argue that the risks have not been sufficiently investigated. Nevertheless, the government chooses to proceed with this.

Vänsterpartiet opposes this change, but I will also be clear that we see a need to open up the possibility for single parents.

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that the government lacks the ability to help families through the crisis. The temporary increase in the housing allowance only reaches a small, tiny part of all those families who are now struggling to make ends meet. The government's tax cuts primarily benefit those who already have a lot, while the average household gets some crumbs. The increased tax deduction for cleaning help gives more money to those who already have.

In the Left Party's budget, we prioritize differently. An increased child allowance of 400 SEK per child and a real increase in the housing allowance, which would also reach significantly more people than is the case today, is a policy that benefits ordinary people.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats support the government's policy, and I want to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Madam Speaker! The family is humanity's most important community and the foundation upon which society is built. Children who grow up in secure families are given good conditions to cope with life's challenges. Secure and well-functioning families ensure that society as a whole functions and grows stronger. A good family policy is a means to solve many social problems such as economic vulnerability, falling school results, and youth crime. By supporting families early, we can prevent problems from escalating and instead prevent them.

A family can look many different ways but, regardless of composition and history, fulfills the same fundamental role for the opportunities to have a good life. With the Christian Democrats' family policy, we want to strengthen the family and build a society that holds together - a society that, in both good and difficult times, manages what is important - to prioritize our children.

One of our greatest common tasks is to protect the safety and rights of all children. The family has the primary responsibility for its children, but every state, region, and municipality is obliged to support families so that they can take on that responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Humans need community and functioning relationships to feel well and to develop. The family is the most fundamental form of community. There, people meet across generations in love and trust. This insight is a cornerstone of the Christian Democratic ideology. These small communities, the families, create the foundation for a functioning society. There, economic security is one of several supporting factors for children and families to have a functioning everyday life.

Madam Speaker! On Monday, I had the privilege of visiting a brand-new preschool in my home county, Jönköpings län. There, the principal has been involved in the entire construction process to ensure that the child's best interests are in focus. Even the children have been involved in the planning of the outdoor environment. This facility accommodates six departments and, when full, approximately 90 children. Here, children will receive good care and a good environment to be in while the parents are working.

But not all children are the same, and children have different needs. Therefore, the visit I made earlier that same day was even more pleasing. I got to visit Tånghults barnomsorg, which runs preschools with pedagogical care - what was formerly referred to as daycares and childminders. So wonderful to be able to offer children and parents childcare in smaller groups and in a home environment!

For us Christian Democrats, this is a very important issue. Municipalities should not just "strive" to offer alternative childcare but should offer different options for childcare so that parents have choices for the children's best interests.

Madam Speaker! Despite the challenges we face, there is much to be happy about. Sweden is a good country to live in in many areas. This is shown in survey after survey. This applies in particular to the upbringing conditions for children and young people, where the opportunity for parents to combine family life and work life is also very good.

I therefore want to take the opportunity to speak about some things in the budget that we Christian Democrats are extra happy about: double days, the ability to transfer parental leave to close relatives, the leisure card – which actually belongs to the culture grant – and an extended increased housing allowance for economically vulnerable families.

I want to start with the double days. For the small child, there is nothing more important than the attachment to both parents. The Christian Democrats argue that it is important to facilitate the attachment to both the mother and the father. It is therefore primarily when the child is small that the parents have a need to be off at the same time. The Christian Democrats are therefore very pleased to have had both the number of double days increased from 30 to 60 days and that the double days can also be taken over a longer period than today. One extends it a little bit.

We already know that it will have positive effects primarily on women's health but also for men. There is research that shows this. It concerns, among other things, a reduced risk of childbirth complications and a reduced risk of needing to visit the hospital. Even the prescription of anxiety-reducing medication was shown to decrease when we introduced the double days. It is therefore positive for the whole family.

So we have the transfer of parental leave to next of kin. It concerns 90 parental days that can be transferred to a next of kin. This authorizes parents to make wise decisions about what is best for their children. This is an opportunity and not a compulsion. It also prevents parental days from expiring for those who, for various reasons, cannot utilize all the parental days. We have not intended for parental days to expire; they are, after all, intended to be used. This does not apply to the reserved three months that we have earmarked for fathers.

I also want to mention the extension of the increased housing supplement for families with children. In times of economic crisis, we cannot give everything to everyone, and therefore we choose in the budget to give groups with the greatest need extra support with the measures that have the greatest redistributive effect for economically weak groups - primarily families with children. It is a matter of prioritization, and the Christian Democrats prioritize families with children.

Madam Speaker! Last week I was asked who the parental leave is for. Is it for the mothers, the fathers, or the children?

For me, the answer is obvious. The parental leave is for the children so that they can have more time with their parents. Research clearly shows that for children up to three years old, the parents are the most important individuals. We Christian Democrats believe that parents are best for the children. We have confidence that parents can make decisions that are in the child's best interest. We Christian Democrats believe that the policy should re-evaluate parenthood, increase families' room for maneuver and freedom of choice, and provide more time for the children.

That is why we Christian Democrats will continue to push for a completely flexible parental leave and for society and the state to support families, not rule them.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! In her speech, Camilla Rinaldo Miller spoke warmly about the importance of the family. It was not many weeks ago that the Kristdemokraterna stood here and ensured that more families will live divided around the world, with parents in Sweden and children in refugee camps.

Rinaldo Miller also speaks about the importance of families and children growing up in economic security. We in Miljöpartiet could not agree more, and that is why in our budget we prioritize families with children economically. One has to choose. No one can do everything and give everything to everyone.

We in Miljöpartiet have prioritized a just transition. We ensure that those who are struggling most financially get it better. Single mothers are a group that has suffered particularly badly in the economic crisis. Diapers, food, and energy have gone up in price. Prices are skyrocketing, but the maintenance support that goes to single mothers stands still.

Why have the Christian Democrats not prioritized raising the maintenance support, indexing it so that it follows inflation, so that the group of single mothers and especially their children do not have to depend on charity to put food on the table?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Annika Hirvonen for the question.

We know that it is a difficult time economically right now, especially for certain vulnerable groups. This applies particularly to families with children and single parents. We agree on that. And it hurts us when we know that many wake up in the morning worried about how they will make the money last for the day or the month.

In the budget proposal that the government has presented, we have chosen to extend the extra housing supplement, which the previous government introduced, and we are extending it once more. We can see that the supplement best benefits the most economically vulnerable families, and there, the single parents are included.

I wish we could have done more, but as I said in my speech, we have had to prioritize. I still want to assert that by extending the housing supplement until next year, we will reach the group that needs it most.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The housing allowance is very important for reaching the most vulnerable families with children. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet also prioritize in our budget that it should be indexed and keep pace when inflation spirals.

I do not think this is enough. The question is whether the Christian Democrats believe that it is enough to avoid having single working mothers who are dependent on charity to receive food parcels so that they can put food on the table. I do not think so.

This is about prioritizing. We have chosen to ensure that, for example, the banks that are now making large profits when they raise interest rates shall pay more, so that families with children can make ends meet. That is what we choose to prioritize in our budget. I think the Christian Democrats should take that issue to the government.

We now see how large companies, including the banks, are making money from the economic crisis. There are large dividend payments at the same time as everyone cannot afford the most basic things. The prices of diapers and food have been raised more than was necessary - because they can. We in Miljöpartiet believe that a stronger redistribution is needed from those who have a huge amount to those who can barely make ends meet.

Children should not grow up in poverty while bank owners live luxury lives at the expense of ordinary families.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite perceive any question, but I understand what the member is getting at. The banks are charging high interest rates. What we all really hope for is to see a tapering off, that is to say that inflation retreats, lower interest rates, where costs for food, fuel and so on decrease. All families, especially families with children, should get better room to manage their everyday lives in a good way.

We have made prioritizations in the government's proposal. I have brought up the housing supplement, and there we are in complete agreement.

We want to upgrade parenthood. I cannot escape it. I want to highlight the importance of giving parents confidence. Annika Hirvonen did not mention the 90 days, but that question has been raised earlier. It is not that someone else decides who they should give the days to, but it is the parents who decide. It is an opportunity – not a compulsion.

I trust that our parents use the days in the best way for the children. That is the trust I have for Sweden's parents.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Economic family policy is largely about the parental leave, and it should be for parents so that they get time for their children while they are small. It should facilitate family life and professional life for both parents, both mothers and fathers. But it is also about that we want people to be able to return to work quickly. A long absence from the labor market creates inequality in the next step.

Regarding the unequal uptake of the parental leave, we get a bit stuck in the discussion about what is the cause of the unequal uptake. We often talk about linking more days to the father so that he will be at home. But conducted studies show that when the fathers are home more, the women are not home less.

What is it that makes us make these choices? It is clear that the choices we make depend on the norms and values we carry with us. I do not think the answer is as simple as saying that we should link more days to one parent, but we must work on several things at the same time.

I believe that the kitchen table decisions are real, necessary, and important. But we must work with the implications of the different choices. What does it mean to be at home on parental leave without compensation? What does it mean for my pension in the future? It is not the days with parental benefit that are the problem, but it is the days I am at home without taking out compensation. That is where we have the main villain in the drama when it comes to pensions and inequality.

We must dare to see what it actually is. We may have to force the mother to go back to work; perhaps it is about this rather than forcing the father to stay at home. It is a new way of looking at the same question.

Double days, I believe, are very good for the family as a whole. The Center Party would actually want this to be a pure kitchen table decision and that the number of days that parents can be home doubled was unlimited. We can be satisfied that the government at least takes some steps forward and doubles the number of days that one has the opportunity to do this.

Centerpartiet has for a long time pushed for a more flexible parental leave that can be shared with more adults than the adults who are guardians. We see that there are families with more than two parents who actually need this. It is also about ensuring that those who are single parents or small business owners can provide their children with a good security.

I think it is a good reform that the government is proposing.

Madam Speaker! The housing allowance is something we need to review so that it functions in a good way. The Centre Party stands behind the temporary increase of the housing allowance, but the question is how long it is temporary. Now, the increase has been temporary for quite a long time. We need to conduct a review here. When these funds end up in the hands of the family with children, they are deducted against the social assistance if the family has such, so this actually provides no money in the wallet for the very poorest.

We in the Center Party have included in our budget that we want to write in that this should not be deducted from the social assistance, precisely so that it will have the effect that everyone wants it to have. This is something that the government perhaps needs to take with them. If one is to continue to have a temporary increase, perhaps one should ensure that there is money in the wallet in the end.

The housing allowance is good in principle. It should reach families with children who have small financial means. However, it needs to be reviewed, which the previous speaker has touched upon. We need to review what the levels look like. We also need to review how it is managed, because today it is a conflict-driving allowance. The regulations regarding how many days a child should live at home and the size of the housing can drive a custody dispute when the parents have separated.

I have long requested monthly reconciliations regarding the housing allowance, and now the government is delivering in this area. Finally, many families with children think, we do not need to be put into debt because we received an allowance during the spring. This is an important reform, and I am glad that the government has listened to, among others, the Center Party and pushed it through. It is to be in place by 2026. I will follow up on this and ensure that it actually is implemented.

Since we have previously made decisions on the frameworks, I have no reservation and instead refer to the Center Party's specific statement.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! There are two types of opposition parties in this Riksdag. On one hand, there are two parties, the Social Democrats and the Centre Party, who in broad strokes agree with the government's description of the problems and share the will to push forward a tight fiscal policy that does not inflate households' worst enemy, namely inflation. On the other hand, there are two parties, the Left Party and the Green Party, who seem to live in another world and who propose a very expansive fiscal policy with large deficits, enormous tax increases, and a rapidly growing indebtedness. That inflation would increase sharply as a result of such an expansive deficit policy does not seem to concern these parties. It is characteristic of populist parties of the type that has ruined so many countries around the world.

Miljöpartiet proposes an increase in public expenditure of approximately 465 billion kronor for the years 2024-2026 compared to the government's expenditure frameworks. This is financed with large tax increases totaling 178 billion kronor, which is not enough. A bill of 289 billion kronor is passed on to future generations via the national debt. This corresponds to the total appropriation for healthcare, medical care, social care, education, research, and the justice system in the budget for 2024. It is a prime example of a reverse intergenerational solidarity where tomorrow's Swedes are forced to pay for today's fiscal excesses.

The Left Party, on the other hand, wants to increase public expenditure by approximately 410 billion kronor during the mentioned three-year period. This is financed by a tax shock of 225 billion kronor and a debt increase of roughly 185 billion kronor.

In comparison with these two parties' enormous generosity with others' money, the Centerpartiet's and Socialdemokraternas expenditure increases for the next three years are almost Spartan - approximately 31 billion from Centerpartiet's side and around 55 billion from Socialdemokraternas.

The big problem, Madam Speaker, is that these parties can imagine governing together. Two distinctively populist deficit parties would in that case rule Sweden together with the Social Democrats and the Center Party. How this could happen without Sweden's future being jeopardized is a mystery to me that I leave for others to ponder.

Madam Speaker! I have allowed myself to make this general introduction because the area we are debating today is characterized in a very clear way by this divide between populist spending parties and more sensible ones. Great promises are made from both the Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet sides without them telling how it is to be done and who will pay for the party. Nor do they tell about the inflation-driving effects of such an expansive fiscal policy.

There are no free lunches, a famous economist used to say. Even less are there any free banquet dinners like the one our populists are treating us to. More than 13 billion kronor over three years is the price tag for the Miljöpartiets banquet dinner within expenditure area 12. Here, Vänsterpartiet's generosity with others' money is truly outstanding - the bill lands at 54 billion kronor. In comparison to this, the Socialdemokraternas expenditure increase of 3.5 billion over three years is a very modest proposal, not to mention Centerpartiet's total savings of 3.2 billion. But, Madam Speaker, the incomprehensible in this context is, as has been pointed out, that these four parties still want to govern together.

We on the government's side are fully committed to fighting inflation, but we do not forget the difficult predicament of families with children in these times. Therefore, the government proposes that for the period January 2024 to June 2024, a temporary supplementary grant shall continue to be paid out to families with children receiving housing allowance. Also important for families with children is the proposal to increase the number of double days and the time span during which these can be used, and the possibility to transfer the right to parental leave to another insured person.

But as clearly appears from the budget bill, nothing is more important for the standard of living for families with children than the possibility of working for an income. That is what ultimately determines whether one can get out of a situation of long-term economic vulnerability and the benefit traps that can make such a situation permanent.

That is why the initiatives we are making in order to strengthen the work line are important. These initiatives are not reported in expenditure area 12, but they should not be forgotten when we discuss the economic security for families and children. Included here is the tax cut on work for primarily low- and middle-income earners that will apply from the turn of the year. We are lowering the tax broadly by a total of 11 billion kronor and continuing the increase of the job tax deduction. This leads to significant supplements for households. For example, a family with a police officer and a nurse receives more than 14,000 kronor in reduced tax in 2024.

To finance the proposals, we are pausing the upward adjustment of the threshold for state income tax. In the choice between making another historic upward adjustment of the threshold for state income tax and supporting ordinary wage earners broadly, we choose to support broadly. By pausing the adjustment and financing broad tax cuts of 11 billion kronor, we distribute the burdens of high inflation more evenly.

To this decisive reinforcement of the work line, the budget's efforts to increase the number of places in vocational adult education must be added.

Madam Speaker! With this, I conclude my contribution and move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is amusing that Mauricio Rojas, in a debate on expenditure area 12 regarding economic security for families and children, brings up how we red-green parties shall form a government in 2026. I look forward to that happening, and I am convinced that we will reach a consensus. This also applies to the view on the fiscal framework, which the government has recently commissioned an inquiry into. Already now, we hear that a majority of the parties are talking about abandoning the surplus goal. Even the Liberals have touched upon that.

Let me address part of what Mauricio Rojas devoted much of his speech to, even though it does not concern expenditure area 12. It concerns our climate investment budget, which Mauricio Rojas is obviously very upset about. The fact is that we are in the middle of a climate emergency. A new agreement was just reached at COP 28, and it is heartening that the world is now in agreement that fossil fuels should be phased out. This must happen quickly, because we are seeing escalating climate consequences, such as a heatwave in southern Europe at Christmas time. Therefore, we need to invest here and now, otherwise the bill in the future will be much more than the cost of these investments.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind that the subject of this debate is Utgiftsområde 12 Economic security for families and children and nothing else.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Let me point out that things actually hang together in a budget proposal.

I am not at all upset that Miljöpartiet wants to invest in the environment and much more. I do not know why the member claims that. What upsets me is that you want to increase public expenditure by 465 billion kronor and raise taxes by 178 billion kronor, which results in a bill of 289 billion kronor that you pass on to future generations. Furthermore, this inflates inflation.

I would like to hear Member Hirvonen explain how one fights inflation, which is the households' worst enemy, by increasing public spending in the way the MP wants to do and sending a bill forward via the national debt.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I noted that Madam Speaker cleared her throat a little extra much when I responded to the contribution Mauricio Rojas made in the rostrum. I think it is important to mark when one thinks a contribution is drifting out, not when we respond to the interjections made by members in the rostrum. Mauricio Rojas devoted the greater part of his speech to criticizing how we act to create an investment budget for the climate. That is what he speaks of when he criticizes Miljöpartiet for wanting to borrow money to take responsibility for the climate transition.

I also intend to answer the question regarding inflation even though it does not concern expenditure area 12. If the question is to be asked, the answer must also be given. When inflation began to pick up during the end of 2021, it was primarily due to high energy prices and problems in supply chains, not least because of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have seen inflation in much of the world as a result of that. It is therefore not true that it is our policy that has driven this.

The fact is that the government's tight policy does not seem to be solving the problem. Across Europe, inflation is falling in countries that have a more expansive fiscal policy, and it is expected to fall in Sweden as well. Many economists within Svenskt Näringsliv, LO and SEB point to the need to support households through the economic crisis. We see a situation with record-low growth where families with children are queuing to receive food bags from civil society. It is not okay.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! It is not an exaggeration to remind you of the figures in your budget proposal. That is the only thing I have done. The sum of what you propose amounts to 465 billion, and you propose 178 billion in tax increases. It is not an exaggeration but a pointing out of the presents you are coming with at Christmas time.

I will stay within expenditure area 12. How are parties such as Miljöpartiet, which want to increase expenditures within this area by 13 billion, and Vänsterpartiet, which want to increase by 54 billion kronor, able to govern together with the Socialdemokraterna, who only want to increase by 3.5 billion? And then Centerpartiet, which wants to save money - 3.2 billion - within this area. It doesn't add up!

You have no alternative for Sweden. You are divided on this issue, like on the migration issue and other issues that I could mention here. That is the problem with the opposition. There is again opposition—there are many oppositions that go in different directions.

The government has a policy that unites four parties and which can give Sweden a direction in which we can get out of the problems we have today.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It is comical that the member spends six minutes of his speech talking about everything other than what concerns this expenditure area. I think it is remarkable, but I would still like to address some of the things the member took up. He spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the Left Party's policy, and it is nice that one is interested in talking about our good policy.

The Speaker argues that the Left Party's policy inflates inflation but forgets that it is his own party with coalition partners that governs this country right now. Sweden has had an inflation that is among the highest in the EU area, and you have not taken any of the measures you could have taken to bring down inflation.

Vänsterpartiet has come forward with countless proposals, including limiting the profits of the food giants and the excess profits of the banks, but you have chosen to do nothing about inflation. With that, you also pass the burden on to the households. Households cannot afford to buy food for their children, and 40 percent of single women need to borrow to buy food for their children. It is your policy that has led to that. You are trying to pass on the responsibility by talking about something else.

Regarding the debt, Sweden has the fifth lowest national debt in Europe. Our policy involves significant investments to actually get Sweden moving again, get the trains running and arrange infrastructure in all parts of the country. These are investments that are necessary but that you refuse to make.

I want to ask the member why you choose the deduction for renovation for the rich instead of increased child allowance for the families with children.

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Perhaps it was comical for the member. But to state that you, within this budget area - to be very clear - want to spend 54 billion kronor more than the government wants to, 50.5 billion kronor more than the Social Democrats, and infinitely more than the Center Party, which wants to save money, that is what is comical here. You say at the same time that you are an opposition that could at some point be prepared to govern this country. It is perhaps not comical, but tragic.

There is a tragedy in advocating for such different budget options and still saying that you are an opposition that can govern together. You have no chance of doing so if any of you hold fast to these very strange proposals.

I would very much like the member to comment on this, because it has much to do with the core of your budget proposal, namely what you call the deficit target over ten years. It is going to generate a debt of 800 billion kronor. That is the fact. A debt of 800 billion kronor is what you want to pass on to future generations. There is some room for the 54 billion within this budget area.

This is obviously connected to the fact that, for ten years, you want a deficit in the state's finances. How are you going to be able to govern together with the Center Party and the Social Democrats, who have not lost their heads in this regard yet? I actually don't know.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! I note that the member chooses not to answer my question. Why does the government prioritize rot- and rut-deductions over money for the families with children? It would not become more expensive if we remove your option with increased rot- and rut-deductions and the tax cuts you are implementing which primarily benefit high-income earners. It is a matter of priorities, and you have chosen to prioritize those who already have the most over the families with children. It is not something that strains the budget as a whole, but it is a matter of priorities.

The Speaker is trying to mix the cards, but I would like to have an answer to my question. Why do the government and the Sweden Democrats prioritize those who already have the most over the families with children who now cannot afford food?

Speaking of government formation, the member seems very preoccupied with asking what our government option looks like. Perhaps it is because one is not comfortable with one's own government option. It is obviously the case that the Liberals have swallowed everything to be part of this government. What were previously liberal values have been thrown overboard. I understand that one is very interested in how it will be possible to form a government when one has failed so fatally in holding onto the liberal values. The member should worry more about their own government option than about how we are going to put together our initiatives.

(Applause)

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! The government's expenditure proposal contains one of the strongest redistributive measures we have seen in a long time. The measure is to pause the upward adjustment of the threshold for state income tax, something that is directed straight at those who earn the most, and instead invest 11 billion kronor in the work line. Pausing the adjustment provides approximately 12.3 billion kronor. We are therefore moving 12.3 billion kronor to this job tax credit and favoring the work line. It benefits families with children.

What is most essential is the will, the ability, and the opportunity to manage by working. We in the government represent an alternative where work is what is important. You often represent the subsidy line. Subsidies should come from the state budget and from the debt of 800 billion kronor that you want to leave as an inheritance to future generations and governments.

It was the distributional policy aspects.

I believe that those who are watching or listening to this debate have concluded that there is no opposition, but rather many different oppositions, each of which pursues its own policy. They do not go together at all, and it is obviously very tragic for Sweden. We would like to have a united opposition that truly provides an alternative, but you simply do not have the strength for it.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was probably a long time ago that the question of economic security for families and children was as important to talk about as it is now, with inflation, large banks and food companies that have raised prices more than inflation has justified and many, even working, parents who are dependent on charity from the Red Cross, Stadsmissionen and others to collect food bags - the most basic.

We in Sweden have a proud tradition of supporting those who have it toughest, of ensuring that children do not grow up in poverty, regardless of which family they are born into. Child allowance, housing allowance, and maintenance support for single-parent families are cornerstones in the policy against child poverty. These cornerstones have been eroded. At the same time as prices have increased, the levels have remained static. We in Miljöpartiet want to change this. We want the child allowance, the maintenance support, and the housing allowance to keep pace with inflation so that they increase.

Maintenance support is the support that goes to single parents when, most often, the father does not contribute to the children's economic needs. The housing allowance becomes even more important for those families who are now facing skyrocketing rents. The child allowance does indeed go to everyone but still has a redistributive effect. It is administratively very simple and one of the systems that is hardest to cheat with.

Fraud with the benefit systems must we take seriously. It is not just about a parent who takes the chance to be off work despite the child being healthy, but it also truly concerns the opportunity for gross organized crime to finance itself with the help of our welfare systems.

One of the government's proposals in the budget is a gift to those who want to cheat the subsidy systems. At the same time as we have received a major investigation, whose perhaps most important proposal is that one should think first and ensure that one does not introduce new systems and rules that open up for abuse and cheating, the government presents an opportunity for criminals to trick their way into parental leave.

We in Miljöpartiet had wished that the concerns of TCO and other referral bodies had been taken seriously, that one had listened to the Economic Crime Authority when they were with us and said that it opens up for risks, and that one had withdrawn the proposal and reworked it so that we instead could have received a proposal for a more flexible parental leave for those who really need it - for single parents, entrepreneurs, and large families - but without simultaneously opening up for fraud and abuse. A simple thing would have been to require that a person who is to be on parental leave with someone else's child should be off from a job.

Madam Speaker! We face great challenges as a society. Today on the way here, I listened to reports from the climate summit COP 28, where the world's countries have now for the first time agreed that we shall phase out fossil fuels. Finally!

The climate transition is necessary and must happen quickly. The climate transition must also happen fairly. It must not be that it is the poorest people in the world or in our country who pay the price. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet put forward a policy for increased equality, where the banks pay more now that they are making excess profits on increased interest rates and where more goes to those who have the least.

We cannot achieve justice without climate transition, but we also cannot achieve a transition without justice. Therefore, our initiatives for economic security for families and children are a completely central part of the great transition that we now face.

We think it is better that we give money to all families with children instead of just lowering the price of fossil fuels. That only provides cheaper travel for those who drive petrol and diesel cars to work, not for those who cannot even afford a car and can hardly afford bus passes for the children. In the same way, we provide targeted support to people in rural areas so that people are not locked into fossil fuel dependency, but instead receive support to transition.

The government's policy aims to leave the poorest families in the lurch. They blame it on being the only way to fight inflation, but neither the chief economists of Svenskt Näringsliv, LO, nor SEB think it is the right way to go. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet have chosen another way, a way where we ensure that those who have it toughest manage to get through this economically difficult time.

Those who have the most can contribute more. It is right that those who own banks and have now received enormous profits, and for that matter the ICA traders who made large million-dollar dividends while ordinary families with children have difficulty making the money last for food at the end of the month, pay more.

An equal society is better for everyone, and a prerequisite is that we have a just transition.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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