Response to interpellation 2022/23:307 on the future design of the parental insurance
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that the parental leave should be adapted to modern family constellations and that parents need more tools and flexibility 1. M wants to investigate the possibility of expanding the right to transfer parental leave pay to more people, including close friends, to facilitate for bonus families, single parents, and rainbow families 1 2 3 4. S argues that the parental leave should guarantee the child's right to its parents and that the removal of reserved months would harm women's wages 5 6 7. S wants to create security in the labor market and design the take-up so that it becomes as equal as possible 8 9. S agrees that the system needs to be adapted to the development of society 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Sanne Lennström has asked me if I and the government intend to reform the parental leave so that it can be transferred to other persons, for example a nanny.
Madam Speaker! Much has happened in Sweden since the parental leave was introduced in 1974. The view on parenthood has evolved, and it is expedient that the legislation keeps pace with it. According to the current order, parents can waive parental leave days to the other parent or to the person who, according to the Social Insurance Code, is equated with a parent. Such a waiver can, for example, be made to a parent's spouse who lives permanently with the parent or to a cohabitant, but not to any other relative whom the parent does not live with.
The right to temporary parental leave when a child is ill or infected is, however, possible to transfer to a wider circle, namely to persons who are insured for work-based benefits and who choose to refrain from work to care for the child instead of the parent. It could be a mother or grandfather but also another person who is close to the child and whom the parent has great trust in.
The Government considers that parents should be given more tools and greater opportunities to use the parental leave benefit flexibly. One example to strengthen freedom of choice is to expand parents' possibilities to transfer the parental leave benefit to more people than is currently the case.
A proposal to expand the possibilities for transferring parental leave has been submitted in the report Equal Parenting and Good Upbringing Conditions for Children - a new model for the parental insurance, an SOU from 2017. The report has been referred for consultation and is now being processed in the Government Offices.
In this work, my starting point is that any changes shall contribute to making things easier for families, with great respect for the fact that they look different and have different needs. It is about creating conditions to alleviate the daily routine and make the life puzzle fit together, for example through the possibility of temporary parental leave during a child's illness.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!
In Sweden, we are proud of the parental leave we have. And many countries are interested in studying how we have designed it. For example, I was recently interviewed by South Korean TV. They were very interested in how we have designed our parental leave, because they believe we have succeeded in solving the life puzzle for people. For example, women do not need to choose between working or having children. It has been shown that we can do both, they argued.
We still have some way to go before we have, for example, an equal take between mothers and fathers in our Swedish parental insurance.
I have wondered quite a bit about what plans the Tidö parties have in mind when they have said that the parental leave must become more flexible. The answer came recently when the Minister participated in an interview in the newspaper Mama and there said that one should be able to give days from the parental leave to an acquaintance.
Our former Social Democratic government considered it fully reasonable that, for example, foster parents living together with the child should be able to share in the parental insurance. It should also be possible to piece together life, for example, by having a grandmother or grandfather stay home with a sick grandchild.
But what it opens up for an acquaintance to be able to take days from the parental leave, I wonder. I myself and several others with me, such as TCO and representatives for LO, wonder if we need to fear a development where the government wants to introduce a form of nanny system in Sweden, a system where the parental benefit becomes a voucher that one can give to someone who can use those days that one has been granted to be together with one's child.
During last week's debate on family economic policy, I asked that question to the Moderate MP Högström, who is also sitting here in the chamber. She did not want to define the word acquaintance then. We had discussions about grandmother and grandfather. Everyone probably has different relationships with their grandmother and their grandfather, but I had a very close relationship with my grandmother and my grandfather and therefore do not really count them among the circle of acquaintances. In this debate, I would nevertheless like to stick to the discussion of the word acquaintance.
As far as I can see, nothing is mentioned in the investigation that the Minister refers to regarding an acquaintance coming into question concerning the transfer of days. On the other hand, starting on page 551 in the report *Equal parenting and good upbringing conditions for children - a new model for the parental insurance*, we can read that "it may be considered self-evident that the guardian will choose a person who in some sense is a close relative", i.e., a close relative.
In the minister's first statement, I did not receive a yes-or-no answer to my question about the voucher system.
I am aware that my colleague Åsa Eriksson recently asked the same question to the Minister during the Riksdag's question time. Will the government introduce a voucher system for the parental insurance? That is the question that I, Member Åsa Eriksson, and probably also TCO with several others would like to have an answer to here today.
Is the government's intention to turn the parental leave into a voucher system? Yes or no?
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I would also like to thank my fellow Member of Parliament who has taken the initiative for the interpellation. I think this is a very important debate, and we will surely have reason to return to this several times during the parliamentary term.
I want to begin with the question of why we have the welfare system we have. Why do we have specifically the parental insurance? The State Council mentioned in its response when it was introduced. It was designed so that both men and women could be in the workforce their entire lives - through family formation and not, and during the time one is in a family life and not. Regardless of how people lived, we would have a system in Sweden that worked for men and women. At that time, the women were at home with the children, but now they could also be in the workforce.
It is partly about justice and equality. Women should have the same opportunity for economic freedom as men. It is also about being a productive, modern country where everyone should be able to work. It should not only be the men who contribute to productivity. All of this the parental insurance has contributed to.
My colleague highlighted a Korean TV interview, and I myself have lived in Singapore. There, I could not go anywhere without people talking about Sweden's welfare system and parental leave. In many other countries – we do not need to go as far away as to Asia, it is enough that we stay in Europe – one can see how this affects the work situation, how many people work, employment, and productivity.
It concerns me that the government is starting to open up for someone else to be at home with the children. It is one thing when it comes to illness or the like, but when one has had children and is to be at home with them, it is because children have a right to their parents. It is not through the parental insurance that we should begin by making it possible to have both family life and professional life. One example can be that over 40 percent of the reports of gender discrimination in working life that were received by the Discrimination Ombudsman last year concerned pregnancy and parenthood.
We need to create an inclusive society that is permissive and tolerant and creates the right conditions. It is not about solving a life puzzle by giving away time with one's children to someone else, because it is highly unclear who "someone else" is.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I want to start with what both Members of Parliament were touching upon, namely the great interest in Swedish parental leave. The Prime Minister of South Korea was here last week, and then my department and my State Secretary had a long meeting together with a long line of experts to help South Korea tackle its difficult demographic challenge.
It is a tough situation when one wants more children to be born in the country despite the lack of parental leave. Women cannot combine parenthood and a continued career at all, and they then choose to pursue a career instead of having children – hence the difficult situation in South Korea. It is probably where it is worst, but it is also seen in Japan.
Last week, I concluded an informal EPS meeting under the Swedish presidency with my ministerial colleagues with an incredibly clear discussion. We have a demographic development with more and more elderly people. Fewer and fewer will now support more and more. The parental insurance is a key to making it work to have a job and at the same time make the life puzzle fit together and be a present parent. The parental insurance is in many ways the key to this, and I am happy to talk more about this with my ministerial colleagues around the EU but above all in other parts of the world.
Madam Speaker! I mentioned in my opening remarks that this is a proposal that comes from an SOU from 2017. It was an SOU that the government at that time had brought to its knees. It was when the Social Democrats were in power. I can only state that Member of Parliament Sanne Lennström now says she is for it in order to increase the flexibility and opportunities for those parents who would be particularly affected, such as bonus families, rainbow families and single mothers. That pleases me.
The Social Democrats, of course, had the opportunity to do something about this during their period in government, but obviously chose not to proceed with the proposals. They are now being prepared in the Government Offices under my leadership, and I believe that the various proposals in the SOU report could be very valuable to proceed with. It concerns the groups that today have specific challenges when it comes to reconciling work life and family life, especially single parents, but also about entrepreneurship. It can also concern family constellations where there is more than one guardian sharing the parenthood of a child. But as mentioned, there are no proposals. This is being prepared in the Government Offices right now.
Any potential changes that the government may propose are, of course, aimed at making it easier for families and at making an already generous parental insurance even slightly better so that it aligns more with the reality we find ourselves in and the modern family constellations that exist today. More people should be able to contribute by having a job to go to and be able to combine it with a family life without any major limitations.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I am also grateful that the Minister again mentioned the investigation SOU 2017:101 Equal parenting and good upbringing conditions for children - a new model for the parental leave - because on page 554 of this investigation, one can read that the days that can be transferred to another insured person are included in the pot of days that are not reserved for the guardian.
This report laid the foundation for us reserving a third month in the parental leave, and it was in order to achieve a more equal uptake. The idea was that the equal uptake, just like previous reserved months, would give the child more time with both parents via the parental leave but also create equal salaries and ultimately more equal pensions.
The investigation that the government is now leaning on thus had three reserved months in its baggage in combination with a possibility to transfer days. But the government basis includes two Tidö parties, Kristdemokraterna and Sverigedemokraterna, who as recently as last week in the family economy debate declared that they still stand behind removing all reserved months for each parent.
According to both researchers and labor market partners, it would be devastating for women's wages and furthermore go against an already implemented EU directive, namely the work-life-balance directive. In that case, one would have to tear that up. I had an exchange with a Christian Democrat who did not seem to think it was a big problem to tear up this directive. I see that as deeply problematic. If the government introduces the possibility of giving away days from the parental leave, one could in principle give away all the days to an acquaintance or a nanny.
I have now described not just one but two reasons why one might fear that a nanny system is being introduced in Sweden in the form of a voucher system. What is the Minister's ambition if the government does not want this? I still do not feel that I have truly received an answer to that. One can talk about life puzzles as much as one wants.
The Minister effectively ducked the word "acquaintance". But it is precisely that word we want to discuss today. What does it open up for? Does one want the parental leave to become a voucher system where one can give away a lot of days, or does one want to take concrete measures so that it does not become so? What is the government's ambition?
I am indeed an opposition politician and understand that the government can evade my questions, but as I mentioned earlier, there are others who want answers, for example TCO and LO. Therefore, I ask again: How does the government and the minister intend to ensure that the Swedish parental insurance does not become a voucher system? Please mention concrete measures, for example how many days one should be able to transfer! I would like to have answers to such questions.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister mentions in his latest contribution many important parts that we agree with, for example, the description of a system that over time needs to be adjusted and adapted. We need to create better conditions based on how society develops and how life unfolds for many people. I share that picture. This is one of the reasons why the previous government took the initiative for the investigation.
I want to return to this issue of enabling parenthood. One should have the time for one's parenthood and know that one is secure in the labor market. Children's right to their parents is something we want to combine with that. We want, above all, to create that security in a time when much is said about parents' responsibility, parenthood, and that it is the parents who need to raise their children. More of a present parenthood is needed. At the same time, parents must be able to know that they do not risk losing their jobs, something that obviously occurs, or be discriminated against in different ways. One must also in the future have this secure opportunity.
The Minister says that this is a proposal that has not yet been submitted. We still think it is right to create an opportunity to debate it all the way through, and we believe that both the government and the Minister think it is good that the opposition does so. But I am still concerned. Why does one want to outsource a parenthood? What kind of society do we get then?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I still think it is a bit strange that the opposition is reacting so strongly to the fact that the government is considering simplifying things, primarily for single parents, especially against the background that we have not presented any proposal. I welcome a debate in this chamber every day of the week. This particularly concerns issues of simplifying the parental insurance or making it possible for more women to more easily be able to participate in working life so that they, together with their partner, another family constellation, or a close relative, can plan their opportunities to do so.
I would be very happy to return when we have a proposal to discuss. Right now, it is not about any actual proposal from the government. This nevertheless stems from an old investigation that the Social Democrats chose to some extent to proceed with. They did, however, not choose to proceed with simplifying and creating better opportunities for single women, entrepreneurs, or rainbow and bonus families.
The investigation points out in particular that single parents would benefit from the proposal. It is usually women who would benefit from expanded possibilities for transfer, which I have said several times. The parent who lacks a partner or family may be completely dependent on a close friend who helps to take care of the child. I would very much like to look at whether we can introduce such a possibility.
In the preparatory process and the ongoing work, one can of course debate and turn the questions over and over, which is something the Members of Parliament were touching upon. We must, of course, take any risks with the proposals into consideration. We must do that with all proposals in the transfer systems. We have become painfully aware that it is important to constantly work against fraud and abuse. The government will not tolerate such things in this or any other area. We have been very clear about that, and we will furthermore expand the work moving forward.
We must take this part into consideration in the continued preparatory process. I welcome, as I have said, all discussions and debates on the issue, but ultimately there is still no proposal to debate. Today's debate stems from a newspaper article. But I also welcome it every day of the week, because I believe the subject is important.
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
Of course, we Social Democrats also want to simplify the puzzle of life. We want as many as possible to be able to use the fantastic Swedish parental insurance, which has been spoken so highly of here today and which so many are impressed by. Therefore, we are willing to talk with the government, which we are doing, for example, right now during this interpellation debate. We are willing to talk about ceilings, floors, and double days, yes, all sorts of things, but there will be no debate when we do not receive any answers to our questions to the Minister.
I am, however, very pleased when the Minister says they want to review the risks of the proposals. I truly welcome that. In the investigation, there is, in fact, a small passage about the risk that it could become some kind of voucher system. It is not expressed exactly in this way, but it is in the chapter concerning the transfer of days.
I am very grateful for the debate and look forward to continued discussions on the design of the Swedish parental insurance so that it becomes as good as possible. We must design it so that as many as possible can use it, but also so that the withdrawal from the parental insurance becomes as equal as possible for both the sake of the children and for the sake of women's wages.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank both the interpellor and the other Member of Parliament who participated so much in the debate.
I want to be very clear. The intention is not, as it sounds to the member, to commercialize the parental leave. It is quite simple. We want to increase the flexibility to facilitate things for families with children. The previous Social Democratic government investigated the issue, and we are now looking further at the investigation's proposals and making progress in the matter. We intend to move forward with the proposals, not just in an investigation but de facto create increased opportunities for greater flexibility for families with children. It is not stranger than that.
What one should take away from today's debate is that families in Sweden look very different and have different needs. A high degree of flexibility in the parental leave, Madam Speaker, provides opportunities for parents to make choices that suit the individual family's needs. Today, there are limitations on who can use the parental benefit, which can cause difficulties for certain individuals to be involved in the care of the child and be able to combine family life with the important working life, which we have spoken much about here today.
It is against this background that the government wants to look more closely at the proposals. The government also wants to present concrete proposals to increase the flexibility of the parental leave benefit. I will have to come back to this.
Tomorrow, when I walk at the front of the Moderaternas train in the Pride festival in Växjö, I will be immensely proud that I am now involved in developing proposals to increase diversity and flexibility for precisely these families, who may not look the same as families did in 1974. I believe that they should have greater opportunities to participate in working life and parenthood under the same conditions as other families have.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.