Response to interpellation 2022/23:392 on the speed premium in the parental leave 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 Sweden has a generous parental insurance that promotes balance between work and family 1. M argues that the speed premium maintains a good economic situation during frequent births 1, but acknowledges that the government is preparing proposals to abolish it 1. M emphasizes that women's health is a priority issue 1. M argues that the system's design affects behaviors and that incentives for frequent births can entail risks. M wants reforms to focus on the work line and women's self-determination 2. M wants to expand double days to strengthen equality and give women better convalescence 3 4. M believes that one must weigh in the families' self-determination and the children's health 5.
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)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to start by thanking you for a fantastic event during the Riksdag's solemn opening. It is a privilege to be able to celebrate democracy and freedom of speech in such a way. Thank you very much for that!
Mr. Speaker! I also want to thank the interpellor for a very well-written and good interpellation. Annika Hirvonen has asked me if I intend to change the speed premium in the parental insurance.
Sweden has the world's most generous parental leave, which provides the conditions for both parents to take a large responsibility for the care of the children and simultaneously work.
Great flexibility and predictability in the parental insurance are important when planning the parental leave. The so-called speed premium means that parental benefit can be granted at a higher level based on previous sickness benefit-earning income, even if the parent, for example, has worked part-time after the first child's birth. To qualify for the speed premium, a parent must become pregnant again before a child is one year and nine months old.
The speed premium is intended to improve the possibility of combining work life and family life as well as maintaining a good economic situation during the years with small children. Some criticism has been directed at this specific calculation basis, and proposals to abolish the speed premium have been submitted, among other things, in connection with a previous review of the parental insurance. That proposal is currently being prepared in the Government Offices.
Women's health in connection with pregnancy and childbirth is a priority issue for the government. The government has, on behalf of the state, entered into an agreement with Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, for the year 2023 with the aim of achieving a more person-centered, accessible, and equitable maternal health care and childbirth care that is safe and based on the best available knowledge. The government has also given Socialstyrelsen a mandate to propose a national plan for childbirth care. The plan shall indicate a clear direction for the development of childbirth care and constitute a support for a more strategic and systematic improvement work within the regions.
It is important to facilitate for pregnant women to be able to continue working to a large extent during pregnancy. Those who, for various reasons, cannot work shall have a secure and predictable social insurance protection. The investigation on a review of the social insurance protection for pregnant women - a more modern regulatory framework (S 2021:10) has submitted proposals aimed at modernizing the regulatory frameworks for maternity allowance and sickness benefit during pregnancy, as well as improving knowledge of risks in the work environment for pregnant women. The measures are expected to have positive effects on women's health. Those proposals are also being prepared in the Government Offices right now.
The introduction of the so-called "double days" in parental leave has been shown to have positive effects on women's health, in the form of, among other things, reduced risk of hospital visits, better convalescence, reduced risk of birth complications, and reduced prescription of anxiety-reducing medications.
The Government considers that parents should be given more tools and increased opportunities to use the parental leave benefit more flexibly, in order to strengthen freedom of choice and to increase the conditions for combining just that important family life with a high labor force participation. As part of that work, a proposal on expanded opportunities to use the double days is being referred for consultation, and that proposal is also being further prepared in the Government Offices.
The Government also decided on June 15, 2023, on a referral to the Council on Legislation regarding a possibility to transfer parental leave. In that referral to the Council on Legislation, proposals are submitted aimed at making it easier for different family constellations to use parental leave in a more flexible way.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. It is positive that the government nevertheless continues to look at the issue of the speed premium. When the speed premium was introduced, it was about ensuring a completely central aspect of the parental leave, namely that one has a good level of compensation.
We in the Social Insurance Committee recently had a visit from a number of researchers who had studied the connection between, on one hand, the design of the parental leave and on the other hand, the health of mothers, fathers, and children. They were able to state that a generous parental leave, both in terms of length and in having a good replacement level, is important for health.
It can be clearly seen that a generous parental leave benefit improves mothers' health and also fathers' health. But it could also be very clearly seen that the speed premium in particular has had unintended negative health effects. When it was introduced, it applied if one had a child during an even shorter period than today. Then one could retain one's higher SGI and receive a higher compensation from the parental leave benefit.
One saw how, above all, Swedish-born women began to give birth to their children in much closer succession. The women, therefore, adapted to the design of the parental leave and the speed premium. In the same way, it was when the period for the SGI protection was extended. Then it could be seen that the same group of women received a longer time between the children's births. They adapted once again to how we politicians, the state, had designed the parental leave.
What the researchers can say regarding health effects needs to be taken seriously. The negative consequences of frequent births affect both the women carrying the children and actually also the children. Various birth complications and injuries become more common with frequent pregnancies, and it increases the risk of miscarriage and premature births. Premature birth, in turn, has various consequences and increases the risk of other challenges for the children later in life.
Against that background, it is very important that this issue is taken seriously. On the one hand, we need to safeguard that parents receive good compensation, which was the intention when the speed premium was introduced. On the other hand, I really think that the state should avoid influencing women to give birth to children in quick succession if it does not provide the best conditions regarding health.
It is of course always up to each individual when and how they want to have children and whether they want to have children at all. But the state should not encourage it in the way that is done with the speed premium.
Therefore, I wonder if Anna Tenje is willing to look at an extension of the time so that it rather aligns with what is healthy.
Caroline Högström (M)
Mr. Speaker! The speed premium, as it stands today, has been in effect since 1986. It benefits those who reduce their hours or otherwise work less between the two children.
This rule has, just as Member Hirvonen pointed out, resulted in Swedish women giving birth at closer intervals than they did before, but also compared to women in other countries. The rule, however, still has a purpose today, and that is precisely that women should not suffer an excessively large economic blow in the event of frequent births.
With that said, there are reasons to problematize, both linked to the economy and equality but above all linked to the health of mothers and children.
Mr. Speaker! As the Minister pointed out, a number of interesting reports have been published, from among others IFAU, which problematize and point out some of the negative effects that the speed premium entails.
The Committee on Social Insurance received a preview of an interesting study that has not yet been published during the Riksdag's research day. It will be a bit tricky for the Minister to take in a study that has not yet been published, even though I think it is an important debate we are having. It is important that we look at the consequences. There are reasons for an analysis where one carefully weighs the pros and cons.
The Minister also highlights important perspectives linked to, among other things, maternity and midwifery care – something the government is already making important investments in. It also concerns the government's long-awaited reforms linked to both double days and more flexible opportunities for parents to transfer days.
The parental insurance has stood still for a long time and has not kept pace with society's development. As mentioned, the speed premium has been in place for nearly 40 years. Childbirth looks very different today. There is a continued need for reforms within the parental insurance to focus on the work line, on children's and women's health and well-being, and above all on women's opportunity for self-determination. Some of the reforms that the government has already presented are important steps in the right direction.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I can begin by stating that how we construct our social insurance system and how we choose to manage our taxes and our benefits has a great impact on how people act.
If we choose to lower the tax on labor and make it more profitable to work - then we work more, and more jobs are created. If we create a benefit system where it is more profitable to receive benefits than to work - then the effects are such that more people remain in a benefit dependency. And it is clear that if we construct a social insurance system, in this case a speed premium within the parental insurance that makes it profitable - then one must say - that having children closer together also results in such effects.
Mr. Speaker! I want to be careful to point out that I share both Member Hirvonen's and Member Högström's views on women's health. It is extremely important that we look specifically to women's health and well-being. There are risks with frequent pregnancies and childbirths, and just as I mentioned in the interpellation response, women's health in connection with pregnancy and childbirth is a priority issue for the government.
The work that has now been initiated to create a more person-centered, accessible, and equal maternity and obstetric care built on the best available knowledge is precisely such an important step that the government has taken. We have allocated 1.6 billion kronor in investments in 2023 and have also signaled 1.5 million kronor annually in 2024 and 2025.
Another step in this direction is that Socialstyrelsen is now to develop a national plan for maternity care that specifies a clear direction for a development of maternity care that shall include both care and preventive measures during pregnancy and childbirth and the period after that.
I want to be clear, however, that the speed premium in itself is not an end in itself. For me, it is a self-evident matter that we should have good and accessible care for all mothers. The government is actively involved in this work, just as I have mentioned.
In the same way, the family's right to plan its own family formation based on its own circumstances is a natural starting point for the government. Here, it is important to nurture already generous systems and to ensure that they are flexible so that they meet the needs of many different families and create great opportunities.
Last year, for the first time, more children were born to mothers older than 45 than to women younger than 19 - according to statistics from SCB. This made me jump quite a bit. When families end up in a situation where women are much older when they have children, it can, of course, have the consequence that one gets more children in closer succession if one is eager to have more than one child.
This is a choice that a woman makes herself. I do not believe that either the interpellor or anyone else in this chamber is particularly interested in getting involved in deciding such a matter. But if we have a system with incentives that encourage one to give birth more frequently in order to retain certain economic advantages, the risk, as both members have pointed out, is that more people will act in that way.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I truly agree with the last point that Anna Tenje was touching upon: Naturally, each individual should be able to choose for themselves if and when they want to have children. What became strikingly clear during the research day in the Riksdag was that the timing of the introduction and change of the speed premium truly affected women's birth patterns. I think it is important that we politicians take this to heart and act.
An important aspect that the researchers really emphasized was that the replacement level in the parental insurance is of great significance from a health perspective. Economic stress becomes a burden on top of the great strain it entails to have a child physically if you are the one who has had to carry the child during the pregnancy and give birth to it. It is also about lack of sleep and stresses of various kinds once the child is born. The economic stress is therefore important to take into account, and therefore we in Miljöpartiet discuss different solutions to the situation.
Removing only the speed premium will lead to some women receiving lower compensation compared to if it remains. The investigation that the government is preparing proposes a removal. But one can imagine different alternatives with extensions or other ways to compensate women who, for various reasons, have not been able to or have not had time to return to full-time work. Pregnancy and childbirth can, after all, also have consequences for work capacity.
That is why I asked a question in my first post. I want to ask it again, because I did not perceive that I received any answer. Is the government considering other alternatives than a removal? It could, for example, be about extending the SGI protection or otherwise compensating women for the economic loss that a removal would nevertheless entail – not for all women, but for some.
Caroline Högström (M)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Minister for the debate and for the wise contributions, and I also want to thank Hirvonen for bringing up the issue.
Just as the Minister says, there is no self-contained purpose with the speed premium, but there are reasons to look at it generally. When you change something, it requires that you examine the whole carefully. Will this have a generally positive effect or not? Will the childbirth rate change with a removal of the speed premium? All these pieces must be weighed carefully when making changes.
One can always wish that one had had this answer key in the 80s, when the reform was introduced. But one did not. Before removing anything, one must also look at today's situation and the consequences it has for childbearing and for how people plan their parenthood.
This is, of course, nothing that happens in a heartbeat. It must be done with precision. I am, however, convinced that the government, especially with Minister Anna Tenje at the forefront of these issues, will make wise considerations and weigh both families' opportunity for self-determination, the health of women and children, as well as the goal of more equal parenthood.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! I fully and completely share the views of Member Hirvonen and Member Högström. We seem to be quite in agreement on this issue, which I believe is important and good. It is a very complicated issue that is not entirely simple to solve. One needs to take a broader approach.
The speed premium is, as has been said, not an end in itself. The important thing is to ensure women's health but also their opportunity to make independent choices in their lives. On the other hand, they must not end up in a situation where they fall behind when it comes to wages, career, or for that matter, pension. This is not a simple issue to solve.
Member of the Board Hirvonen asked me a direct question: Am I willing to review and look at the extension? I am not closing any doors regarding this issue. I am willing to look broadly at it, and also at other proposals contained in the previous investigation, in order to, on the one hand, strengthen women's ability to make independent choices and, on the other hand, strengthen equality and ensure that we achieve a more equal outcome.
I was in there earlier: The double days, which we intend to proceed with and expand, are one way. It has been noted that expanded opportunities for double days have been utilized by both the mother and the father, or both parties, which results in a more equal uptake. It also turns out that in relationships where double days are used to a higher extent than others, the women are significantly better off and their convalescence is significantly better. We see similar consequences when it comes to the prescription of anxiety-reducing medications. We also see other benefits, not least a stronger attachment to, in most cases, the father.
There are many different reforms that can be worked on further. Some we have already started from the government's side. I am very proud of those. I also look forward to continued good cooperation here in the chamber between those of us who are driven by these issues and think it is important to create flexibility and greater opportunities for families with children, to strengthen equality and at the same time in all parts strengthen women's opportunities to make independent choices and also to feel well and receive good maternity care.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I really appreciate that the Minister has an openness and an interest in the issue. I also hope that we can continue to have a dialogue on these issues, where it is important with long-term perspective and broad political consensus because these are large and important systems that are to hold over time.
Therefore, I would like to take the opportunity to ask one further follow-up question on the Minister's answer. The Minister highlights several aspects there, including the issue of double days. When parents are on parental leave together, women have a greater opportunity and also take more time to look after their own health and seek care for various types of physical or mental ailments that may be related to the childbirth, even if that is not necessarily the case.
From what I have been able to read, it seems to be primarily about the very first period after one has had a child. I can say myself that when I became a mother, I was not ready to manage on my own with my newborn child after two weeks. I am deeply grateful that my then husband was there and shared the responsibility during that first overwhelming period. It has also become more common in many circles that both parents stay home at the beginning.
The government's proposal, however, provides the possibility of having double days for a long period. I wonder if any evidence has been seen that this has a positive effect later. I imagine that it is very important to ensure that one gets more time together right at the beginning.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for this debate, I want to start by saying. I think it is important. It is very rewarding to have these types of discussions in order to be able to move the positions further when it comes to a modern parental insurance, but also to ensure that both women's health and equality are strengthened.
It is, however, a very complicated issue, and a somewhat broader preparatory work is therefore needed regarding these important matters. As we were touching upon earlier: How we construct our social insurance systems, benefit systems, or for that matter tax systems has a direct effect on how people act. There is nothing strange about that, but that is why it is important that it is done correctly and properly. Before we choose another path and head in a different direction, it is important that all parts have been illuminated.
The double days will be a very important reform, and I am very proud that we have moved forward with these various proposals. When it comes to the timing and where the greatest effect is achieved, it is as I believe the member himself implicitly says, that the earlier the better.
We already have double days in our system, and then we already have an improved possibility. Now I hope to be able to expand that possibility further and increase the freedom of choice, the flexibility, and the opportunities for all of Sweden's families with children. Just as MP Hirvonen and I myself realized when we became parents for the first time, help and support from the other partner was needed, and it also leads to an increased and more equal withdrawal in the future in several cases. Above all, it strengthens gender equality and gives women the opportunity to seek care, receive better care, achieve a faster convalescence, and in this way perhaps also actually become a better mother.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.