Economic security for families and children

Daniel Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We shall now debate the Social Insurance Committee's report SfU3.

I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposed decision.

The Sweden Democrats safeguard the family and believe that secure families are a cornerstone of a prosperous society. Our starting point in family policy is the best interests of the children and providing the conditions for families to put together their life puzzle.

The family policy supports shall contribute to ensuring that households with children reach a good economic standard of living. The targeted supports make a difference. During 2023, the proportion of households with children with a low economic standard was 15 percent. Without the supports in the report, this figure would have been 24 percent.

The share of child households with a low economic standard was 15.3 percent in 2022 and 16 percent in 2021. It is therefore moving in the right direction, despite the fact that we have had heavy years with inflation.

However, there are large differences between different child households that are persistent in terms of both the level and development of economic standard. Households that have a weak connection to the labor market risk having a poorer economic situation.

Mr. Speaker! Family policy alone cannot contribute to a guarantee of securing a good economic standard of living for families. That the parents are in gainful employment is of great importance for the family's economy. The Government and the Sweden Democrats argue that it must pay to work.

Economic security for families and children

To enable sufficient participation in the labor market, a parental insurance is needed that is flexible. The legislative proposals that have become reality regarding the possibility of transferring parental leave benefits in a wider circle are a step towards making it easier to combine family life and work life.

We have also increased the number of double days from 30 to 60. These days can be taken until the child is 15 months old. The idea with the double days is that the parents together shall have the opportunity to form closer bonds with their child at an early stage when the child has come into the world. The double days have shown to have several positive effects. It provides increased freedom of choice for the parents, and it also lays the foundation for shared responsibility for care during the child's upbringing. There are studies that show that the double days have a positive effect on mothers' health.

The Sweden Democrats and the government argue that the parental leave needs to be flexible to suit Sweden's families.

Mr. Speaker! Parental leave shall provide an opportunity for parents to receive a form of financial compensation during the time they need to be at home with children and refrain from work.

Days at the minimum level and basic level can today also be used for a shorter period that is normally work-free for the parent, that is, one can utilize these days when one is off and is not scheduled to work. The purpose of the parental leave benefit is, however, not that it should be used on work-free days.

The possibility of using minimum level days during time off from work should therefore be limited in a corresponding manner to days at the sickness benefit level. Through such a change, the link between parental leave, absence from work, and compensation for childcare, which is the core of the parental insurance, is strengthened. Such a change would harmonize the handling of the different compensation levels within the parental leave. It is therefore that the government and Sverigedemokraterna present the bill.

Mr. Speaker! We know that inflation is a contributing cause to the fact that the economic standard of households with children has been affected. The period of high inflation and recession has hit many households hard economically, not least families with children. We now see an economic brightening and an economy that is recovering, and this is expected to continue during 2025 with interest rate cuts and tax cuts.

The temporary supplementary grant to families with children receiving housing allowance will be extended until June 30, 2025, which has provided a welcome supplement to families who have had it difficult, especially in times of high inflation. It is a precise tool because it is specifically targeted at low-income households.

Sweden has one of the world's most generous parental leave systems. We should be proud of this. We Sverigedemokrater want to continue to make it more flexible to meet the needs of families.

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

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member spoke in his speech about the best interests of the children. Then I wonder if the member is satisfied that we have many children in Sweden who grow up in poverty. Is one satisfied that 15 percent live with a low economic standard?

The Chairman referred to figures showing that it was better in 2022 than in 2021, but that is a measurement that is not relevant here and now. I wonder: How can one be satisfied at all with the fact that people, even children, live with a low economic standard?

The Speaker also spoke about extending the temporary increase of the housing allowance. The truth is that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government are lowering the housing allowance. They speak of it being a targeted measure to reach the weakest households, but what they are doing now is telling the weakest households – the single mother who needs to choose between buying a new winter jumpsuit or Christmas presents for the children – that they will receive less money in their wallets.

The Sweden Democrats argue that this is a precise measure. And it is a very precise measure, if one wants to make the very poorest households even poorer. At the same time, the government is setting records in giving large tax cuts to Ulf Kristersson and everyone who has high monthly salaries.

How does it feel for the Sweden Democrats to defend giving billions to those who already have the most, while the absolute weakest get less in their wallets?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

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

We Sweden Democrats and the government are working to achieve a flexible parental insurance and increased freedom of choice in the parental insurance.

The support in the report makes a difference, as I pointed out in my speech. As said, the supplementary grant, which we are extending, has been important, and it will be at a level that it was at in the past as well. The supplementary grant is estimated to reach an average of 100,000 families with children during 2025, and as I pointed out, it is a precise tool because it is targeted at low-resource households. It is an important measure to support households in a difficult time.

We are also making other investments. The Member of Parliament says that we are making tax cuts. And yes, we are lowering the tax for high earners, but we are lowering the tax broadly. It should pay to work. This is part of getting the Swedish economy started. It increases consumption, and we get more people who work and can contribute to our common welfare.

An average wage earner can expect to have about 200 kronor more in their wallet through the tax cuts. We therefore have a policy that will benefit both families and citizens in general, but we are also reviewing the regulations to make the parental insurance more flexible.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Member Daniel Persson knows just as well as I do that the person who receives housing allowance does not have an income that can bring in any sums worth mentioning at all regarding tax cuts. It might be one falukorv a month. What one gets, however, through that reduction of the housing allowance that the government is now delivering is perhaps ten fewer falukorvs a month.

How can Member Persson defend that the single mother will be able to afford ten fewer falukorvars while Ulf Kristersson can look forward to thousands of kronor more per month? These are absurd priorities to me.

We can also see that the housing allowance has fallen behind over decades. It is not a benefit that is adjusted automatically. One therefore cannot also defend oneself by saying that this was a temporary increase that would have disappeared anyway. If one thinks that this is an accurate way to reach the weakest households and wants people to be moved away from overcrowding, one should solve the issue of the housing allowance in the long term so that it is increased generally.

Do not also try to play your cards by saying that you are investing in the housing allowance by maintaining the temporary initiative! Be honest that what you are doing now is phasing it out and that it will make people poorer!

How does the member feel about defending that?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

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

I know that the Left really wants to promise everything to everyone. If you look at the Left Party's budget as a whole, you see that the Left Party proposes increased grants to very many grant recipients. You also see that you want to go a different way. You want to introduce enormous tax increases for middle- and high-income earners. For everyone who earns over 45,000, the tax increases become enormous with your budget. The person who earns 80,000 has their disposable income almost halved with your proposal.

With your budget, it does not pay off to further your education, to develop your competence, or to be diligent. The median salary for doctors is 83,300 kronor, I checked this morning. A medical education is six years, a time with student loans and a time when one lives with a limited economy. It becomes less attractive to train as a doctor if you have to tax away so much of your salary when you also have a student loan that you must pay off.

With this policy, we might even get fewer doctors. People might train to become doctors to move to Norway, where it is known that one can keep their salary. It is a tax shock that would hit Sweden if your budget were to prevail.

And not only are you raising taxes, you are also increasing the national debt at a very worrying rate. The Sweden Democrats and the government present a budget that is fully funded and that takes responsibility for Sweden.

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats often speak – they did so in opposition – about standing on the side of ordinary families with children. Reality, however, says something else. When child poverty increases and the Red Cross is forced to quadruple its food distributions, you choose to stand behind a budget that cuts support to the most vulnerable. The budget that you are helping to present together with the government means that single parents, often mothers, are left to bear the consequences of an economic policy that prioritizes tax cuts for high-income earners.

You are lowering the tax by over 30 billion but cannot imagine raising the child allowance, something that would have directly supported the families who are struggling the most. For a family with two children, it would mean around 5,000 kronor extra per year.

This budget debate is called "Economic security for families and children." I really want to know: How do you work for that in practice? How do you protect families? And how do you explain to the children who go to school hungry that your priorities are fair?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Arber Gashi, for your question!

I have noted that the Social Democrats are investing approximately 5.3 billion more than the Tidö cooperation in this expenditure area. That becomes a bit interesting. I assume that the Social Democrats want to form and lead a government after the next election. As I said, you are putting in 5.3 billion more than we are. The Green Party is putting in 7.3 billion more, so perhaps the difference there is not so huge. But then we have the Left Party, which is putting in 14.4 billion more. That is more than the Green Party and the Social Democrats combined – an enormous increase. We also have the Centre Party, which wants to put in 1.3 billion less. It is very scattered in the opposition.

How does the member see the Social Democrats being able to lead a government in the future when it is so fragmented in today's situation?

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! I am therefore posing a question about an actual situation for very many out there, where one truly weighs the grocery bag before going and paying at the checkout and where one now, as a parent, asks themselves before Christmas: Can I afford to buy gifts, or will it just be a meal on Christmas Eve that we will be able to afford? But what the member seems to be worried about is how the Social Democrats will manage to form a government after the next election.

I can calm that anxiety, Daniel Persson. We are going to solve that.

But I am actually giving you another chance. You are therefore lowering the tax by over 30 billion. With precision, you target those who are in the best position. Support which, as you yourself say, is accurate for supporting families, you are cutting back on.

A group of students will surely be entering the gallery in the plenary chamber soon. I am giving you one more chance: How do you explain to the children who go to school hungry that your priorities are fair?

(Applause)

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Arber Gashi, for your question!

I have noted that the Social Democrats in their budget motion propose that the child allowance should be increased by 200 kronor per month. The tax reliefs that the Tidösamarbetet implements next year mean that an average wage earner can expect a tax reduction of 2,600 kronor per year or just over 200 kronor per month. It is therefore the same money that the families will have access to.

One can also look at how the economists believe the economy will look for households in the coming year. Average households appear to be able to get more than 800 kronor more per month thanks to tax cuts. Overall, political reforms and interest rate cuts provide an increased purchasing power of 3,300 kronor per month in 2025 for the average family.

Once again, however, we see that the Social Democrats want to increase the benefits and that the Tidö agreement advocates a work principle. We see a clear difference here.

(Applause)

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must once again, as Speaker, remind you of the rules of conduct in the Chamber. All members speak through the Speaker, which means that one speaks about one's fellow debater and does not use direct address such as "you" and "you".)

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like, by reason of my speech, to refer to the Social Democrats' special statement.

We Social Democrats know that security for families and children is one of the pillars of our welfare society. Sweden has long been a pioneer country where every child, regardless of background, shall have the right to a good start in life. But today we see dark clouds. More children are growing up in poverty, more parents are struggling to make ends meet in everyday life, and our government stands helpless.

The cost-of-living crisis has hit Swedish households hard, but it is the families with children who are hit hardest. When inflation slows down, the high prices remain. We see it in the statistics, but we also hear it in the stories. It is the parent standing in the grocery store counting pennies to be able to put food on the table. It is the child who can no longer go to their extracurricular activity because the family cannot afford it.

What has the government done to alleviate their burden? The answer is: not much. We see a prioritization of tax cuts for high-income earners over targeted support for those who need it most. The Red Cross reports that their distribution of food parcels has quadrupled due to the crisis. It is not worthy of Sweden.

We Social Democrats want to take a different path. We want all children to be able to feel security, and we want society to stand strong behind them and their parents in times of crisis.

Madam Speaker! The child allowance is more than just a payment. It is a promise from society to all children and their parents, a promise that no one should have to choose between buying schoolbooks and buying food. Yet, the government has done nothing to strengthen it, even though costs for families have skyrocketed. We Social Democrats propose an increase of 200 kronor per month. For a family with two children, this means an extra 5,000 kronor per year. It is not just a figure; it is more football practices, more nutritious food on the table, and a more secure everyday life.

The government says many times, as part of its criticism, that an increased child allowance also reaches high-income earners. But let us speak plainly. Most of those who truly need this support are low- and middle-income earners. The general child allowance is a way to create equality and to give all children the same basic security. When we see that more children are forced to grow up in poverty, how can we then say that we cannot afford to prioritize them? Sweden can afford it, if we choose to do so.

Madam Speaker! The home is the core of a family's security. It is where we gather, it is where we rest, and it is where we grow. But for many families with children, especially in households with a single parent, the housing cost is the greatest burden. It can often make the difference between making everyday life function or having to make difficult decisions about what to prioritize away. The association Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrar reports that over 40 percent of the most vulnerable households have had to borrow money to be able to cover basic costs, such as for food and housing.

The previous, Social Democratic-led government increased the housing allowance during the pandemic to support the families who have it the toughest. Now we see that this reinforcement is about to disappear, even though the need is very great. The government has chosen not to extend the temporary supplement to the housing allowance. Or one does it for a short time, but in practice it becomes a reduction of 700 kronor a month for the economically most vulnerable families with children. For these families, it can be the difference between being able to pay the rent or not.

For us, it is once again not just about crowns and öre. It is about values. Should Sweden be a country where children and parents can feel safe? Or shall we let the crisis knock the legs out from under those who are already struggling with small margins? The answer should be obvious.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has one of the world's most generous parental insurance systems. It gives parents the opportunity to create a close relationship with their children and at the same time manage the challenges of everyday life. We often speak of the parental insurance as a freedom reform, a freedom to choose how one wants to live and distribute the responsibility for one's children.

But true freedom requires equal conditions. When women take the primary responsibility for parental leave, it affects their entire lives. Women still take the majority of the parental days – over 70 percent – which affects their careers, salary development, and pensions.

In my home county of Halland, we unfortunately have the largest wage gap in all of Sweden between men and women. In Halland, men earn approximately 100,000 kronor more than women. That is almost 10,000 kronor more than the average for the country. One of several reasons for this is an unequal take-up of parental leave. It is a clear contributing factor.

Inequality does not only affect women. It also affects the children. Studies show that children who have a close and active relationship with both parents often receive a safer and more stable upbringing. A more equal parental leave would therefore strengthen not only women's economic independence but also the children's right to both of their parents.

We Social Democrats therefore propose that the parental leave be divided into three equal parts - one part for each parent and one part that the parents themselves can distribute. This encourages a more equal uptake and strengthens the opportunities for both the parents and the children.

We also want to gradually raise the ceiling for the temporary parental allowance so that more people can be at home with their sick child without losing too much of their income.

Madam Speaker! Everything I am speaking about is based on trust. Sweden's entire welfare system is based on trust that resources reach those who need them and that they are not exploited by fraudsters or criminals. But this trust is threatened by welfare crime. It is not just an economic issue but also a matter of justice, which we Social Democrats take most seriously.

We propose that agencies such as Försäkringskassan and Pensionsmyndigheten are given clearer responsibilities and better tools to counter fraud. The rules for temporary parental leave need to be simplified to reduce fraud, and strengthened controls and current monthly data should be used for housing allowance and maintenance support to avoid indebtedness and incorrect payments. We also continue to follow the work in Utbetalningsmyndigheten, which we were involved in appointing.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: We Social Democrats say that the children's future is our collective responsibility. To increase the child allowance, strengthen the housing allowance, and support families through the crisis is not just words or politics; it is a promise to our children. When we invest in them, we invest in a stronger and more cohesive Sweden.

The government has chosen a different path. They are happy to talk about responsibility. But their policy leaves parents alone with it. They prioritize tax cuts for high-income earners over increased child allowance, and they choose to withdraw support for families struggling in economic hardship. That is not the Sweden that I want to leave to my child or to yours.

We are approaching Christmas. It is a time that for many children is associated with joy and anticipation. But this year, as the cost crisis continues to grip families' finances, we see that more and more parents are worried about how they will be able to create a Christmas that feels secure and warm for their children. For many, it is no longer about buying Christmas presents. It is about being able to afford a proper dinner on Christmas Eve.

Children notice when adults are worried. They sense when the money is not enough, even if we try to shield them from reality. We must therefore lift our gaze. Let us see the eight-year-old who today struggles with homework at the kitchen table and whose parents worry about the next rent. That eight-year-old deserves a society that gives her the conditions to succeed, not one that turns away its gaze.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! 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 both men and women to combine family life and work life.

The work line is central so that not only the individual but also the entire family shall gain a sense of coherence. It is about economics. But one of the best insurances against future exclusion is also that children get to see their parents go to work. Creating security and opportunities for children is crucial for Sweden to continue being a country where every human being, regardless of background, has the chance to shape their life.

Expenditure area 12 Economic security for families and children, which we are debating today, plays a central role in this work. But security and responsibility go hand in hand, Madam Speaker.

From the Moderates' side, we see the importance of welfare focusing on the most fundamental: providing support so that people can stand on their own feet. It is about creating a welfare that does not prevent, but instead enables families and individuals to take responsibility for their lives.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates are convinced that we best help families by strengthening their economic freedom. Therefore, we propose tax cuts, so that it shall become more fair. The one who sets the clock every morning and goes to work and thereby contributes to our common welfare shall feel that it pays off. There must be clear, long-term incentives for parents to combine just work and family life.

For us Moderates, it is not about adding more support for the sake of support, but about giving people the best conditions to stand on their own feet and live an independent life free from dependency on benefits. It is also about ensuring that the economic support to children and families is directed where it truly makes a difference.

Our policy is based on more people working and thereby contributing to society, while at the same time we ensure that those who truly need support receive it. It is an effective policy, in contrast to the policy pursued by many of the parties on the left, with the Socialdemokraterna at the forefront. Their subsidy policy scatters the taxpayers' money without considering what effect the subsidies have or if there is reasonable financing for the proposals.

Madam Speaker! This year, the parental leave marks 50 years. 50 years ago, it was almost revolutionary. Today, it is a self-evident part of our common welfare. But that does not mean it is perfect. We continue to struggle with the risk of lock-in effects, an unequal uptake of parental leave, and individuals who intentionally cheat the system.

In connection with the Riksdag's decision on the budget for 2024, the Riksdag also decided, following a proposal from the government, to modernize the parental leave system by doubling the number of double days and allowing the transfer of at most 90 parental leave days. These are important reforms to safeguard the flexibility in the system and to modernize it in light of families' different circumstances.

Madam Speaker! There is something I particularly want to emphasize. Few things are as important as deciding at the kitchen table who shall stay home with the family's common children, not only because becoming a parent is one of life's greatest events, but because it can have consequences for the family's finances, the individual's career, and the future pension. There are many aspects to consider simultaneously.

Equal parenting is therefore important - that mothers and fathers share equally both in parental leave days and in parental leave. But at the same time, families look different. It could be the farmer or the entrepreneur who may find it difficult to take a long, continuous parental leave. It could also be a family where one parent does not have a job. We must therefore work more with conscious choices at the system level, but at the same time safeguard flexibility. We must succeed with that without simultaneously disparaging families' choices. It is not an entirely easy balancing act.

Madam Speaker! If I may venture to say it, even this chamber tends to look down on women's choices. They can never succeed. When a mother chooses to be the one who is home the longest, it is a problem, regardless of the family situation, whether you have compensated each other or whether you have a plan to take each a long parental leave if there are more children in the family. We need a system that enables and encourages equal parenting. But we must not force a situation where there is a great risk that women completely step out of the insurance system or that a family has difficulty making the finances work. Caution and precision are required when we reform something of the finest we have: the possibility of being home with one's child.

Madam Speaker! The parental insurance is not entirely simple to understand. It is not simple to oversee, and many parallel rules affect how one can plan their parental leave. In some parts, it lacks uniformity. Therefore, in the budget, we propose a change to how one can take out the minimum level days so that it becomes a harmonization with how it looks at the sickness benefit-earning level. One shall, therefore, not be able to take out parental benefit at the lowest level on a work-free weekend, but it shall be done in connection with it. This is done to strengthen what is the purpose of the parental insurance - to refrain from work to care for a small child - but also to make the rules a bit easier to understand.

Madam Speaker! With the fight against inflation being won and we thus have a stronger economy, we now begin a responsible and cautious tapering off of the additional amount in the housing allowance that was introduced in connection with the pandemic and which was extended due to inflation. It is and has been a precise way to support households with temporary support.

It is, however, growth reforms that kickstart the economy and take us out of the recession. It is in this way that we help families' finances in the long term. It is when companies can grow and flourish that welfare receives more resources. Then more can also start and run their first company or work some extra hours.

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to compare the four opposition parties' budget proposals for economic policy. The Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party are investing heavily in strengthening the benefit line. The Social Democrats want to increase the child allowance by 200 kronor per month, the Green Party wants to increase it by 230 kronor, and the Left Party by 400 kronor. At the same time, several also want to increase the housing allowance. The Left Party wants to completely redesign it so that even more people become dependent on housing allowance.

It is with this group that the Center Party may need to cooperate. The Center Party wants to see a reduced multi-child allowance for the second child instead, and thereby save over 1 billion in economic policy. How is this supposed to add up?

One thing is certain: It is not the subsidy line that builds Sweden strong. It is the work line that does it. If people do not work and pay tax, there will eventually be no money left in the state treasury to finance the welfare and the common safety net.

Madam Speaker! An effective and fair welfare is a welfare where families themselves have power over their lives, but where society is at hand to help when it is truly needed. The Moderates will continue to stand up for a policy that strengthens the individual's freedom and for a welfare that puts the family's and children's best first. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare and Viktor Wärnick (both M) concurred.

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! Swedish households are having an extremely tough time. The Minister for Social Insurance, who is not even here and perhaps has more important work tasks today, I don't know, repeats like the member that the fight against inflation is won. And inflation may have gone down, but the situation for families with children is different. Food prices are not going down. According to Matpriskollen, they are rather increasing. Majblomman describes that the requests for basic help, such as a blanket for a baby, have increased significantly.

In this situation, you choose to lower the supplement to the housing allowance, the support that helps Sweden's most vulnerable child families. As if this were not enough, you also prioritize large tax cuts for society's elite. Why, Caroline Högström, is it more important to give incredibly wealthy people even more money than to help many of the country's child families in the current situation?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Gashi for the question.

Regarding the temporary additional amount, a responsible tapering is now taking place. It was an extraordinary situation that caused the increase to be introduced. It is not easy to find a balance when it is time to remove a temporary support, but we believe that it is now that a responsible tapering should begin.

I got stuck on one thing in Member Gashi's contribution, Madam Speaker. The Social Democrats and the united left would rather make people more dependent on benefits than let them keep more of their own earned money. This is the funny thing about the two alternatives we have. The Social Democrats say they want to give 200 kronor more in child allowance, while we in the Moderates say that we want to lower taxes broadly for everyone, which would mean that an average income earner keeps more in their wallet than with the proposal coming from the Social Democrats.

Medelsvensson in, for example, Norberg Municipality, can keep closer to 291 kronor more with the Moderates' budget compared to the Social Democrats' grant increases. Here we have clear alternatives: the grant line and the work line. I think it is important that it should pay off for those who have to set the clock.

It is through work, growth and a sustainable economy that we strengthen independence and that we address the problem that the member describes, not through subsidy increases.

(Applause)

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

Arber Gashi (S)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates are happy to speak about the work line as a solution for the economic crisis of families with children. But lo and behold: Even in households where parents work, people are on their knees.

I belong to the Social Democrats and I meet working people every week. I know exactly who it is that sets the alarm early in the morning and sets off to make the wheels of the welfare state turn.

However, concrete support is required here and now so that families can stay afloat. Your work line has so far failed completely. Unemployment is rising, and soon we will have half a million unemployed in Sweden. Your only solution for this seems to be to call people lazy. Where the hell is the labor market policy, Caroline, if that is the solution to every other problem? Of course, children should grow up in households where they see their parents go to work every day.

You say that the special increase in the housing allowance was a temporary support in an extraordinary time, but for many families with children, the crisis is just as tangible now because prices continue to rise. How can you defend that you prioritize tax cuts for 3 percent of the population over helping families with children who are struggling today for basic security?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I am not surprised. Member Gashi speaks of support, while the Moderaterna say that we should let people keep more of their own money. It is clear that the Socialdemokraterna want to take with one hand in order to be able to give back with the other and in that way strengthen their own view of society. The Moderaterna want, instead, that people should get to keep more of their money. We do not need to take with one hand and give with the other, but we strengthen independence and let people keep more of their own money. And that applies broadly.

We are lowering taxes broadly across all parts of society, so I do not share the picture at all. But I am, as I said, not at all surprised that the Social Democrats have this view on people's work, the view that hard-working people's own money is ours and that it is we who should distribute it, that it is then that one does the right thing. No, it is not a policy that I stand behind.

Furthermore, there is a problem with the Social Democrats' budget, and that is that they have no financing for their proposals. They have a lot of subsidy increases but no sustainable long-term financing for them, and even there we have a hole. How then do we take responsibility for the economy in the long term?

The Moderates' budget is responsible. It has a clear focus on growth that is to actually get the economy in order, which makes Sweden richer, safer and freer.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! A slow and responsible phase-out of the temporary supplement to the housing allowance. Does the member believe in that expression? By the half-year mark next year, the entire supplement will have been removed, and at the same time, the rent increases in the ongoing negotiations will have come into effect.

I think it is very good if people get to decide for themselves over their own money. What Caroline Högström and the rest of the government tend to forget is that we have large groups who pay tax and work full-time. A childcare worker here in Stockholm can, for example, receive 115 kronor. That is a nice amount of money every month. But if one simultaneously loses 600 kronor on "the slow and responsible phase-out", how is one then supposed to manage the rent increases that will come?

What I would also like to know is whether the member means that it is a subsidy trap to work as a childcare worker in Stockholm, because when the temporary supplement to the housing allowance is removed, one will be worse off with the government's budget. The increases that have been made will not make anyone happy.

What jobs are created when this childcare worker can no longer cover necessary expenses? What jobs are created when one has to borrow for necessary expenses every month? What jobs are created when more and more families with income from work turn to Stadsmissionen to get help with food parcels? Is that really what builds a strong society? And what jobs are created by the 7,000–8,000 kronor per month that the very richest will get out of the job tax credit on average? How much more will they work so that they get that tax relief?

It would be very interesting to hear the answers to these questions.

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I am the first to acknowledge that it has been a very difficult time in Sweden. Sweden has had it tough together with the rest of the EU. We have had an inflation that many of us may never have experienced before. Therefore, the government's focus on precisely winning the fight against inflation has been important and necessary in order to then be able to present additional reforms to tackle the recession. That is how we strengthen people's finances in the long term.

Removing a temporary supplementary grant obviously requires careful consideration. It requires that one considers the effects of it and simultaneously presents reforms that ensure we see and strengthen people.

Yes, this is a tapering off, a necessary tapering off so as not to make people long-term dependent on a temporary supplement. It is the very construction of the tapering off, so it is responsible.

I also want to turn against some of what Märta Stenevi mentions about a pediatric nurse who sets her alarm, goes to work and makes an important contribution for Sweden. She is to keep more of her salary. Actually, the big conflict right now lies in that Miljöpartiet would rather say more and more subsidies, while Moderaterna say that you get to keep more of your own salary. That is where the big conflict line lies.

I read an article about a group of banks that have calculated based solely on tax cuts, and even there we can see that with our policy, one keeps more of one's money than with the subsidy policy that the Green Party, for example, stands for.

As said, with the Green Party's budget, one gets 230 kronor more in child allowance. With the Moderates' policy, an average Arbogabo gets 260 kronor more per month. It is a difference, and I believe it is so much more important that we let people keep more of their salary than that we scatter with subsidies.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! There are several things here that are very strange.

The first is the fight against inflation. The fight against inflation has not been won by the government. The fight against inflation was won by workers and trade unions because they held back wage development. When costs spiraled, much as a result of the war in Ukraine, they held back a compensation for that, that is to say that wage increases have been lower. That is the major factor for why inflation has fallen, along with Europe filling its gas reserves. None of this has been achieved by the government.

When one says that they are now fighting the recession and taking measures to strengthen the economy, these are measures that actually no one believes have an effect on inflation. The simple reason is that it is so little that goes to those who really needed to be able to buy more falukorv, or whatever they choose to spend their money on, while at the same time, money is being poured out on people who have no problems at all handling inflation. This is not only what Miljöpartiet thinks, but also a long line of heavy-weight economists have said the same thing.

If we now agree that it has been a very difficult time and that it requires a trade-off, then one option is to make the temporary supplement permanent. It is also included in our budget and provides quite a lot of money in the pocket for someone who works full-time but still has difficulty covering the rent.

If one then says that it requires a balancing of when and how it should be done and thinks it is important that people should be able to keep more money, I wonder what that balancing looked like when it was said: You know what, we give 115 kronor but take away 600 kronor for someone who works full-time.

How much more than full-time can one work in the Moderaterna's society? And how much more than full-time will the very richest work, which would follow the work line? How does Caroline Högström think one is supposed to manage on their salary in Sweden today with this budget if one does not belong to the top ten percent but rather the ten percent poorest who receive almost no money at all from the job tax credit?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Märta Stenevi for the questions and comments.

I can state that I do not agree to any significant extent with anything you are saying. The picture of moving forward has been a deliberate strategy with a state budget that does not fuel the inflation from previous years. It has been a restrained budget.

We have not opened the subsidy taps, as many parts of the left side want. On the contrary, we have been restrained. But I still want to point out that since large parts of the insurance system are also linked to inflation, we have seen quite large increases in benefits in various ways, which has been right and proper. They are linked to inflation and have made up for some of it. At the same time, we have seen how ten years of real wage increases have been eaten up by inflation. In that case, it is strange that Miljöpartiet still wants to compensate with subsidies instead of tax cuts so that people can keep more of their wages. It is a strange prioritization.

From the Moderates' side, the subsidy line stands against the work line, and I choose the work line every day of the week.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! About 350,000 Swedes have at least two jobs, and that is a figure that has increased since 2021. A woman who was interviewed by Omni said that she no longer has any private life to speak of, but that she does this simply to be able to support herself and her children.

It sounds nice when Member Högström speaks about people working and receiving pay for their effort. The truth is that people do it. There are very many parents who go to work every day but still do not have enough money to make ends meet.

We have heard Elisabeth Svantesson speak about a bright future. It is probably very many who feel that this description of reality must be from some other universe than the one we live in.

What we see is that the child allowance has been eroded enormously. It now only covers a quarter of the costs, and it is the lowest level in 50 years. Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, and Miljöpartiet want to adjust that figure and make it more reasonable in light of today's price levels. To describe it as if it were to be sprinkling out allowances and being irresponsible with the economy is, for me, quite incomprehensible. To mean that one cannot afford to ensure that families with children can have a reasonable economic standard is very strange to me.

Why does the member think it is more of a priority to lower the tax for the very richest than to increase the child allowance?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! Actually, it is exactly as Member Mixter describes it: We have many who work in Sweden, who set the alarm every morning and who take that extra work shift. It must also pay off. It must make a difference. That is why we are lowering the tax so broadly for all those who set the alarm, all those who go to work, and all those who contribute to our common welfare. It is for them that we make this prioritization and lower the tax. Their work must pay off.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! In the government's and the Sweden Democrats' Sweden, it is obvious that some people's work is worth incredibly much more than others. Do the government and the Sweden Democrats not understand how their tax cuts hit? I do not want to be sarcastic, but then I actually think that one might eventually need to take a course in how percentage calculation works. It is very obvious that the one who earns a lot will receive absolutely the most from this.

Högström took up a pertinent example of what the government's tax cut can mean for an ordinary wage earner: perhaps around 260 kronor. That is not much money to speak of when costs, according to economists' calculations, have increased by 110,000 kronor over two years for a family with children.

What the Left Party wants to do is not Armageddon. We want to ensure that the child allowance follows the price development and protect the child allowance from being eroded. It is a very strange position from the Moderates. Is it the case that the Moderates want to abolish the child allowance in the long run? Do you not think it is needed? If you do nothing about the levels of the child allowance, it completely loses its purpose.

I also want to return to something that previous speakers have spoken about, namely the housing allowance. It is very hard to stomach to stand and say that one wants to focus on those who are having a very difficult time and at the same time withdraw very large sums of money that people need for their survival. One refers to the fact that it is a temporary allowance and that this was how it was supposed to be. I think that is a very poor consolation for those who have now had this temporary housing allowance for two years and all of a sudden receive less money in their wallets. How does MP Högström defend that?

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

Caroline Högström (M)

Madam Speaker! The funny thing about the crow's song is that child allowance also, I swear, goes to those high-income earners whom Mixter so contemptuously often speaks about. It is therefore not an accurate way to support people in need of support.

Vänsterpartiet has, as usual, unlimited money and proposes 14 billion in increased grants. Where are these funds supposed to come from? Who is going to work and ensure the financing of the welfare system when more and more people fall into different types of grant traps?

In the Left's Sweden, it seems to be unthinkable to strengthen people's independence. The average worker in Västerås, Medelsvensson, who does not have a super high salary, will, with the Moderates' budget, be able to keep 258 kronor more per month. Why is it so unthinkable for the Left Party? Why is it so unthinkable that people's work should pay off? I do not understand that, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by taking up the thread that Högström has just concluded. It is unthinkable not to lower the tax, and it should pay to work, she argues. But what the Left Party proposes is nothing very strange or odd. It should simply pay just as much to work as it has done until now; the tax shall not be lowered.

The reason we propose it is that we know that this hits very wrongly. The tax cut that the government and the Sverigedemokrater are proposing does not benefit ordinary people. It has a distribution profile that primarily benefits those who have very high incomes. Let us be honest that it is the government's and the Sverigedemokrater's priority that those who earn a lot should get more and that the ordinary families with children who go to work every day and struggle should continue to have it tough.

In an exchange of remarks, it was pointed out that the Left Party's budget would be irresponsible, that we are sprinkling money around, and that the economy would be ruined with the Left Party's deficit target. I just want to say, for the sake of clarification, that the national debt with the Left Party's deficit target of 1 percent would still be lower than in the Netherlands, Germany, China, USA, among several countries, as well as lower than the EU average. Nothing dramatic would occur if this were introduced. Let us be clear and honest about that. Let us also be honest that the government, in its proposal on nuclear power, has no answer regarding the financing. What the government and the Sweden Democrats want to do is to proceed with a deficit target without talking about it. The government and the Sweden Democrats talk about being economically responsible while simultaneously wanting to mislead the Swedish people. I think that is stomach-turning.

Madam Speaker! Four out of ten single parents with lower incomes state that they have had to borrow money from relatives, friends, or banks to be able to pay basic expenses one or more times in the last six months. That is what reality looks like. The Moderates and the Sweden Democrats talk about how the Left Party wants to see everything for everyone. The truth is that the government wants to see everything for the rich in Stockholm's city center.

At the same time as this government prioritizes that group, reality continues out there, where people look for extra prices and choose between Christmas presents and fixing their teeth. The healthcare crisis continues. Elderly care is on its knees. The school has too few teachers. Vänsterpartiet notes that the government, point by point, fails to handle serious societal problems. This budget is truly completely out of touch with reality. With the government's and Sverigedemokraternas budget, inequality increases, the growing unemployment is left without action, and the climate transition has to wait. Furthermore, the cuts within welfare continue.

The Left Party's budget proposal stands for a policy that addresses social problems and protects those who are in the worst position. To create room for, among other things, a prioritized resource increase to the welfare sector, an accelerated climate transition, lower costs in public transport, a high-cost protection in dental care, as well as higher compensations in unemployment benefits and social insurances, people with higher incomes must contribute more. It is a prioritization that the Left Party makes.

What can be stated is that the Tidö group ignores ordinary families with children. The child allowance has been eroded. In Swedbank's investigation, which was released in April this year, it is stated that inflation is eroding the child allowance to a record low level. The child allowance lags behind as inflation pressures many families with children. Now, the child allowance only covers a quarter of the costs for a ten-year-old. It is the lowest level in 50 years. The child allowance has not been increased since 2018, while at the same time we have seen sharp cost increases.

Vänsterpartiet therefore wants to see the child allowance increased by 400 kronor per child. We also have other benefits that are lagging behind, for example the basic level of the parental leave benefit. We want to see that it is increased to 333 kronor. We also need to raise the ceiling in the temporary parental leave benefit so that 80 percent of wage earners have incomes below the ceiling.

Member of Parliament Högström spoke about the need to direct support where it truly makes a difference. The Government and the Sweden Democrats are now presenting a policy in their budget that will hit hard against those who already have the least, as we have touched upon earlier, with a reduction of the housing allowance.

"We are now making a well-considered extension to continue supporting economically vulnerable households, while we scale down the subsidy from 40 to 25 percent of the housing allowance," stated Minister for Pensions and Social Insurance Anna Tenje in a press release.

The housing allowance has been eroded for a long time. The levels of the allowance have not been adjusted in line with either the development of rents or income levels. The fact that the income limits for eligibility for the allowance are not adjusted also leads to fewer and fewer people being entitled to the housing allowance each year.

One of the objectives of the housing allowance is that households with lower incomes should be able to demand sufficiently spacious housing. In that regard, a review from the Swedish National Audit Office has recently been issued, stating that the allowance does not live up to that objective.

During the years 1997-2022, overcrowding among households receiving housing allowance has increased. The authority emphasizes that it has become more difficult for households to demand spacious housing because the allowance amount has not kept pace with the development of rents.

That is why I and the Left Party (V) believe that the housing allowance needs to be reformed. The temporary increase that existed during the first part of the pandemic and was subsequently extended during the economic crisis has been welcome. But the increase should have been permanent from the beginning, because the allowance has lagged behind so significantly.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats have themselves said that it is an accurate contribution. Still, one chooses to now lower the supplementary contribution in the housing allowance. The Government and the Sweden Democrats want to make it sound like it is a law of nature that the contribution is now being lowered, because it was a temporary increase.

The question is whether it can really be regarded as temporary when it has existed for several years. Single mothers who are dependent on the extra hundred kronor will now see them lost.

It is those with the very lowest incomes who receive housing benefits, and the government's priorities are inscrutable. There are countless billions in the government's and SD's budget that go to tax cuts for those with the most in their wallets, while those who have the least are to receive less.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see a permanent increase of the housing allowance, and we have included it in our budget. We also want more people than today to be able to receive the housing allowance through increased income limits, and we also want to enable people with low incomes without children to be able to receive the housing allowance.

Since the level of the Left Party's budget in the expenditure area is higher than that in the government's budget, I cannot vote in favor of anything. Therefore, the Left Party abstains from participating in the decision.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposed decision, that is, approval of the bill.

Madam Speaker! Children and families are the heart of our society. A secure childhood is the foundation for a strong and prosperous Sweden, and therefore the Christian Democrats have always prioritized the politics that put the needs of families first.

The family is the most important building block in society. The family is also humanity's most important community. 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 strong. If families do not function, neither does our society.

Madam Speaker! 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, it 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. It is 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 the state and every region and municipality are obliged to support the families so that they can take that responsibility.

Madam Speaker! We know that parents need time with their children. Therefore, we have strengthened the parental leave with a focus on giving parents greater flexibility to decide for themselves how they want to distribute their time between work and family life. On July 1 of this year, the number of double days was doubled, and on the same date, it became possible to transfer 90 days of parental leave to a close relative.

A report was recently presented showing that mental ill-health has increased for women aged 30-39. Many women in these age groups are parents of small children. When the first 30 double days were introduced, it could be seen that mothers' mental health improved. Therefore, we Kristdemokrater have great confidence that the doubling of the double days will have further positive health effects but also have significance for a more equal uptake of the parental benefit. It should be possible to combine work and parenthood without having to sacrifice either of them.

Madam Speaker! In the government's budget for 2025, the temporarily increased housing supplement, which we have heard about previously, is extended, but it returns to the increased level it originally had of 25 percent.

The increased housing supplement was an accurate way to support the economically most vulnerable families during the economic crisis with high inflation. The need still exists to strengthen the economic security for children and their parents.

But as interest rates fall, fuel prices go down and food prices stabilize, the households' economy is also strengthened. The Government will, of course, follow the economic development for particularly vulnerable families and for children growing up in economic hardship.

The government has also prioritized investments in childcare and school. In the budget for 2025, we are increasing resources to preschool to improve quality and reduce the size of the children's groups. It is about giving our children a secure start in life and giving parents the opportunity to feel secure when they leave their children in the morning.

Madam Speaker! The family is a fundamental community that supports our society. A policy that strengthens the finances of families is a policy that strengthens all of Sweden. With this budget, we show that we stand on the side of families for security, for freedom, for freedom of choice, and for a better future for our children.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I actually have two different questions for the member. The first concerns the family and how families should be able to handle the situation they may have with children who are suffering.

Families with single parents who work full-time will lose quite a lot of money every month under the government's budget next year. How does one mean to strengthen families in that way?

Connected to this is how it becomes when parents also do not have the right to temporary parental leave, for example when they need to take leave from work to participate in interventions from the social services. How do the Christian Democrats mean that you help parents take this parental responsibility while at the same time you withdraw so many financial resources from the families?

The temporary addition is being reduced already at the turn of the year, and at the mid-year point, it will disappear completely. The member and I spoke about this here at another occasion, Madam Speaker, and I received hints then that the Christian Democrats might consider taking a fight for an extension for the rest of the year. I would very much like to know if the member is prepared to take that fight.

These families will not have any joy from falling interest rates, because they do not have that type of loan. They will have very little joy from reduced fuel prices because they cannot afford to have a car. What they see instead are food prices that continue to increase and that there is a rent increase they will soon have to pay, while at the same time you take money away from their everyday economy.

I have one more quick question. The "dubbdagar" (double days) are very good, and we stand behind them. But I would like to know why the government does not also move forward with the pregnancy allowance and make it possible for pregnant women to use it and avoid using the time and the compensation level that is intended for the time with the child. Then they could be at home and thus get a better start in life for both the child and the mother. As a bonus, we would get better women's health.

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Märta Stenevi, for all the questions! I will try to have time to answer them all.

I would still like to start by reading from my speech: Of course, the government will follow the economic development for particularly vulnerable families and for children growing up in economic hardship.

This government has no intention of leaving families in the lurch when economic difficulties arise. If we did, we would not have extended the temporary housing supplement four times, as we have already done. It is even the fifth time now. In that case, we would have removed it much earlier.

This government will ensure that families living in economic hardship will receive the support they need, and we have seen that this is a support that reaches directly to the families who have it toughest. I will absolutely monitor this, and I believe that my colleagues in the government will also do so.

I would like to ask a follow-up question. If we had had a different government, one that Märta Stenevi had sat in - would she have continued to increase the reduction obligation? Not all families live in Stockholm, Gothenburg, or Malmö. Where I come from, one is completely dependent on a car, and those families cannot afford an electric car. They need a petrol or diesel car. That is how reality looks.

Now the leisure card is being introduced, and it will provide an opportunity for children in financial hardship to participate in leisure activities and avoid becoming isolated. We are pleased that the reduction obligation has been lowered so that parents can drive the children to the leisure activities. It provides an opportunity for all families with children to let their children participate in activities.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I had intended to say something about the pregnancy allowance, for which we are allocating funds in our budget. But I received so many questions that I might have to focus on them instead, as this is my closing statement.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats are leaving families in the lurch by removing funds already now at the turn of the year. The situation is already very strained. I note a certain difference in rhetoric when the Christian Democrats say that they do not want to leave families with children in the lurch, while the Moderates, when talking about the same money, say that it would be a benefit trap.

The reduction obligation is an interesting issue. We have throughout had a rural deduction in our budgets, which provides significantly more money than the lowered fuel prices in the government's budget. If one wants to protect families in the countryside, I would recommend reading up on our proposal because it would have provided a significantly better supplement to the families' finances.

The leisure card cannot be used to transport children. It can be used for fees to participate in organized sports. It cannot be used to buy shoes, it cannot be used to transport, and it cannot be used to buy public transport.

If it is the vulnerable families we are talking about – I think it sounds like one is sliding towards talking about middle-class families instead, as Caroline Högström was pointing out – it is a fact that they lose large amounts of money on the government's budget next year. Will KD then be prepared to stand up for the fact that vulnerable families need a permanentization of the supplement to the housing allowance that exists today? Prices have not fallen.

I assume that the government is already monitoring the economic situation for vulnerable families, as it is extremely strained. But instead, the government is removing money. A single mother working full-time as a childcare worker in Stockholm loses 500 kronor a month. Will KD compensate these families during the year, for example in a supplementary budget?

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I asked many questions to Member Stenevi, and she asked many back.

I just want to emphasize that the government is constantly monitoring the economic situation of vulnerable families. We do not let it go for a second. If that were the case, we would not have extended the temporary increased housing supplement at all. But we have done so because we know that it reaches those who are most vulnerable – single parents. That is why we have ensured that the supplement is extended. Now we are doing it again for half a year. What happens next we do not know, but we are monitoring it. The government is following this.

I want to once again emphasize what concerns the leisure card. No, one will not be able to buy public transport with it. But a large part of Sweden's population lives where there is no public transport. In that case, it doesn't matter, and therefore it is important that we have low fuel prices so that one can move around even when choosing to live outside the metropolitan areas. Our countryside needs to live, and I want all of Sweden to live.

I have great confidence that the government will not leave economically vulnerable families behind, but will monitor this with precision and care.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! We have a budget debate on family economy 2024. Parental insurance is intended to give parents the opportunity to provide their children with good care and upbringing. It is also about both children and parents being able to bond with one another. For that to be the case, a modern family insurance is needed that offers choice and is based on the best interests of the child. It must also be built on different family constellations and professional choices, studies, and the opportunities of self-employed individuals.

Last year we agreed with the government to increase the number of double days to 60. But the Center Party would actually want to let it be a complete kitchen table decision without any limitation. It should be up to the parents to choose what is good.

This results in increased flexibility. We were also in agreement with the government that it is good that one should be able to share parental days with another adult who is important to the children.

Madam Speaker! There are quite a few similarities between the Centre Party and the government when it comes to this type of issue. On the other hand, we do not agree on the multi-child supplement for the second child, which we want to abolish. That is because we see that it has not provided the accuracy that was the basic idea – that one should be able to equalize differences between families with and families without children. That is the reason why we want to review this.

We often end up in discussions about equality and equal distribution of parental leave when we discuss parental economy. It is an important part that mothers and fathers receive the same value for their children and that mothers and fathers, as far as possible, share the parental leave equally.

When one looks at the statistics, one sees that when fathers are home more, mothers are not home less; rather, mothers are still home approximately as much as before, but with a lower compensation or no compensation at all.

Then I do not know if the most important thing is to discuss how many parental days should be tied to one parent or the other. There is some mechanism in this that makes women choose to stay at home even if the men are at home more. I believe it is more about norms and values, and I believe there are other issues in the parental insurance that we need to have a joint discussion about so that we get what we believe is best for the children, namely to be attached to both parents. We need to find ways to get the woman to return to the labor market.

Even though I have previously said that there is a great similarity between the Center Party and the government when it comes to family finances, there are areas where I want to assert that there is a great difference between the government and the Sweden Democrats. They concern families' lives and economies, namely how we can act in the case of destructive relationships, regardless of whether it is men or women who commit the violence.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to division of property processes handled within the area of family law, it took the government approximately two years to appoint an inquiry that is to produce proposals for faster handling of a division of property process so that one can get out of a destructive relationship.

A promise has now been made to appoint an inquiry on children being to be given their own counsel in custody disputes. These are two very important reforms where the government has lagged behind and not taken the ball fast enough. For every day that a man or a woman remains in a destructive relationship, or a child is in a family where there is a major dispute, is a lost day.

Another area where the government is not involved regarding the family's total situation is when one needs to leave a destructive relationship, namely having the finances to leave the relationship. The Center Party has long championed the issue of a separation payment. We have not funded it within this area but within the area of crime prevention work. But I bring up the issue because in this case we agree with the Green Party. The Green Party has placed the issue of finances within this area. Here, the government needs to step up so that family members can leave a destructive relationship.

I also want to urge the government to continue working on a flexible and modern parental leave system that allows us to achieve better equality in the future when taking parental leave. In this regard, I refer to the Center Party's special statement. And then I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Speaker and everyone in the chamber a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Madam Speaker! The Government has presented several important initiatives to strengthen the situation for families with children, and today we shall, among other things, make a decision on extending the temporary supplementary grant concerning the housing allowance.

I want to emphasize that the Liberals will, of course, just as my colleague in the Christian Democrats pointed out in his opening statement, monitor the situation during the next year to see where we are headed regarding the economic development and be prepared to act accordingly.

This, Madam Speaker, is an important measure to help families with children in a tough economic time. But let me speak plainly. When we talk about economic vulnerability among families with children, it is clear that the biggest problem is not the distribution of grants but the absence of own work. The most vulnerable group is those families where the parents stand outside the labor market. And the greatest gap in society is between those who have a job to go to and those who do not have a job to go to.

We must speak about the reality of exclusion that exists. Recently, SCB and Boverket presented an in-depth analysis of exclusion in Sweden. It was not a beautiful picture that emerged, Madam Speaker. Currently, there are 180 areas in 66 municipalities in Sweden that are designated as areas of exclusion. If one breaks down the figures and speaks of particular vulnerability, it turns out that 40 areas in 20 municipalities in Sweden are designated as particularly vulnerable areas. They constitute 6-7 percent of the population in Sweden today, that is to say, 710,000 people who live in exclusion.

If we proceed with the figures, it is clear and obvious that of these 710,000 people who live in exclusion, 170,000 are children. Take in that figure. Today, 170,000 children live in exclusion.

Let me also clearly clarify that exclusion is no longer a big-city phenomenon. It is widespread across our entire country, and there is much to be done. The picture that emerges in the report clearly shows that the self-sufficiency rate is low, dependency on benefits is high, the Swedish language is conspicuous by its absence, many women and girls live in honor-related violence and oppression, and gang criminals are advancing their positions and holding many residential areas in an iron grip. Furthermore, religious extremism has advanced its positions. This, Madam Speaker, is an unacceptable development, and this government has decided to combat it with force.

Another perspective that we must consider when we talk about child poverty is that many children grow up with single mothers. This also appears clearly in the report that Boverket and SCB recently presented. It is most often foreign-born women who are furthest from the labor market. For single women with three or more children, the situation is particularly serious, according to the two agencies.

At the same time, it can be read in today's report, which we have to take a position on, that it is precisely single women with several children who have it toughest when it comes to family policy. 61 percent live with a low economic standard. Without the economic supports in family policy, the figure would be as high as 79 percent.

What do all the figures and percentages show then? Yes, that grants can alleviate economic vulnerability in the short term, but they do not solve any problems in the long term. It is work that provides independence, the opportunity to shape one's own future and to stand on one's own feet. Let us not be deceived by anything else of what we have heard in the debate so far.

Madam Speaker! For a long time, integration policy has failed to include foreign-born women. Few issues have engaged me so much in my political work to make visible just women's situation in the labor market as the fight against honor-related violence and oppression as well as religious extremism. I have never understood why it has previously been so sensitive to assert that Swedish equality applies both for foreign-born women and girls as for all our citizens. The cowardice has meant that children have grown up in families where unemployment is the norm and faith in the future is weak. Therefore, it is our duty to break this exclusion and the patterns that contribute to reinforcing the exclusion.

For us Liberals, this debate is therefore about defending women's right to economic freedom and ensuring that children can grow up and see, not least their mothers, as their closest role models – that they receive measures that lead to jobs and self-sufficiency.

Madam Speaker! I note when I read the opposition parties' budgets that, unfortunately, they continue to lean towards the subsidy line. It becomes clear in the debate that the opposition's path is more subsidies. But our path is work and self-sufficiency.

When it comes to these issues, the government's policy differs fundamentally from the opposition's. We believe, in fact, in the individual's ability to take responsibility for their own life. We want to tear down the obstacles that stand in the way of even foreign-born women taking the step out into the labor market instead of continuing to be dependent on society's contributions or the family's control.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I would like to specifically address the Center Party because I have noted that they want to abolish the multi-child supplement. It is a reform that we Liberals consider to be an important part of family policy because we know that the multi-child supplement reinforces inequality, not least in our areas of exclusion. Therefore, I am pleased that the Center Party has addressed the issue, and I believe that we can work together moving forward.

At the same time, I note that the question has been conspicuously absent from Miljöpartiet and Märta Stenevi, who, during the previous parliamentary term in a longer interview, nevertheless highlighted exactly those challenges that exist with family policy and specifically addressed the multi-child supplement. Now, I have not listened to Märta Stenevi's main speech, but I note that the question has thus been conspicuously absent and that silence has prevailed. I will, however, listen particularly closely to Märta Stenevi's main contribution, which will follow mine.

Madam Speaker! It is work, not benefits, that lifts families out of poverty and gives children a secure future. That is the policy that this government pursues. Only in this way can we combat child poverty and stop a development where children risk inheriting their parents' exclusion.

With that, I wish to both approve the proposal in the report and wish the Honorable Speaker and the entire Presidium a very Merry Christmas, as it approaches.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! It should pay to work. That is the mantra that the government's representatives repeat time and again. It should pay to work, they say – and then they spend tens of billions on tax cuts for the very richest.

Madam Speaker! Someday I will try to meet those directors with a couple hundred thousand a month who were very close to stopping work but who, thanks to the government sliding in and saving the situation through tax reliefs, continued to work instead of entering a dependency on subsidies. It will be an interesting meeting.

No, the question that should actually be asked in this debate is: Can one live on one's salary with the government's budget? I therefore asked the Riksdag's investigation service to look at how the government's budget affects two typical households.

One of the households in the report consists of a single mother living in a rented apartment who has two children. She works full-time as a childcare worker and travels by public transport. She cannot afford to go on holiday, but for unforeseen expenses, she has previously had a buffer of 30,000 kronor in an ISK. She has a rent of 9,000 kronor a month and the median wage for her profession in Stockholm, which according to Kommunals statistics is 26,600 kronor. She also receives housing allowance. She commutes every day by public transport from Tensta to a preschool in Danderyd. We can call her Anna.

The second household consists of two married adults with two children, one of whom lives at home. They live in a villa in Danderyd and also have a vacation home. They will go on holiday to Mexico with the whole family this summer, and they both have substantial savings in an ISK. They work as marketing manager and HR manager respectively and have the median salary according to Ledarnas statistics. They plan to use the rut- and rot-deductions fully during 2025, as they are going to renovate the kitchen and have cleaning every week. Caroline and Fredrik commute every day in their respective cars to their workplaces in central Stockholm.

Madam Speaker! Anna, who works full-time and supports her two children, will lose 483 kronor every month due to the government's budget. She does receive a little over 100 kronor from the job tax credit, but that small amount is very quickly consumed by the phased-out temporary housing allowance. Caroline and Fredrik, who also work full-time, will on the other hand earn almost 11,000 kronor per month on the government's budget. Anna thus loses almost 500 kronor every month while Caroline and Fredrik earn almost 11,000 kronor.

Madam Speaker! How much more than full-time must Anna work for it to pay off? And how much more will Caroline and Fredrik work now that they receive an additional grant of 130,000 kronor a year?

Madam Speaker! According to the agenda, we are debating economic security for families and children, but in practice, we are debating child poverty. Let me therefore quote a few of those who are affected by our debate.

This is what a mother says: "I often only eat breakfast, a deciliter of oatmeal, in order to afford to give the children sufficient and good food. Then I eat a little of the evening meal with them, and their possible leftovers, and then I drink a lot of water."

Another mother says: "I have gotten worse eyesight, but I cannot afford new glasses for myself. I opt out of prescription medicine for myself, because food is more important."

Madam Speaker! Stadsmissionen, Hyresgästföreningen, Majblomman and Röda Korset conducted a survey in February this year among families with children with lower incomes. For single-person households, the limit used in the survey is 29,500 kronor per month.

Four out of ten in this group state that they have had to borrow money during the last six months to be able to pay for the basics. One in five single parents with lower income has not been able to afford to eat until full on one or more occasions during the last six months. Almost every other single parent and one in three cohabiting parents with lower income has not been able to afford to buy nutritious food every day of the week. Four out of ten single parents, such as Anna, would at most be able to manage increased expenses of 1,000 kronor before it becomes difficult to pay the bills.

Madam Speaker! This survey was conducted in February 2024, while the temporary increase of the housing allowance remained in place. In just over two weeks, a part of that increase will disappear, and by the time the summer holidays arrive, it will be completely gone. At that point, Caroline and Fredrik will therefore have almost 11,000 kronor more in their wallets every month - they will receive 130,000 kronor a year - while Anna, who works full-time in an area that everyone in this chamber says they value highly, will have 500 kronor less to move with every month.

Madam Speaker! My colleagues in the Liberals and the Christian Democrats have said in the debate that they will monitor the economic situation during the next year. If they had done so during the current year – if they had listened to civil society and to those who are affected – they would not have taken money from families with low incomes. The government is abandoning families with low incomes.

The primary reason is that the government is removing the temporary supplement to the housing allowance. We in Miljöpartiet want to make it permanent in our budget instead, which would mean that Anna would get to keep 600 kronor a month. Nor is the government increasing the child benefit to compensate for inflation. We increase it in our budget, which is a measure that would give Anna an additional approximately 400 kronor more a month. I can comfort those who are now becoming very concerned about how this affects Caroline and Fredrik by saying that it would also give them approximately 200 kronor a month.

Madam Speaker! During my years in politics, I have met many women in the same situation as Anna. But there are situations that are worse than that.

Let us imagine that the father of Anna's children was violent. He has now been locked up for a few years, and Anna moved to Stockholm with protected identities to get far away from the municipality they lived in. Now she has worked as a childcare worker for a couple of years, and the children go to school. They do still look over their shoulders when they go out, and all contacts with school and authorities are incredibly complicated because of the protected identities. But slowly, slowly, life has begun to resemble something that can be called stable.

Then it happens: Anna's information is leaked. Her violent ex-husband now knows where she lives. In one blow, her entire existence is shattered into pieces again. Anna must move. She must resign from her job, and the children must leave their school. They must leave their apartment in a hurry.

In this situation, there must be support to rebuild one's life again. It was not only temporary sheltered accommodation needed for those who have had to flee from violence, but also an opportunity to rebuild their lives. Therefore, we want to introduce a relocation allowance in the social insurance for those who are forced to break up due to violence and lack of safety.

Madam Speaker! Families with children and low incomes in Sweden are being brought to their knees. They turn over every single krona, even though they go to work every day and ensure that Sweden keeps running. But they are left with less and less to move with.

Families with low incomes do not live in economic security, as it is stated that we are debating. The situation is particularly vulnerable for single parents. They live in extreme vulnerability and insecurity. When the support systems that are intended to bridge wages that are not livable are eroded, the families become increasingly vulnerable.

Economic security for families and children

Making the extra housing supplement permanent would have been a start, as would letting the child allowance follow inflation. But that is not how the government prioritizes. Instead, they present a budget where a single mother loses money every month while high-income earners—and we are not talking about members of parliament but about those who are paid enormously more—get tens of thousands of kronor more in their wallets every month. This is not a work principle, and it is not a policy to break a dependency on benefits. What it is, however, is a very effective way to cement child poverty.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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