Economic security for families and children

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We shall now debate the Social Insurance Committee's report SfU3, and I wish to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposed decision.

We Sweden Democrats safeguard the family, and we believe that secure families are the foundation of a prosperous society. Being a parent entails a special responsibility. Most parents value free time with the family highly, and it is important that there are periods of leave to spend time with one's family.

Our starting point in family policy is the children's best interests and that there should be conditions for the family to manage the puzzle of life and find time for one another. The family policy support shall contribute to ensuring that households with children can achieve a good economic standard of living. The targeted supports make a difference. But there are large differences between different households with children that are persistent when it comes to the level and development of the economic standard. Households that have a weak connection to the labor market risk having a poorer economic standard.

Madam Speaker! The benefits addressed in this report cannot alone contribute to securing a good economic standard of living for Swedish families. That the parents are in gainful employment is of great importance for the family's economy, and that is how a good economic standard is achieved. The Government and Sverigedemokraterna argue that it must pay to work. A parental insurance is needed that meets today's needs and is flexible.

During this parliamentary term, the Tidö parties have made it possible to transfer the parental leave in a broader circle, which facilitates combining family life and work life. We have also increased the number of double days from 30 to 60, and these can be taken until the child is 15 months old. The idea behind the double days is that parents together should be given the opportunity to form closer bonds with the child at an early stage when the child has come into the world. The double days have been shown to have several positive effects as well as provide increased freedom of choice for parents. They lay a good foundation for a shared responsibility for care during the child's upbringing. There are also studies that show that the double days have a positive effect on mothers' health.

To further strengthen the conditions for parents to combine work with family life, the right to vab is being expanded. This will facilitate things for parents of children with illness, injury, or disability, and for parents who often need to be in contact with school, healthcare, or social services.

Madam Speaker! We know that inflation has caused economically tough years for many households, not least for households with children. But there are signs of improvement in the economy. If the forecast holds, we will have a growth of just over 3 percent during 2026. Inflation is at a reasonable and stable level and near the inflation target, and real wages will increase during 2026.

The government and the Sweden Democrats will support families, among other things, by lowering the food VAT from 12 to 6 percent during 2026, and the government expects that the price reduction will be almost fully passed on to the retail price – for example, a typical child-rearing family's food basket cost will decrease by approximately 6,500 kronor per year.

Regarding the housing allowance, the upper limits for the housing costs on which the housing allowance is calculated have not been raised since 1997. The Government and Sverigedemokraterna are now increasing the housing allowance. This provides at most 800 kronor more per month for families with one child and 1,000 kronor more per month for families with two or more children.

The leisure card is now in place. Households receiving housing allowance can receive up to 2,000 kronor per child, while the basic amount is 500 kronor. It is not just a support for the families. It is also one of the largest public health reforms in many years and enables an active leisure time.

Madam Speaker! Finally: Sweden has one of the world's most generous parental insurance systems. We should be proud of that. We Sverigedemokrater want to continue to make it more flexible to meet the needs of families.

I would like to once again express my support for the committee's proposal.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam President! I would like to thank you for the speech.

Under this government and the Sweden Democrats, more and more people in Sweden have had to turn to charity to manage their daily lives. Poverty is spreading and growing. People are forced to choose between being able to put food on the table for their children or paying the rent.

Those were very large and inspiring words from the member, from the party that, among other things, blocked an increased child allowance.

My question concerns the situation we are in and how we can reverse this development. Over half a million are unemployed, and the member is talking about how it should pay to work. Since the government took office, we have had 100,000 more unemployed. I honestly do not know of a single labor market measure that this government is taking, other than that they change labor market ministers once a year. There are so many unemployed out there, and the member is talking about how it should pay to work.

What has happened under this government and the Sweden Democrats is that, during a period of mass unemployment, they moved forward with deteriorations in the unemployment insurance and lowered compensations also in the activity support. There were no more jobs, only empty wallets.

Why, Daniel Persson, have you not, during this mass unemployment, protected households – families with children and single parents? The queues to the charities are growing. Poverty is spreading. Why have you not protected households? Why have you not ensured that families with children are better off? Why did the Sverigedemokraterna, for example, block an increased child allowance?

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for your question, Member Tony Haddou!

Families with children are considered the big winners in next year's budget. There are calculations where a family with children can receive up to 3,700 kronor more per month next year.

But we have more measures that will affect families with children. The Government and the Sweden Democrats have delivered proposals that will make electricity costs more predictable for households. A high-cost protection protects against very high electricity prices, and the energy tax on electricity is lowered.

We will also lower the fee for preschool and after-school care, as an additional step in supporting families with children. It is expensive to have children in preschool as a result of the high inflation we have had. Within the framework of the maximum fee, the government is therefore lowering the level of how high fees the municipalities may charge. In this way, the preschool fee is lowered. For a family with a police officer and a nurse and children aged three and five, it can mean a reduced fee of 4,500 kronor per year. It is a targeted support for families with children.

We are also keeping the prices of fuels at reasonable levels. This benefits families with children, especially in the countryside, who need to drive children to extracurricular activities. One should also know that when we keep the price of fuels at a reasonable level, the prices of goods and services are not raised as a result of high fuel prices. It would have been devastating, for both families and other households, if we had had Social Democratic fuel prices.

These are initiatives that we are making to support families with children.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I and the member live in very different realities. The member says that families with children are winners with this budget, when child poverty is increasing significantly in Sweden and when people have to turn to charities to manage everyday life. Those who have it toughest are, among others, single parents. One has to choose between putting food on the table or paying the rent. So that is what Sweden looks like under the Sverigedemokraterna.

The Member of Parliament speaks about, for example, lowered prices on fuels here. Then I must ask: Does it help the person who no longer has a job to take the car to? Does it help the person who is forced to sell the car because of the Member of Parliament's policy, where, during mass unemployment, one ensures that compensations are lowered? It is completely incomprehensible to me. We live in completely different realities. I cannot understand it.

The fact is that the Sweden Democrats chose, in addition to putting a strong stop to an increased child allowance in negotiations, to prioritize moving forward with tax cuts for the very richest. That was what was invested in with this budget. The rich are the winners with this budget. They get those extra thousands every month, which they do not even need but which, on the other hand, would have made a difference for families with children. That is what I do not understand.

The tax cut that has been made has a very skewed distribution profile. Those who are left behind by this government are the families with children. That is how reality looks. During these years, one has thus succeeded in making Sweden go from being a welfare society to being a charity society.

Here, the member of Parliament speaks of a reality where these families with children are winners. I truly hope that the member of Parliament goes out into reality and sees how poverty is spreading among families with children.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your supplementary question!

As I said in my previous answer, there are still calculations that say that families with children are the big winners in next year's budget. A family with children can receive up to 3,700 kronor more per month compared to this year.

The member claims that child poverty is increasing significantly. I believe the member has Save the Children's report on child poverty in mind. Of course, we have poor families in Sweden. Regarding the child poverty report, I have also heard other members say that child poverty has increased by 100,000 children. But then one is not telling the whole truth.

The report on child poverty covers the years 2019–2023. For 2023, a revised calculation model has been used, and when this has been done and compared with the other calculation model, it has been made so that 100,000 more children live in economic vulnerability.

It must be said that we have children living in economic vulnerability. We must not turn a blind eye to that. But the member says that it is increasing exponentially. I would be a bit cautious about saying that is the truth. But the Sweden Democrats and the government have, as stated, more measures that will affect families with children, which I detailed in my speech and in my previous answer.

I think the leisure card is also a good initiative. Some families with children can receive up to 2,000 kronor for various leisure activities, and other families with children can receive up to 500 kronor. It is a support for families with children. It is also a major public health reform that we are undertaking.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! Child poverty has increased enormously during this parliamentary term. Save the Children noted a few months ago that every eighth child in Sweden lives in poverty. The situation has worsened every year. Granted, it is a different measure than what Save the Children has used previously. But it is a better measure, and they have still compared it with previous years. That the Sweden Democrats refuse to acknowledge this and refuse to listen to the studies perhaps says something else than what the Sweden Democrats want.

We see that child poverty is increasing. But during these years, the government and the Sweden Democrats have done very little. For example, they have refrained from raising the child allowance. The increase in the housing allowance, which Daniel Persson boasts about, corresponds to less than half of the reduction in the housing allowance that Daniel Persson and his colleagues in the Tidö parties implemented in their previous budget. Families with children will receive less in their wallets next year than they received last year. It is a mathematical formula that is very simple to calculate.

Then we haven't even talked about the dreadful poverty reform that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government are pushing for. All experts, whether they work at the Fiscal Policy Council, Save the Children, or colleges and universities across the country, agree that this poverty reform will increase child poverty. It will increase exclusion, crime, and mental ill-health, and lower school results.

I question Daniel Persson's good mood and his assessment of the situation. My assessment is that the Tidö parties are making things worse.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam President! I thank Member Malte Tängmark Roos very much for the question.

Save the Children's child poverty report from 2025 covers the years 2019–2023. For the year 2023, a revised calculation model was used. In that case, it amounted to 276,000 children living in economic deprivation. With that calculation model, in 2020 the number of children living in economic deprivation was 321,000. By 2023, there had therefore been a decrease of 45,000 children. But I can agree that there was a certain increase – by 16,000 children – between the years 2022 and 2023 according to the new model. According to the previous calculation model, there were 175,000 children living in economic deprivation in 2023. The economic deprivation among children decreased between the years 2019 and 2022 and continued to decrease during 2023 according to the old calculation model.

The government and the Sweden Democrats are now raising the housing allowance, which provides a maximum of 800 kronor more for a family with one child and a maximum of 1,000 kronor more for a family with two or more children. The housing allowance has not been raised since 1997. It is therefore several governments that have been in power since then and have done nothing about this. But now the Tidö parties are raising the allowance. It is an increase that will hit the mark and provide a much-needed support.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam President! If Daniel Persson does not want to believe Save the Children, perhaps he can believe Sweden's City Missions, which released their poverty report in October. That also showed increased poverty in Sweden. We have, for the most part, every year during this parliamentary term seen alarm reports from civil society showing how difficult the economic situation is for Sweden's families with children. If the Sweden Democrats do not want to acknowledge that, let that stand for them.

That the government and Sverigedemokraterna are now increasing the housing allowance is very welcome. I stand behind it one hundred percent. We have fought for it for a long time. We have a lot of proposals on how we can improve the housing allowance. It is true that it has been eroded since 1997. But last year, Sverigedemokraterna lowered the housing allowance by up to 2,100 kronor. That money disappeared this year for families with children. Then you are going to put back 800 to 1,000 kronor next year. Yes, but it is still 1,100 kronor less than what the families with children received last year.

Regarding this matter of child-rearing families getting it better: SCB says that a single mother with two children will get approximately 1,250 kronor more per month next year with the government's policy. In that case, they have accounted for the increase in the housing allowance, reduced tax on wages, and so on. That is the total improvement for single mothers with two children, according to SCB. As said: It is still less than what the housing allowance was reduced by last year. Even when you add up everything that becomes so much better with this government's proposal and this government's budget, they get less money in their pockets next year than they received last year. You won't get away from the simple mathematics, Daniel Persson.

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

Daniel Persson (SD)

Madam President! I thank Member Malte Tängmark Roos very much for the question.

I must point out that there are families living in economic poverty, if I was unclear in my previous answer.

The temporary housing allowance that the member refers to was precisely temporary, which means that there must be an end. It was extended in several rounds. As the member correctly says, it has now disappeared. A temporary support must at some point reach its end. That is correct.

But as I said, we are now coming with an increase. We have not increased the housing allowance for almost 30 years. That Sverigedemokraterna and the government are now making this increase is also important to point out.

There are differences between the Green Party's appropriations and the Sweden Democrats' and the government's appropriations in this expenditure area. The Green Party wants to invest 8.9 billion more than the government and the Sweden Democrats. It may sound very good that one wants to invest and give families with children more grants, but it must also be financed in some way. For the Green Party, it means that they want to see increased direct taxes on work, increased employer contributions, increased taxes on household capital, increased taxes on corporate profits, and increased taxes on consumption and input goods. It is not a budget for growth. It will not pay to work. The incentives to move from grants to work are completely erased. Without growth, our families with children will fare worse.

We have a budget that will provide growth. Sweden's wheels will start turning next year.

(Applause)

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam President! The Christmas break is approaching. Some parents look forward to seeing their children's eyes sparkle during the opening of Christmas presents after the Christmas buffet. They may look forward to going to a water park or the cinema, visiting relatives, or going on holiday. For others, however, the Christmas break means anxiety, not least for many of the country's single parents. There, other questions are more often asked, of the type: Will I have to go to the Church of Sweden again this year to ask for a Christmas present? How will I afford lunch for the children when they do not get it at school?

Many families with children in Sweden are having a very tough time right now. Food prices are high, and rents have skyrocketed. Even unemployment has increased in our country. In the government's own budget, which we are debating here today, it states: "The variation between different household types is large and family policy has the greatest significance for households with a single woman with ... children." Let today's debate therefore be about her and her children and about what the family economic policy can do for them!

For the politician who is willing to learn about reality, it is not difficult to see how bad it actually is. A mother told me that she drinks tea when the children eat, so that she can save money.

Another mother tells that she feels anxiety while playing with her son and his plastic dinosaurs. She does not know how she will be able to pay for the food that she took on installment with Klarna.

Two mothers told me that they are duct-taping their sinks. Another mother told me that she gets anxiety when she borrows money from her own mother, because she already has such a meager pension.

Here comes the reasonable counter-question: What is the government's responsibility in this? Where is the family economic policy that is supposed to help the single nurse's aide who has two children? She works, but her salary is not enough.

Svantesson has coffee with the food giants. It doesn't help. Kristersson speaks of brighter times. But that doesn't pay for a new winter jacket. The government slaughters the supplement to the housing allowance before the summer.

Organizations within civil society are simultaneously writing reports questioning whether it is their responsibility, instead of politics, to help families with children with the most basic needs.

The Minister for Social Insurance has chosen not to participate in today's debate. But I still want to examine her and the Moderates' most common answer when we debate child poverty in the chamber: Get a job! I have already mentioned that many have a job to go to, but that the salary still is not enough if one, for example, works in healthcare.

But if you don't have a job, what is the government doing so that you will get one? The answer is simple. Look at the list of government bills! It echoes very empty. The government is doing very little, even though we are at the absolute bottom of Europe when it comes to unemployment.

Where is the labor market policy that is supposed to provide more jobs, and which would also pull more children and their families out of poverty? I am calling for it. I am calling for it in the same way that I am calling for an increased child allowance. That too would lead to growth.

If we give tax cuts to rich people, they put these funds into a savings account. But if we give 2,400 kronor to a family with children over a year, those funds will go toward winter jackets, boots and swimsuits, and cinema tickets will be paid for.

It also creates jobs. That as the last country in the Nordic region not wanting to make an investment such as increasing the child allowance is not only insensitive towards families with children. It is also unwise, because it counteracts the growth that we would have needed.

Unreasonable priorities from the government's side mean that Swedish families with children have borne the cost crisis on their shoulders. They are very tired now. The goal of good family finances feels distant.

We will also not reach the equality goal in the parental leave because the Sweden Democrats and the Christian Democrats want to abolish the reserved months that we already have, which also goes against the EU, which says that two months should be reserved. Even there, the situation is deadlocked.

I can at least be pleased that the government has listened to our Social Democratic nagging about expanding the possibility of care for sick children, vab.

If you are, for example, a parent of a child with diabetes, it makes it enormously easier to now be able to use that tool to, for example, introduce medicines to the school staff. This comes from an investigation that was commissioned when we were in government, and we welcome that the government is at least implementing this improvement.

We are approaching a new year, Madam Speaker. It is a year where we go to the election to raise the child allowance by 200 kronor and to reform the housing allowance so that it becomes reasonable and gives more to those who need it.

We want to build more housing and reduce overcrowding. We want to provide free school lunches so that children do not have to go hungry. We want to make public transport free, for example during the summer, so that you might be able to get to your first summer job.

We are going to get growth started and pull Sweden out of the unemployment swamp that we currently find ourselves in. We are going to create a better Sweden even for the country's families with children, and we are going to do it together.

(Applause)

In this speech, Malte Tängmark Roos (MP) agreed.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! Becoming a parent is the absolute biggest thing that has happened to me. Becoming a mother to Nils and Stina is the most beautiful and most challenging assignment, including the parliamentary assignment, that I have taken on in my life.

When one becomes a parent, one sees new parts of society but also new parts of oneself. It is the midwifery clinic, the maternity care, the aftercare, one of the world's most generous parental insurances, vab, the everyday puzzle, and the constant inadequacy.

When one becomes a parent, it becomes a part of one's identity that one carries with them for the rest of one's life. Therefore, today's debate on economic security for families and children is particularly close to my heart.

Madam Speaker! This expenditure area covers approximately 100 billion kronor. So that you at home can follow along, I can mention that it includes, among other things, child allowance, parental insurance, housing allowance, maintenance support, and care allowance.

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 for families with and families without children.

Here, the government makes several important interventions by strengthening the work line, making it more profitable to work, and giving families with children greater freedom to shape their own everyday lives.

Madam President! When we read about expenditure area 12 on page 20, it says: Employment work plays a decisive role for the economic standard. That sounds quite bureaucratic and complicated. But in plain Swedish, it means that the most important factor for families to have good economic conditions is that people get into work.

We Moderates stand on the side of hard-working people, and we do so on good grounds. We know that it is not only good for the individual to go to a job. It is also good for the individual's family and for society as a whole.

Madam Speaker! A reform that is now being implemented is the expanded possibility for vab which is introduced on January 1. It is for parents of children with a disability or an illness who need to come to school and preschool, have meetings about self-care and so on.

I fought hard for that in the Social Affairs Committee during the previous parliamentary term. I am now so glad that it is becoming a reality. This applies, for example, to parents who have children with diabetes when they need to instruct preschool staff or school staff.

Do you know how it was previously? Then they had to take leave in order to help their child or instruct the teachers or the preschool staff. They do not need to do that anymore, but they can take vab. I think that is very good.

Madam Speaker! Let me take a small credit for what the Moderate-led government is doing for families with children. The other side would prefer that we stand here and be ashamed. I am not ashamed.

We have fought inflation. It was 10 percent when we took office. Today it is down to 2.3 percent.

We have lowered the tax for ordinary people. We can take an ordinary family with a police officer and a nurse. They are certainly high-income earners in the eyes of the left-wing parties, but I am not entirely sure that they themselves feel that way. They now have 5,000 kronor more per month.

One might think at home that I am saying it wrong. But they have 5,000 kronor more if you compare 2022 with 2025 or 2026. That is quite a lot of money. It is a way in which we strengthen families with children. It is not small change. It is not about hundreds of kronor, but about thousands of kronor.

We are lowering the food VAT next year. We have introduced the leisure card, so that the families with children who receive housing allowance receive a support of 2,000 kronor to be able to participate in leisure activities.

I can continue: We are lowering the tax on electricity, gasoline, and diesel. Filling up the car is today 500 kronor cheaper than it was when we took office. That makes a big difference for ordinary families living in the countryside who work hard every day and drive to work. We have also lowered the preschool fee.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: The Moderate-led government has truly taken action. I do not want to hear once again that we are doing nothing to strengthen families with children. It is households and families with children that have been the major focus, in addition to combating inflation. We have lowered taxes and given parents greater freedom to shape their own everyday lives.

Above all, we have made it clear that work is the path to both economic security and prosperity. It is when parents go to work every day that we reduce exclusion. We also reduce the risk of inheriting one's exclusion.

It is this way we break down exclusion and build a richer and safer Sweden, family by family, reform by reform.

(Applause)

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! Last week, I asked a question to Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson regarding Save the Children's report from earlier this autumn, in which it was stated that 276,000 children, i.e., every eighth child, in Sweden live in poverty. This corresponds to approximately three pupils in a normal-sized Swedish school class growing up in poverty and economic vulnerability.

The government chose in its budget, which Member of Parliament Heindorff stands here and advocates for, not to increase the child allowance. The so-called historical increase of the housing allowance for families with children thus corresponds to less than half of the amount that the government reduced the housing allowance by this year, when the government removed the supplement in the housing allowance.

Many experts warn that several of the government's reforms of the security systems, for example the benefit ceiling and the qualification requirements for welfare, risk increasing child poverty when they are implemented. It is something that is actually worth being ashamed of, if I am to refer to the member's statement.

I therefore asked the Prime Minister what the government is actually doing to reduce child poverty in Sweden. The answer I received was: In a recession, it will always become tougher. In an economic boom, it becomes easier. That is how it has always been.

So that is what your Prime Minister says. I personally do not think it was a very good answer, so I thought I would ask Member Heindorff now that I have the chance what the Moderates and the government are doing to reduce child poverty in Sweden today. I am not satisfied, at least.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! The Green Party is still reliable! Regardless of the question, the answer is always subsidies. It feels good, in a way, to know where one stands with the Green Party, even in this issue. The answer is always subsidies.

I still want to take a closer look at the budget, because it is quite good to do so in these contexts when talking about vulnerable families. I hope the member has looked at the part called enduringly low economic standard, which is an established measure. In the budget, it is mentioned that the proportion with enduringly low economic standard has not changed significantly over time – over the last nine to ten years, I believe, if one talks about persons. If, on the other hand, one talks about households, one sees a significant decrease in the proportion of households with enduringly low economic standard. I think that gives food for thought.

Let us look further at the figures, because this is a quite interesting and good measure. For households with two domestically born parents, the proportion with persistently low economic standard is 0.6 percent, which is extremely low. For households with two foreign-born persons, it is instead 7.5 percent. One then needs to come to the conclusion that it is not the benefits we should increase, but the exclusion we should break.

Much of what we have done over the last three years is about breaking exclusion. It is a major subsidy reform in three parts that the government will now carry out which will break exclusion. It is a strict asylum migration that will break exclusion. It is a real integration policy that will break exclusion. It is not increased subsidies.

(Applause)

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! Ulrika Heindorff claims that her "subsidy reform" or poverty reform, which is the correct designation, will break the exclusion.

But all experts agree that it is totally the opposite; this will increase poverty, exclusion, crime and mental ill-health, as well as worsen school results. One can read all the different referral bodies' responses, one can ask researchers, one can ask civil society, and one can look at what happened in Denmark. It is no harder than that.

We like subsidies; that is true. We think that one should give subsidies to those who need them. That is why we have a safety net system in Sweden. The subsidies should not replace a good wage. The most important thing we can do for people in Sweden is to ensure that they get a good wage. We agree with that completely. But there are many in Sweden who have a wage, who go to work, who work full-time, and who still cannot manage to make the finances work. Why then? Well, they receive too low wages. Shall we let them be? Shall we just ignore them?

It is clear that we should have good safety nets that help them. We need to have a good housing allowance that supports and helps people. We need to have child benefits that cover the increased costs that come with children. But the government refuses to invest in those parts.

Our increase of the child allowance costs less than half as much as the government's job tax credit. Ours costs 8 billion, and yours costs 17 billion. But the increase of the child allowance puts more money in the pocket for both single low-income earners and cohabiting middle-income earners. Our increase of the housing allowance puts more money in the pocket.

Our policy would give almost 2,000 kronor more per month to a single parent with two children than the government's policy does. It is concrete policy.

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

Ulrika Heindorff (M)

Madam Speaker! I may be a bit hard of hearing, but I did not directly hear any question from the member.

I take the opportunity to make a brief repetition of everything that the government does for families with children. We are not ashamed of what we have done. We have families and households as the primary priority in all the budgets that have been presented during the mandate period.

It is absolutely about tax cuts, but to begin with, it was about fighting inflation. If we had not done that, all the other pieces could never have fallen into place. Inflation was up at 10 percent and is today down to 2.3 percent.

We have lowered the tax. We disagree on that. The member clearly likes increased benefits, and we from the Moderates think it is better that one gets to keep more of one's own money.

Let me repeat the example with a police officer and a nurse. I know it is irritating, and therefore I say it again. It is 5,000 kronor every month. Think what difference that makes for that family! It is 5,000 kronor a month that makes that Christmas perhaps won't be in the same way as if we had had a red-green government, gubevars!

In addition to this, we are lowering the food VAT. We are doing that next year. There has not been much discussion about food costs in this debate. I have been on parental leave, so I listened to the debate last year. Then food prices were discussed. Now we are lowering the food VAT and halving it. In addition to that, we have the leisure card, lowered taxes on electricity, gasoline, and diesel, and a lowered preschool fee.

The government is doing a lot for families with children, and we will continue to do so. They will continue to be prioritized by the Moderate-led government.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! Christmas is approaching in Tidö parties' Sweden, and people are forced to look for extra prices and choose between putting food on the table and paying the rent. Will it be Christmas presents or medicines this year?

More and more people are forced to turn to charity under this government and the Sweden Democrats, and the largest groups that are dependent on charity are pensioners, the unemployed, the mentally ill, single parents, those on sick leave, and families with children.

One might think that no one should have to turn to charity in a welfare state, but it is the effect of the pursued policy. It is the effect of poorer social and economic safety nets that do not hold, and it is the effect of the government not having a single ambition to solve unemployment. People are being left in the lurch, because it is so important to prioritize lowering taxes for the very richest. We see how the government is taking us from a welfare society to a charity society.

The government proposes tax cuts of over 50 billion kronor for 2026, and the distribution profile is money for the very richest. In the Left Party's budget alternative, there is a completely different direction. With different priorities than those the sitting government and the Sverigedemokraterna have had during the mandate period, we could have protected welfare, healthcare, households, families with children, single parents, and pensioners, and we could have better protected those who become ill or unemployed.

I do not believe in the tax cuts we heard about previously. They have only given us increased economic inequalities, mass unemployment, and a welfare state on the brink of starvation. That time must be over. We need investments in society, in households, in jobs, in housing with reasonable rents, and in the climate transition.

We need to strengthen our welfare and security systems. Then the rich must begin to contribute so that we can also begin to redistribute in a solidary manner between the employed and the unemployed, between the healthy and the sick, and not least between those who live in abundance and those who live on the margins.

It is clearly a matter of priorities. It is not a law of nature that the price of the medicines was raised significantly, but rather decisions that have been made by the government and the Sverigedemokraterna.

All Nordic countries have increased the child allowance during the cost-of-living crisis. This government does not want to do that. Then the question is what is most important. Is it most important to prioritize economically pressured families with children and medicines for retirees, or is it more important to have several extra thousands in the pocket every month for those who are best off?

For Vänsterpartiet, the election is very simple, and it is evident in our budget motion. We make priorities based on different principles than the government. We abolish the karens deduction, make public transport cheaper, and increase the child allowance. We make powerful public investments and make investments for secure wage earners.

So we build Sweden stronger while simultaneously leveling the economic gaps.

(Applause)

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 to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

When we debate economic security for families and children, we do so with humility towards the everyday life that many live in. We know that every family's life puzzle looks different. Therefore, politics is needed that is there when people need help. The state shall support families, not rule them.

We Christian Democrats always start from a simple principle: The family is society's most important cornerstone. If the family does not function, life does not function either. Secure and well-functioning families ensure that society as a whole functions and grows strong.

A good family policy is a means to solve many societal 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.

It is in the family that security is established. It is there that children learn responsibility, consideration, and courage. We in politics shall help and give parents the support they need to be parents. We shall show that we believe in parents as the most valuable and important people in a child's upbringing, again because we Christian Democrats see the family as society's most important community.

Madam Speaker! Society can never replace the family but must always be there when extra help is needed. Being a parent can be wonderful, I know, but it can also be one of life's greatest and most difficult challenges. Even with the best conditions, support is sometimes needed to manage that task.

Particularly those children whose parents do not have the capacity to fulfill their parental responsibilities need society's support. Therefore, it is important that support is provided in a timely manner and through both targeted and general measures. In purely economic and compensatory terms, this includes, among other things, what we are debating today, namely the child allowance, the parental insurance, the housing allowance, and support for children with special needs. These systems constitute a foundation that makes it possible for parents to provide their children with both security and care in everyday life. It strengthens the family's own capacity and provides the freedom to be at home with sick children, afford a secure home, and be present during the children's early years.

An example of targeted reinforcement where the need is greatest is, for example, raised housing cost limits in the housing allowance, a concrete initiative that strengthens families with children and, in particular, single parents with small margins. Strengthening the housing allowance is a priority that puts children's security first.

Already earlier, the Christian Democrats and the government have made the parental leave more flexible. The number of double days has doubled from 30 days to 60 days. We heard earlier about something that I too have said here in the rostrum, namely that since the double days were introduced, an improved mental health has been noticed among new mothers. The number of people seeking care at the health centers has decreased, which is positive. We have also made it more flexible by making it possible to transfer parental days to a close relative. The Christian Democrats, however, want to see an even more flexible parental leave, where all days are equally for both parents.

The Christian Democrats' family policy wants to enable parents to spend more time with their children. We want to increase families' room for maneuver. This is primarily done through a flexible parental leave, a parent-friendly working life and good childcare.

Madam Speaker! I cannot give this speech without mentioning the leisure card. Since September 15 of this year, parents of all children from 8 to 16 years old can apply for a leisure card worth 500 kronor to receive some financial support for leisure activities within sports, culture, and outdoor life.

We know that children move around to an all too small extent. We also know that it is incredibly valuable for children to be part of a community—but that many children are forced to abstain because the family is struggling financially.

Children living in economic hardship also have the opportunity to apply for a higher amount – up to 2,000 kronor. Up to December 3, a total of 40,462 children had been granted leisure cards with the higher amount.

The Christian Democrats have received harsh criticism from the opposition for this initiative, and the government has also been heavily criticized. Therefore, it makes me extra happy that the Social Democrats now have the leisure card in their budget proposal – it is not written in black and white, but they do not want to abolish it, at least. However, they are not allocating as much money as the government. I want to thank the Social Democrats for having understood the value of the initiative on the leisure card, even though you do not seem to believe that the same amount of money as the government has in its budget proposal would be needed.

Leisure activities give children opportunities for community, increased self-esteem, and personal development. The leisure card shows how political decisions can make a concrete difference in children's everyday lives. Children who grow up with these prerequisites get better opportunities in life. Parents who receive support have more energy, feel better, and can build relationships with their children. Financial support is important, but equally important are time, relationships, values, and care. It is in these values that the community is built. It is a society that supports the families.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! In my speeches in the chamber, I usually focus on the Center Party's proposals in budgets and various motions. I intend to try to stick to that even this evening, so that we keep the tradition alive.

The economic safety nets and family finances are very much about being able to combine work and family. We want to level the differences between households with and without children and also counter child poverty. These are goals that I and the Center Party consider important. They need to remain. Then, one can sometimes wonder if one needs to adjust the safety nets so that they become more accurate.

When it comes to the parental leave, we as a party think it is important that it consists of three different parts, where one part of the days is tied to one parent and one part to the other. Then there should be optional days that the parents can share with each other or with another important adult for the children. It is an important change that has occurred over the last year and which we were completely in agreement with the government on to implement.

It is important that the parental leave system is based on the needs and possibilities of families. That is why we need to keep the freedom of choice in the parental leave system. But we can consider whether we should change anything to achieve a more equal labor market. Many talk about the parental leave system as a problem when it comes to issues of equality. It is clear that the design of the parental leave system affects people's choices. For me, it is important to find incentives for women to return to the labor market more quickly.

Madam President! It is not only the number of days in the parental leave that we need to review, but the whole. We need to review how the sickness benefit-based income is handled. Should it be linked to how long the leave has been or the child's age? Are the double days sufficient, or should we make them even more numerous? Are the minimum level days good, or should we include them?

There is a large part that I believe we really must dare to start talking about, and that is the right to parental leave. Now, one has the right to very long leave, which means that one can be away from the labor market for a very long time. That is something I would also wish we started to dare to talk about and look at.

We move on to reflecting a bit on the child allowance. It is important for the Center Party that it is equally large for all children regardless of the parents' income. At the same time, we cannot escape the fact that single-parent households have it very difficult. The economy in Sweden is often built on the fact that there are two incomes in a household. Exactly how we could tweak it, I have no answer to, but the Center Party still wants to look at whether it is possible to find another way to handle the issue and still start from the premise that it is the same allowance for all children.

We also have the housing allowance to look at a bit. That too can be worked on to reach the families who have the worst finances so that they can afford their housing. Here, the government has proposed changing the amount that applies in order to be able to receive housing allowance. We have chosen a different path, because we want to reach all families with housing allowance. We have worked with the deduction of the housing allowance in relation to how low or high income one has. Then we reach all families, and it works in the whole country. If one only talks about the rent, it can be the case that one only reaches the families who live in larger cities, where housing costs are often higher than for those who live in the countryside.

We need to review the constructions and levels and whether we really reach the goals we strive for in the economic family policy. I feel that we are quite in agreement on the goals. But can we adjust something in these issues?

The most important thing for the Center Party is that, if or when we adjust the social security systems, we have our sights set on accuracy, but it must not affect the incentives to have a job. It is that balancing act that I wish we could collectively dare to look at in the future.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! As a liberal, I feel strongly that our society must be built on freedom, responsibility, and collective security – freedom for families to shape their lives, responsibility for us as parents to be there for our children, and a fundamental security that ensures no children are left behind. All children deserve a secure upbringing with love, opportunities to develop, and parents who have the time and resources to provide them with the basics needed to grow up and become a secure human being.

Madam Speaker! The housing allowance is intended to help economically vulnerable families with children afford a good home. But the connection between the allowance and the actual housing costs has become increasingly weaker over the years. The upper limits for housing costs on which the allowance is calculated have not been raised for nearly 30 years. Today, the majority of families with children who receive housing allowance have significantly higher rent than what the allowance takes into account.

In the budget bill for 2026, we submit the proposal to increase the housing allowance for the families with children who need it most by raising the housing cost ceiling. For families with one child, it is up to 800 SEK per month. For families with two or more children, it is up to 1,000 SEK per month. But I am also of the firm conviction that the housing allowance needs to be fundamentally redesigned to become more accurate and truly achieve the goal that was intended.

Madam Speaker! We are making changes to the parental leave, as I mentioned in my previous speech here today, which facilitate things for parents and strengthen children's security through a strengthened right to temporary parental leave, so-called vab. We do it because we know how important it is to be able to combine work with family life and be present when the children need it, for example at important meetings at school related to a child's illness or disability.

Furthermore, the rules shall be made more flexible so that both parents can be at home at the same time when needed and in certain situations. For example, several parents shall be able to receive vabersättning for the same child and time off for meetings at school or social services concerning the child.

Another important news item ahead is that a parent who is at home with a newborn can keep their regular parental leave benefit while the other parent temporarily takes out VAB for an older sibling. Everyone who has more than one child understands the value of this flexibility. One can share the responsibility even if one child becomes ill while the other is a newborn.

Madam Speaker! We are also introducing a change by shortening the application period for vab compensation from 90 to 30 days. Why are we doing this? Well, we consider it extremely important to reduce incorrect payments. Today, one can wait up to three months before requesting compensation for vab. It increases the risk of fraud but, above all, for mistakes because so much time has passed. By now shortening the application period, we maintain the link between absence and payment.

Madam Speaker! Economic security is not only about benefits and insurance but also about families being able to keep more of their own money. Therefore, the budget contains important tax cuts, primarily for low- and middle-income earners. In addition to a broad palette of tax cuts to strengthen household finances, we are also introducing other reliefs, for example, lowering the maximum fees for preschool and after-school care.

We are also taking other measures to lower families' everyday costs. We are halving the VAT on food. It may seem like a costly reform, but we assess that it is justified in a situation where food prices have skyrocketed.

In addition to other initiatives we are making to support children's development, we are now introducing the leisure card for children and young people. The state will then step in and support children's leisure activities so that finances do not become a barrier to children's and young people's dreams. We all know how important it is to move, perhaps to be part of a football team, attend swimming school, or perform in a play. In addition to the joy of the moment, it also lays a foundation for good health throughout life. No parent should have to say no to their child who wants to participate in an activity just because the wallet happens to be thin at the end of the month.

(Applause)

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! Sweden deserves better. I have nagged about this a few times now: In October, Save the Children presented this year's report on child poverty. In it, it was stated that child poverty in Sweden is increasing and that 13 percent – one in eight children in Sweden – live in poverty. That corresponds to approximately three students in a normal-sized Swedish school class. That is how many are growing up in poverty and economic vulnerability. Poverty is greatest among children of single mothers and among children of foreign-born parents.

Sveriges Stadsmissioner also presented a report in October, the Poverty Report 2025, which estimated the number of poor people in Sweden to be 700,000 people. They otherwise have a more restrained measure of poverty than Rädda Barnen does. It can therefore be assumed that poverty and economic vulnerability in the general population is more widespread than that.

We have heard alarm reports every year during this parliamentary term. These cries have become louder and louder with each passing year. The proportion of parents who need to borrow money to pay for food, electricity, and rent has increased. The number of evictions affecting children has increased. The proportion of families who cannot afford nutritious food and to eat their fill every day has increased.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson answered me in last week's question time that "it will always be tougher in a recession. In a boom, it becomes easier. That is how it has always been." Well thanks, that is how it is. But it is actually a government's and a politician's responsibility to facilitate for households in crises and to ensure that the recession affects society's most vulnerable as little as possible. It is then impossible to avoid the fact that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have failed Sweden's families with children. The government has not once during this mandate period, despite skyrocketing cost increases, raised the child allowance and the maintenance support. The child allowance has been eroded so much that it is now worth less than it has been in 50 years.

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask a quick math question to you and to the listeners here in the chamber and at home. What is 1,000 kronor minus 2,100 kronor? If you get it to minus 1,100 kronor, you have calculated correctly. If you get it to "a historic increase in the housing allowance," you are probably a representative for the government and the Sverigedemokraterna.

In this year's budget, the Tidö parties lowered the housing allowance by 2,100 kronor per month when they removed the so-called supplementary allowance. In next year's budget, which we are debating now, they are raising the housing cost limit in the housing allowance, which will increase the allowance by up to 1,000 kronor per month for a large portion of the recipients. It is a welcome change that we have requested for several years. But a 1,000 kronor increase after a 2,100 kronor decrease is still minus 1,100 kronor per month for the most vulnerable families with children. To claim that it is a historic increase in the housing allowance, I call that pure government math. I call it a bluff.

The government parties and the Sweden Democrats say that the budget they present benefits single parents with low incomes the most. They point to SCB's budget analysis and say that a single parent with a low income will receive 1,250 kronor more in disposable income per month next year compared to this year, including the housing allowance and the reduced tax.

It is technically correct. But it is also some incredible number-trixing. It is impossible to escape the fact that 1,250 kronor a month, that is, the total profit for the single-parent families in this budget, is less than just the 2,100 kronor that the government reduced the housing allowance by in its previous budget. A single parent with a low income will therefore still receive less in their wallet next year than they received last year, a year that was already very tough for many families with children. To say that the government's policy favors low-income earners is truly genuine government math.

Then we haven't even talked about the consequences of the poverty reform that the government and SD want to implement next year. A unanimous chorus of referral bodies in the form of fiscal experts, researchers, authorities, and civil society organizations warns that the Tidö parties' reforms of the safety nets risk increasing child poverty, social exclusion, crime, and mental ill-health among the young if they are implemented. It is the exact opposite of the responsibility that we politicians are to take. Miljöpartiet says no to the Tidö parties' poverty reform. Sweden deserves better, Madam Speaker.

Miljöpartiet proposes that the child allowance be increased by 350 kronor per child, to 1,600 kronor per month. This would bring the value of the child allowance up to the same level as in 2018, when Miljöpartiet participated in increasing the child allowance for the last time. We also propose that the child allowance be indexed against inflation so that it is automatically increased when prices go up and is not eroded again. Our increase of the child allowance costs less than half as much as the government's job tax credit but provides more money in the pocket for both single low-income earners and cohabiting middle-income earners.

The housing allowance has been eroded since it was introduced in 1997 – we have all noted this here – because neither the income limits nor the housing cost ceilings have followed the development of society. The result is that fewer and fewer households are covered, not because the need has decreased but because the rules are outdated. Today, one receives the full allowance only for incomes up to around 12,000 kronor per month, and the cost ceilings lie far below actual rents, especially in the large cities. This affects children in economically vulnerable families, with overcrowding, poorer study conditions, and increased ill health as a consequence.

We therefore want to see a proper reform of the housing allowance, with increased and indexed maximum amounts, income limits, and housing cost ceilings to levels that reflect today's incomes and rents – so that more low-income earners are entitled to housing allowance and so that the allowance covers a larger portion of the rent.

Here and now, we propose that the 20 percent supplementary grant in the housing allowance be reintroduced for families with children. This would mean that a family with children with a low income, with the proposed increase of the housing cost ceiling, would receive up to 2,250 kronor more per month in housing allowance.

These investments in the child allowance and the housing allowance mean that a single mother of two with a low income, with the Green Party's budget, could receive almost 3,000 kronor more in her pocket every month next year compared to this year. That is more than double compared to what she receives with the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden deserves better than the government we have today. Sweden deserves a government that works actively and committedly to break child poverty. Sweden deserves a government that prioritizes families with children over bank directors and low-income earners over low taxes. Sweden deserves a true welfare society, where all children grow up in security.

That is why Miljöpartiet invests in households, families with children, and low-income earners. Our view is clear and distinct: No child should grow up in poverty or exclusion. With our policy, this can also become possible.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 December.)

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