(cont. from § 5) The standardized parental deduction (cont. SoU26)

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

Let me first clarify that I move for the approval of the reservation, not the motion.

I requested a reply from the member because, in his speech, he said that Försäkringskassan, on the government's assignment, shall investigate and analyze the situation that has arisen regarding the parental leave. That is good. But when Försäkringskassan visited the committee, the agency was very clear that they believe they are interpreting the current legislation correctly, and if any action is to be taken, we as decision-makers must adopt a new law.

Mr. Speaker! My question to the Kristdemokraterna member is therefore: What is the majority's reason for wanting to investigate and analyze the issue anew via Försäkringskassan when the agency is already set in its opinion on what is required?

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

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The entire issue is that the parental allowance is to be further investigated, and the task covers both the parental responsibility as assessed from the state's side and that which is assessed from the municipalities' side.

I have been clear that we Christian Democrats are not satisfied with how it has turned out. I want to emphasize that the government at the time stated in its own bill when the law was written that there were uncertainties regarding the scope of parental responsibility, which leads to deficiencies in legal certainty and in assessments of a child's right to personal assistance and assistance compensation. We raised that already then, when this was presented.

Now the announcement is that the government will not sit still and has stated that Försäkringskassan shall provide a final report on how the entire situation looks. The Government Offices will now conduct its own analysis of the parental allowance and what measures are needed and what needs should exist.

Does Member Mikael Dahlqvist feel satisfied with how the former Social Democratic government drafted this bill, given that it has become as difficult to interpret as it has?

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

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is customary that I am the one asking questions to the member because it was I who requested the right of reply. But naturally, I can give the member an answer. I think it was a fantastic reform that we developed at the end of the last parliamentary term. It was the largest individual LSS reform since we introduced LSS in 1994. I do not remember the exact sum, Mr. Speaker, but I believe it was around 4 billion. Over 2,000 people would be given the opportunity for extended personal assistance. I think it is a wonderful reform.

Mr. Speaker! I am surprised by Dan Hovskär's answer. The authority Försäkringskassan is very clear that it has interpreted the law correctly and that a legislative change is required. Nevertheless, the government – Dan Hovskär's party, for the record, has several ministers in the department responsible for these issues – chooses to ask Försäkringskassan to provide an analysis.

This situation did not arise in December, Mr. Speaker. We received reports of this during the summer, and the funkis movement with several [members] have warned against this. According to the statistics from Försäkringskassan that we received in October November, it is about twenty, if I remember correctly, who have received extra personal assistance due to reduced parental responsibility. One becomes a bit conspiratorial, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the member remains. Is the government in agreement on this issue? Do you really want to make a change, or is there a party in the government that has a different opinion?

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

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Government will now address the issue and conduct an analysis of the parental mission and see how the outcome lies in relation to the intentions of the legislation, which measures need to be taken by the Government, and whether anything could be changed from the Government's side. That is what is to be looked at and analyzed, and that includes both the assistance allowance granted by Försäkringskassan and personal assistance granted by the municipalities.

We Christian Democrats are very clear that we will continue to push forward in this issue concerning persons with disabilities where measures are needed so that those persons who are entitled to support shall receive support.

I feel very secure with the government that exists now. There is a good ability to cooperate, and one should now look at this from the intentions that existed when the law was written, but where the text perhaps can be interpreted a bit differently. Försäkringskassan, however, means that one interprets it as it is written. I am satisfied and feel content that the government will find a good solution to this.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! When things are important, they move quickly. We have all heard Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer talk about all the rapid investigations being carried out in order to combat gang crime. Normal processes are bypassed and referral times are shortened. On the other hand, Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari intends to take three years to investigate how climate emissions in Sweden should be reduced. Those questions are to be investigated thoroughly, slowly, and over a long period. The pace of the process naturally says a great deal about how important and how prioritized different issues are.

What does the situation look like regarding disability policy? In 2022, the new interpreter services inquiry was completed, but there is still no government bill to improve interpreter support for the deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind - not even a timetable.

A year ago, Trafikanalys completed its report regarding the transport service, but as recently as this autumn, the responsible minister could not answer how the situation for persons with impaired vision or blindness should be improved.

More than a year ago, the investigation into the ownership of personal assistance was also completed. Since the referral round was finished last summer, everyone has been waiting for the government to return with a bill, but so far we remain in uncertainty as to when this will arrive.

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that disability policy is not among the priority areas for the Tidö parties.

Today, however, we are not debating ownership, interpretation services, or transport services. Today, we are debating the standardized parental allowance within personal assistance and how this has been handled by the authorities and what the Tidö parties are doing – or not doing – to rectify it.

Ever since the new legislation on strengthened rights to personal assistance came into force at the turn of last year, there have been signals that Försäkringskassan is applying the law in a different way than what was the Riksdag's intention. This was subsequently confirmed in a report from Försäkringskassan on 23 October and in a report from the Inspectorate for Social Insurance on 23 January.

It is noted that instead of the parental deduction being made on the child's total need for assistance - which was the Riksdag's intention - the deduction is made from the need for assistance resulting from the child's disability. This means that excessively large deductions are made and that the child is consequently assessed as having too few hours or, in the worst case, receives no assistance at all.

Försäkringskassan considers that the law is crystal clear and that their interpretation is correct. ISF considers that the law is unclear, which leads to Försäkringskassan making deductions that are too large. The Court of Appeal in Sundsvall, which has examined a municipal case, also considers that the law is crystal clear but in the opposite way to what Försäkringskassan means.

As legislators, we can therefore only conclude that the law is obviously not as clear and precise as it should be and that a change is needed, and quickly. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the Center Party submitted a proposal for a committee initiative on 5 December.

The initiative was based entirely on the information that emerged in Försäkringskassan's own report, where they stated plainly that further legislative changes are required if the assessments are to be changed. The committee initiative therefore contained two proposals for announcements to the government: one regarding temporarily resetting or alternatively minimizing the flat rate in the ordinance, and one regarding a swift return with a proposal for clarification of the legislation.

The Minister for Social Services' reaction was to task Försäkringskassan with investigating the same matter once again for an additional ten months. That the minister likes investigations is nothing new. More surprising was that the members of the Social Affairs Committee from the Tidö parties, after two months of consideration, chose to completely reject the initiative and instead raise the issue in the motion report that we are debating here today, and which therefore does not contain any announcement to the government.

During the preparation of the matter, the committee received information from the Minister for Social Services that she has now commissioned an additional investigation or analysis. This investigation shall look at both Försäkringskassan's and the municipalities' handling, but the minister still doubts that incorrect handling is actually occurring. The assignment is therefore to analyze whether a misinterpretation regarding the parental deduction is actually being made and, if necessary, return with proposals for measures. Furthermore, the minister was clear that there is no deadline for the analysis work and that it is not at all certain that it will be completed before Försäkringskassan's new report arrives in September.

Mr. Speaker! The only thing we can truly state today is that investigation is piled upon investigation and that necessary changes in law and regulation are allowed to drag on for far too long. I do not doubt that there is good will among the Tidö parties, but good will is not enough – action is also needed. During the entire time this investigation is being done over and over again, families all over the country will be affected by the Försäkringskassan's decisions. Children will be granted too few hours or, in the worst case, not be granted any assistance at all. It is not reasonable. It is therefore the Center Party that will continue to push on in the issue until a change has occurred, and it needs to happen as soon as possible.

In conclusion, I would therefore like to move for the adoption of the reservation in the report.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Let us go back a couple of years in time and look at the reasons why we now have a standardized parental deduction.

When assessing a child's right to assistance, one must consider what is stated in the Parental Code regarding that parents have responsibility for their child's care. What constitutes so-called normal parental responsibility has been discussed for a very long time. Among other things, it can be noted that the Riksdag in 2020 had to make a decision on a new law which established that support for children in the form of tube feeding and breathing in its entirety shall be counted as basic needs and not as a parental responsibility when assessing the need for assistance.

In the investigation *Stärkt rätt till personlig assistans*, where the issue of a parental deduction was analyzed, it is noted partly that there were poor conditions for a legally secure application of parental responsibility, and partly that the application of parental responsibility that was practice before the parental deduction was introduced could risk leading to children receiving less assistance than what corresponded to their needs.

The investigation found, among other things, that when a child's need for assistance is investigated, the extent in time for each individual need is estimated many times. This means that for each individual point, it is assessed what is normal for a parent to help their child with.

Let me take an example that was included in the investigation and which shows how it can happen in a municipality. This decision concerns a child who is four years old and has a substantial disability.

The parents have applied for assistance with showering four times à 20 minutes per day due to vomiting and spasticity. The municipality considers that so many occasions cannot be needed and that children at this age normally need help with showering and therefore only grants one time à 10 minutes per day.

The same parents appreciate that, due to frequent vomiting, they need one hour of help per day. The municipality considers washing of children to be a normal parental responsibility, but that the responsibility here goes a bit beyond the normal, so one gets 5 minutes per day.

The parents apply for eleven times 10 minutes of assistance per day due to frequent diaper changes. The municipality refers in this case to 1177, where it states that children stop using diapers at two years of age but that it can sometimes take until four years of age. Diaper changes for four-year-olds are considered to be part of the normal parental responsibility, even though in this case there are medical grounds confirming the need. The municipality grants three times 5 minutes per day.

These are just three of the points described in the 14-page decision. Already here, the difference between what the parents applied for and what the municipality grants is 3 hours and 40 minutes per day.

Mr. Speaker! Another reason that the investigation highlights regarding the need to review parental responsibility concerns teenagers' right not to have to be dependent on their parents more than children without disabilities need to be.

Some children are interviewed in the investigation. One says: "The assistance is the closest to 100% independent I can become with my disability."

Many also highlight the problems with liberation that one can have as a teenager: "For example, when you have just had a fight and need help – then it becomes very difficult."

Or as a child expresses it: "If you have had a fight, you don't want to ask for help. And you don't want to hang out with your parents all day long."

Another one notes: "The atmosphere at home is better when the assistance is sufficient."

Mr. Speaker! These are some of the reasons why the investigation chose to present a proposal that deviated from the intent of LSS that individual assessments should be made and instead wanted to introduce a standardized parental deduction. When the needs are divided into step by step and each step is then put in relation to the parental responsibility, a very large responsibility often falls on the parents instead of providing support based on the child's disability.

Since the turn of the year 2022/23, new legislation has been in place, which many have accounted for here earlier today. In the bill, one can read that the deductions shall be made from the child's total combined need for assistance, as that is inherent in the nature of the matter. The interpretations of the legislation have, however, diverged, which several here have highlighted. A clear Court of Appeal judgment points out that one should not be able to make such double deductions as are made in the current situation. ISF's report points out that there are ambiguities in the application. Försäkringskassan makes a legal assessment that has received much criticism from those entitled to assistance.

A unanimous Social Affairs Committee views this as a problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. The responsible Minister has taken the initiative for an analysis to see if the outcome is in line with the legislator's intentions. This analysis covers both the assistance compensation granted by Försäkringskassan and that granted by the municipalities, about which we currently have no significant knowledge. One step in this analysis work is also to produce proposals to ensure that the legislator's intentions are followed.

Mr. Speaker! For us Liberals, LSS is a matter of the heart. Persons with disabilities shall receive the support they need to be able to live a life like everyone else. Unfortunately, we have time and again throughout the years had to make fire brigade interventions to save personal assistance. We have had to do it to stop the reassessments and to ensure that children receive help with breathing and tube feeding. Large parts of the report Strengthened right to personal assistance, which we have spoken about here earlier, are precisely about giving those entitled to assistance the assistance they are entitled to but who, among other things, depending on how case law has developed, have been denied.

We are pleased to see a broad commitment in the Riksdag for personal assistance. The Liberals will, in the government, push to accelerate the analysis that is currently being conducted so that we can as soon as possible have proposals for measures on the table that ensure that the intentions of the law are fulfilled and that it shall not be possible to make double parental leave.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! I share a workplace with a government that essentially won the election by blaming all of Sweden's social problems on people who look like me and have a different background than white ethnic Swedes. Poverty, dismantled welfare, crime, and inequality are social problems for which we have been blamed.

Now we have a serious problem, which the government and the Sweden Democrats are responsible for solving. The problem is that large deductions are being made on the assistance that children and young people with disabilities are entitled to. This leads to them receiving assistance for too few hours or, in the worst case, no assistance at all. It violates the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The solution is that the government and the Sweden Democrats must as soon as possible reduce the parental deduction by amending the regulation that specifies the number of hours to be deducted on a flat-rate basis. If it is changed, the municipalities will probably follow suit.

But since the government does not want to take its responsibility, any potential changes are now further delayed. The government and the Sweden Democrats want instead to wait for more reports and conduct more analyses. They will vote down the motion for announcement to stop the deduction on assistance for children with disabilities. In interviews, the Liberals call this standing their ground. It is laughable, to say the least.

Do the Liberals think they are doing everything in their power, taking their responsibility, and acting promptly so that children with disabilities receive their right to assistance and thus have their rights met?

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Nadja Awad!

As a liberal, I believe it is important not to do things fast and wrong, but to do them fast and right. We have legislation in place to avoid exactly what Nadja Awad points out: that unfairly large parental deductions are being made. That was the purpose of Strengthened right to personal assistance, and that a standardized parental deduction was introduced.

Now we see, however, that some parts of the exercise of authority have made an interpretation that we do not think is compatible with the law. Should we then just remove it and go back to what we had previously? What do we say then to the parents who applied but received 3 hours and 40 minutes less per day than they had applied for? That is the problem we are trying to solve with this law.

It is very possible that we need to review the levels of the parental deduction in the ordinance. But before we make that decision, I want to see the breadth of measures. I do not, in fact, want us to go back to a situation where one does not receive the assistance they are entitled to because far too large parental deductions are made, which was the case previously.

I also think that you, who have submitted proposals to zero out the regulation, need to answer that question. What consequences will it have for those who have received more assistance as a result of the Strengthened Right to Personal Assistance?

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not quite understand the reasoning of the Liberal Malin Danielsson. From what has been said here, it is acknowledged that there is a problem with the Försäkringskassan's and the municipalities' interpretation of the law. So, I have interpreted it as Malin Danielsson has said here and now; it is acknowledged that the problem exists. Then one must also acknowledge the solution that exists for the problem. That is to change the regulation where the number of hours for which deductions are made is regulated. One must also ensure legislative changes to fulfill the intention of the entitlement legislation. That was the purpose of the legislative changes in 2023, wasn't it?

So, one acknowledges the problem, but still wants to appoint new inquiries and delay the process even further. Do Malin Danielsson from the Liberals, the government, and the Sweden Democrats not understand that the assistance world, the disability organizations, and children with disabilities do not understand that the government cannot act here and now?

I vote down the proposal for the announcement that we in the Riksdag are to vote on. I do not understand the reasoning. If one knows that there are problems with how the law is interpreted, one must also understand that one needs to go directly to the solutions and not delay that process.

My question to Malin Danielsson is: Do the Liberals not understand that the assistance world, the disability organizations, and children with disabilities, who are now listening to the Liberals, the rest of the government, and the Sweden Democrats, do not understand how one can vote down the proposal to directly go in and change the regulation and the legislation?

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We truly understand the situation one finds oneself in. It was actually through our persistent work that one was granted the right to assistance with tube feeding and breathing again. It was considered a parental responsibility a few years ago due to the previous legislation.

Now we have new legislation in place. It is being tested. There is a judicial review stating that that type of double deduction may not be made. There are several court cases ongoing that one can wait for.

One could also imagine following the opposition's path and saying: We will remove it from the ordinance in the current situation. But what consequences will that have? Will the old application of parental responsibility then begin to be used again? Will we fall back to the situation where one does not get the 3 hours and 40 minutes that I mentioned in my speech? We do not have an answer to that in the current situation.

I do not rule out the proposal that the opposition has put on the table. But I want to see a palette of measures, so that we land correctly. We are not going to do this fast and wrong; we are going to do it fast and right. That is why the government has now taken it upon itself to analyze this more broadly than just Försäkringskassan's handling, i.e., also the municipalities' handling, and return with proposals for interventions to deal with it.

No one here in the chamber and no one in the government wants the children to be handled in this way. The children shall receive the assistance to which they are entitled.

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malin Danielsson, for staying at the rostrum so that we can have a reply!

I also want to thank you for a good description of the background to the law we are debating here today and the need for it. But what is on the table today is the application of it and why it has not become as the Riksdag intended when the law came into force.

We have heard this all year. We have received signals from the disability rights movement and assistance providers that it did not turn out as the Riksdag intended. Försäkringskassan confirmed in October that it did not turn out as the Riksdag intended. In the report from ISF, which arrived in January, it was confirmed once again that it did not turn out as the Riksdag intended.

Or did it become that? I still perceive an ambiguity from the government parties. It is not quite the same answer from each one of them. From the Moderates, it is impossible to get any answers at all on whether they consider that there is actually an error in the application of the law. From the Christian Democrats, it is a bit ambiguous. They are sitting on both chairs. But I have both seen and heard Malin Danielsson say in different contexts that this application is incorrect. So I have understood that as well as what has been said here today.

Mr. Speaker! My question to the Liberals and Malin Danielsson is: Why does the government need to investigate once more if the outcome is in line with the legislator's intentions?

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Christofer Bergenblock both for stopping me from sneaking out of here and for the question.

I believe that all of us in the committee and the government agree when we read what the intention of the legislation was, that is, that the deduction shall be made from the child's total, combined need, and that it shall be both the basic and the personal needs. I believe that we all agree on that.

Since then, we have an application of the law that is fragmented in the current situation. We have to say honestly, we don't really know how it looks in our municipalities. There are some judgments pointing out that municipalities might use the same interpretation as Försäkringskassan, and we know how Försäkringskassan has applied the law. But no legal review of Försäkringskassans application has still been carried out.

In that situation, I think it is sensible to take a small step back and carry out an analysis to see how we best deal with what we experience, namely that one is not living up to the intentions of the law. The Government is now carrying out a quick analysis so that we do not go fast and wrong, but fast and right. The Government has promised to return, and I feel confident that the Government will deliver this.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! For those listening to this debate, it may sound as if the issue is more complicated than it actually is. It is not that complicated, actually. A law has entered into force. A regulation governs the size of the standard amounts in the parental allowance.

What we in the Center Party highlighted in our proposal for a committee initiative, which received support from the rest of the opposition, was that one should relatively immediately intervene and amend the regulation to minimize or possibly nullify the flat rate there. That would ensure that it is not incorrectly applied to a flat rate. Subsequently, a legislative amendment should be investigated, which always takes a bit longer. That is what both Försäkringskassan and ISF have pointed out needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker! In Malin Danielsson's first speech, it was mentioned that fire brigade interventions had occasionally been needed regarding personal assistance and that the Liberals had been the guarantor for them. Now a fire brigade intervention is needed, but the Liberals are no longer the guarantor that such occur. In December, there would have been an opportunity—if the Tidö parties had not delayed and tabled the proposal as a committee initiative—to make an announcement to the government that could have led to the analysis that is now being initiated having been started already in January.

If we want to get this right, it is not further investigations that are needed. We are probably in agreement regarding the problem. What is missing now is action. Why, Mr. Speaker, should the government need to investigate once more if the outcome is in line with the legislator's intentions? It does not.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! During the previous parliamentary period, the Liberals pushed through strengthened rights to assistance and also, through the January agreement, ensured that the investigation into the principalship of assistance was commissioned. We pushed forward through the Riksdag to achieve changes in these areas because we see that there are extensive problems with personal assistance that mean we have come quite far from the basic intentions that existed in 1994 when we pushed through the reform for the first time.

We will continue to take responsibility for pushing this through and making the fire-fighting actions that are sometimes needed. The difference between this mandate period and the last one is that we are now in the government and are driving this there. I am confident that the government will deliver.

As soon as the analysis work is finished - which I see will be soon - I hope that we have measures on the table that can be implemented immediately to prevent double parental allowances. It must be clear that children in need of assistance shall receive what they are entitled to.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a question that has been one of the disability movement's most closely watched for over a year. A large number of articles have been written on the news sites that focus on monitoring developments in the area of personal assistance. Most of those responsible for the issues have surely been interviewed. It is simply clear that the question, which perhaps is not known to the general public, truly engages and upsets everyone who is affected by it. It is not surprising.

Today's situation has arisen despite the fact that there does not seem to be anyone who wanted or who today wants it. It has arisen despite the fact that the intention from investigators and legislators was different from what we see now.

It did not take long after the legislative change that is the cause of today's debate entered into force on January 1 last year before all parties received signals from various disability rights organizations that something was not right. Families experienced that their children would be entitled to far fewer assistance hours than was the case before the legislative change. The standardized parental deduction, which the legislator had intended to be made based on the child's total needs, was instead made by Försäkringskassan from the child's estimated need for assistance. Several actors within the disability rights movement have described this as double deductions now being made.

Due to this situation, several attempts have been made in the Social Affairs Committee to address the problem. Försäkringskassan has come to the committee twice to answer questions and provide its perspective. The most recent time, they came accompanied by the Inspectorate of Social Insurance, ISF, which simultaneously presented its conclusions.

ISF has described the situation that has arisen and the different interpretations made by legislators and Försäkringskassan in a report. Their recommendation to the government is, among other things, to consider clarifying the regulatory framework for the flat-rate deduction for parental responsibility.

The visit was a response from the government parties and the Sweden Democrats to the Center Party's proposal for a committee initiative, which all parties in the opposition had stood behind. The proposal took its starting point in Försäkringskassan's own follow-up of the reform, which arrived at the end of October last year. There, Försäkringskassan clearly writes that they consider themselves to be making a correct interpretation of the law and thus applying it in the correct way: "If the legislator's intention was something other than this, further legislative amendments must therefore be required."

In the proposal for a committee initiative, it states that the government should be tasked with resetting or minimizing the parental deduction in the ordinance on assistance allowance and then return to the Riksdag with a proposal for clarification regarding the parental deduction in the act on support and service to certain persons with disabilities. The proposal was rejected, among other reasons with reference to the three motions that form the basis for today's debate. The motions were, as pointed out by the opposition during the consideration of the proposal for the committee initiative, naturally written before Försäkringskassan's position was fully known, since the report was written after the general motion period had concluded. That is why the "that" clauses are not as precise, but they largely capture the main problem.

Mr. Speaker! In the Green Party's motion, a notification to the government is proposed, among other things, to promptly take measures against the recently emerged deteriorations regarding access to personal assistance, including what concerns children's access to personal assistance. The application of the deduction for parental responsibility must be reviewed and rectified as soon as possible, either by reviewing the ordinance with its annexes or by promptly implementing a minor legislative amendment.

Since our motion was written, the problem we tried to address has thus become all the clearer, not least through Försäkringskassan's own statements that a legislative change is required for the application to be able to be changed. It is thus clear that there is a problem, and it is clear what is required to remedy the problem.

We have, of course, noted that the government is working on the issue in various ways, but we question whether further analytical work is needed. It is also difficult to understand why there is a process at all where three individual requests are extracted from three different motions and are addressed in a separate report if the purpose is not to enable a faster handling of the problem itself.

We believe that the government should already now take concrete measures regarding the standardized parental deduction. The government should promptly decide to change the scope of the parental deduction in the ordinance on assistance allowance. The government should simultaneously commission an investigator to produce proposals for clarifying the legislation regarding the parental deduction and thereafter return to the Riksdag. I move for approval of the reservation in the report.

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

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Most of it has already been said in this matter. The law that was intended to give more – especially children – the opportunity for assistance did not turn out quite as it was intended. That we can state.

We can also observe that despite the legislative change, Försäkringskassan continues to assess the basic needs with regard to the child's age while simultaneously applying the new parental deduction. Kristdemokraterna and Sverigedemokraterna were the parties that, when the proposal was submitted, warned that exactly this could occur. We saw a risk that children with extensive functional impairments would fall below the 20-hour limit if the parental deduction was implemented without considering the child's overall needs. We can say with pain that that is where we are today.

There are several examples of how this has gone wrong. Early on, there were warning signs, which many have pointed out here, that Försäkringskassan is making double deductions. A law that was supposed to enable assistance for more children now, instead, undermined this. The Sverigedemokraterna therefore chose, already during the general motion period in October, to submit a proposal that the government should take the initiative to change the regulation for Försäkringskassan, which is one of the proposals we have to take a position on.

Now we are in a situation where the government has already taken the initiative to rectify this, and therefore there is no reason for the Sverigedemokraterna to stick to that specific proposal. It does not mean that we are no longer pushing the issue, as some would like to make it appear, but it is precisely the opposite: We are pushing it even harder, and we are pushing it where it is best pushed - that is, in discussions with the government.

I can also observe that there are somewhat different views on what is the fastest way to handle the issue and achieve results. There is currently an opportunity to propose a declaration that the government shall now take concrete measures regarding the parental deduction, which is precisely what we believe has been done now. But in this, we must also take into account that the government can, in practice, handle declarations exactly as it wishes; it is actually nothing that obligates.

What we are doing instead is to ensure that the government actually acts. It is clear in the committee's text that there is no time to wait for the Försäkringskassan report—a report that completely misses how things look in the municipalities. Now, an analysis group has been appointed to analyze this and produce proposals for measures, which is a mandate that Försäkringskassan does not have. How things look in the municipalities will be a decisive thing to look at.

Even if it had been an announcement, the government would have had to perform some kind of analysis of the situation to determine if the right measures are being taken and to ensure that they achieve the desired effect. What we are doing instead is that we, together, truly ensure that the government actually acts. Furthermore, that work has already begun, and it is work that would otherwise could be up to the government's good will to carry out or not carry out, completely without any timeframe. That an announcement would be the fastest way is, in other words, not correct. To claim that this is something that delays the process is a bit of a way to grab some cheap political points.

We can also observe that there is a certain focus in the writing on analyzing "if" the outcome is in line with the legislator's intentions and "if necessary" producing proposals. I will be honest and say that I recoiled at this at first, but what I have understood is that one cannot ask someone to analyze something if one already knows in advance what they are to come to. This must be analyzed carefully, so that we land on a good result.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

In this speech, Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD) agreed.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive both the Sweden Democrats and Carina Ståhl Herrstedt as relatively clear both in the speaker's chair and in previous debates and interviews.

On assistanskoll.se, the member expressed that she felt cheated regarding the parental allowance based on how it has come to be applied, and in the motion that the Sverigedemokraterna submitted during the general motion period, an amendment to the ordinance is proposed - despite the fact that at that time we had not received confirmation from Försäkringskassan and ISF that it was actually being applied incorrectly in the way we had received signals about.

It is good that the motion was raised, because it is important. The proposal in the motion is good. It is therefore a bit strange that the Sverigedemokraterna now demand a rejection of the same motion. In the exchange of remarks with the Vänsterpartiet's Nadja Awad, Carina Ståhl Herrstedt said that the proposal is passé because it is basically already implemented. Already implemented? It is not in any way; it is on the contrary in that the government has not yet decided whether it is actually the case that the legislation is being applied incorrectly or not.

In every exchange of remarks, we have taken up the wording found in the majority's writing in the committee report, namely that one should first and foremost investigate "if" the regulation is applied incorrectly in order to subsequently, "if necessary," propose changes. It is far from the clear wording that the Sverigedemokraterna had in their motion. Why does this need to be investigated once more?

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

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Christofer Bergenblock for the questions.

It is nice that the member thinks I have been clear. That was indeed my ambition, and I seem to have succeeded in that part, at least.

As I said in my speech, I myself recoiled at the words that Christofer mentions – namely that it states it shall be investigated "if" the outcome is in line with the legislator's intentions and "if necessary" proposals are drawn up. But that would be a rather unnatural and incorrect order, because even if Christofer, I, and everyone else know how it stands, one cannot ask someone to analyze something and already in advance say what they should come to. It would be a strange order.

However, that is how it is done in all investigations: despite actually knowing how the country stands, one asks someone to investigate or analyze it. Then it results in such vague writings for an investigation or analysis group. That being said, no one questions that this is needed and that it should be done.

When I said in my previous exchange today that this is in some sense already fulfilled, it is as follows, if we are to be honest: My motion was that the government should take the initiative to make changes to the ordinance. I mean that the government has now taken that initiative, that is to say, to look at whether it is in the ordinance that changes should be made or if it might be best to change in the legislation – or if one needs to do both. It is precisely that which is to be analyzed.

I think that this is an important task to do. It is also clear that we cannot wait for the report that will come in September without this being an urgent task. With that, I do not also consider that we are procrastinating anything.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! The member repeats that she hesitated before the word "if" in the committee report, but that it is a natural part when one conducts an analysis or an investigation. But that is not the case. If there is an agreement on what the problem picture looks like, one starts from the problem picture and gives a mandate to produce proposals for measures to resolve the problem; one does not give a mandate to investigate once again if the problem picture is correct. But that is exactly what the government is now going to do.

Possibly it is in that way that the Sweden Democrats were deceived or misled, or missed the information, when the discussion was probably conducted internally between the Tidö parties and the minister well tried to clarify what ambitions she had. It does, however, stand in black and white what is to be done at the Ministry of Social Affairs: First and foremost, one shall investigate "if" this is a problem, and should one conclude that it is, one can return with measures "as needed".

Therefore, it is no longer in any way as clear as it was in that motion from Sverigedemokraterna, and it is absolutely not as clear as it was in the committee initiative that Centerpartiet proposed. There, we proposed changes to both the ordinance and the legislation.

Instead, we are left with a rather large ambiguity. We do not know whether there will be a concrete proposal from the government to amend the ordinance. We also do not know whether there will be a concrete proposal from the government to amend the legislation. There may not be any proposal at all, because it may be concluded that there are no problems with the current legislation – because one has not succeeded in reaching that conclusion yet.

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

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for further questions.

Christofer Bergenblock is suddenly a bit worried that the analysis would conclude that it is not a problem. That would be a strange blunder in the debate. Of course, that will not happen.

We all know that it is a problem. At the same time, we are receiving somewhat different signals. Försäkringskassan thinks it is clear as it stands in the law today, while ISF thinks something else. That is precisely what needs to be analyzed.

It is not about whether it should be done, but about how we do it in the best way. If we say that we are to zero the parental deduction, we are back to the proposal we had from the beginning. There was a reason why we, with broad agreement, made a decision in this matter.

No one wants to go back to how we had it before with the old parental responsibility. Not least, Malin Danielsson has in a very good way explained that it is dangerous if we end up there.

It is said that we want to zero it. Perhaps everyone would want to say that in some way. But we must also stop and think. Is it best to zero it? Is it best to lower it? Is it best to change it? We submitted proposals that it should not be so high and that certain age groups should be exempted when the proposal was submitted. There have been ambiguities in this issue.

To come up with proposals for measures is exactly what must be done now. We must look at it and analyze it. How do we do it in the best way? No one is satisfied with how it has been done so far. Nor is anyone taking responsibility for the fact that it has become so. Now it must be rectified. We all think it should be rectified. We just have different paths to get there.

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

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Christofer Bergenblock has now in an exemplary manner accounted for the government's analysis assignment and also for the committee initiative from the Centerpartiet.

Mr. Speaker! My question to the Sverigedemokraterna representative Carina Ståhl Herrstedt is: Would it not have been significantly simpler to support the committee initiative back in December when we had a majority in the committee and in the chamber?

Would it not also have been significantly clearer for the voters and for the listeners if you had stood behind your own motion, which you signed during the general motion period? You write in your proposal about taking the initiative to amend the ordinance.

That was exactly what was stated in the proposal for the committee initiative that the Centerpartiet submitted. We have also received signals about what is wrong. Furthermore, it is clear in the joint initiative, which we all stand behind as the opposition, that there should be an analysis part. There is both a part about what should be done and an analysis part.

Wouldn't it have been much simpler if Carina Ståhl Herrstedt from Sverigedemokraterna had said yes to it? Now, as the opposition, one becomes suspicious. What are the intentions of the government and Sverigedemokraterna? We heard earlier that the Moderate Party's government representative could not answer concretely regarding what ambitions there are in the matter.

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

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Mikael Dahlqvist! It was a whole battery. I will try to remember them.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to stand behind the committee initiative proposed in December? That meant zeroing out the parental deduction. Can Mikael Dahlqvist say here and now that he knows exactly how such a decision would land? I cannot do that. I do not know how it would, for example, hit in the municipalities.

I do not know how the municipalities handle this issue. That is what no one knows, and that is what we are going to analyze. We have previously heard other members say that the municipalities probably follow suit. They probably do, but that is what no one knows. It is precisely what we are now going to analyze. We are going to find out how Försäkringskassan assesses it and how they assess it out in the municipalities.

A question was asked as to why we do not stand behind our own proposal. Our own proposal says that we want the government to take the initiative to amend the ordinance. As I said in my speech and in previous exchanges of remarks, it is precisely that which we now think is being done. An initiative is being taken.

It was unfortunately not written more harshly than that. I have sat and lamented that at the committee meetings. Our proposal was too vaguely formulated to take an initiative to change this. Therefore, we have chosen not to support it.

The last question was about it having been easier for us to say yes to the Social Democrats' and the opposition's reservation. In it, it says: "We consider, however, that the government should already now take concrete measures regarding the flat-rate parental allowance. The government should promptly make a decision to change the scope of the parental allowance."

That is where we differ slightly. I mean that it is precisely what we are looking at doing now. That it is urgent is stated in the committee text. It clearly states that we do not have time to wait for Försäkringskassan's report. This must happen before. We have also pushed for it to happen earlier. It will be urgent.

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

Mikael Dahlqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Carina Ståhl Herrstedt, for the answers!

I still do not see why one should do A and then B. A is to go in here and now and change a regulation, something that is recommended, among other things, by the investigation from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency. It is very clear in the opposition's proposal. We want that it should be analyzed and investigated whether further changes to the actual legal text are needed. That is the answer to the question that the member asked me.

It is still interesting to ask Carina Ståhl Herrstedt about this. Sverigedemokraterna is a given part of the government. Without Sverigedemokraterna's blessing, we would not have had a bourgeois government. Sverigedemokraterna has also many times shown its strength in that position.

My question concerns what is somewhat unclear in the debate. That is also why I said it would have been simpler if the Sverigedemokraterna had stood behind this so that it would have become clear for the voters. It concerns above all the families with children, those parents, who are being affected right now.

My question is: Are you in the entire government base in agreement that you want to change the current legislation? I repeat what I said in the previous exchange. In the chamber, I did not, in any case, receive a clear answer from the Moderate Party's representative as to whether you are, in response to a direct question from another member.

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

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for further questions!

The question concerned why we have not continued to support the proposal. How are we to change it? When we speak of changing the regulation, are we speaking of zeroing it? Are we speaking of lowering it? If we speak of lowering it, by how much should we lower it without it going wrong? If we speak of zeroing it, how does it affect the children who have already received a notice or are about to enter the system?

There are far too many how-questions in this for us to simply be able to press a button and reset or lower. It is what we must look at so that we now do right and do not make the same mistakes. There were absolutely no conscious mistakes made when it was written. It was small words that made us stand here today. It was chosen to speak about basic needs instead of the total need for help.

It is small words that have meaning. It is exactly such things we must analyze so that we do it right this time. No one benefits from us rushing and it being wrong again. I believe it is still quite clear what the Sverigedemokraterna think and want.

I can assure the members that there have been countless discussions about this with the government base. I can safely say that I have not received any other impression than that everyone stands behind the fact that it is something that must be addressed, but we are still on the question of how we can do it in the best way. This is an inherited problem that someone now must rectify, and that is exactly what we are trying to do.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

The standardized parental deduction

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