Response to interpellation 2023/24:66 on the transfer of parental leave benefits
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 proposal for the transfer of parental leave increases freedom of choice and flexibility for all families 1 2 3. M argues that the proposal has been investigated, that the risk of market abuse is small 1 2 and that it is particularly valuable for single parents 1 2 3 4. M believes that the government wants to use tax money effectively and that the reform makes it possible for parents to work more and for women to pursue careers and improve their pensions 3. M argues that freedom of choice can be increased while simultaneously combating benefit crime through controls 3. M opposes the idea that freedom of choice should be limited for those who cannot afford it 4. V fears that market elements may seep into the parental insurance, that fraud will increase and that equality will deteriorate 5. V argues that the government is heading in a direction that risks worsening equality because more days are not being reserved 5 6. V also argues that the change could open up for benefit crime and that the costs could be higher than expected 6.
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! Isabell Mixter has asked me if I have taken the initiative for an analysis of how the change of the parental insurance will affect equality and if I intend to take any action based on the result. She has also asked me why I and the government choose to carry out the change via the budget bill and not through a regular bill.
Isabell Mixter has further asked me why the new bill has not been investigated. She has finally asked me if I see any risk that parental leave may be used in a market where parental leave is transferred to "nannies" and if I intend to take any action from my standpoint.
There were many questions, but I will try to answer them in the best way possible.
A proposal that a parent should be allowed to transfer parental leave benefits to someone else who is insured was submitted in 2017 by the Investigation on a modern parental insurance (S 2016:02) in the report Equal parenting and good upbringing conditions for children - a new model for the parental insurance (SOU 2017:101). The proposal has now been prepared for a long time, and in order to implement the change as soon as possible, proposals are submitted in the budget bill for 2024. Försäkringskassan is also provided with funds for administration, which is done in the budget bill.
The proposal has been investigated and prepared in the customary manner. The referral bodies have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposal and were largely positive towards parents being given the opportunity to transfer parental leave benefits. The purpose of the proposal is to facilitate for parents to combine family life with work life and to facilitate for different family constellations to use the parental leave benefit.
The investigation's proposal for a completely new model for the parental insurance has not been introduced. An adaptation to the current regulations for parental leave has therefore been made so that the proposal regarding transfer can be implemented.
That a commission proposal is processed and adjusted is common, and the proposal that is now on the Riksdag's table does not deviate from the commission's proposal in any major extent. For example, the current proposal is that a total of 90 days can be transferred. The commission's proposal was that a total of 88 days could be transferred - not 60 days, as Isabell Mixter states.
Compared to the total number of parental leave days that the parents dispose of, the proportion of days that are possible to transfer is lower with the government's proposal than with the commission's collective proposal.
An analysis of the proposal's effects on equality has been made both in the committee's report, in the subsequent referral to the Council of Legislation, and in the budget bill. It is a fact that, above all, men to a very large extent forgo the days that are not reserved for the other parent and that the take-up of parental leave is not equal.
The Government wishes to emphasize that the right to parental leave is shared equally between the guardians and that the existence of reserved days increases the incentives for a more equal distribution of the parental leave. An important part of the proposal on transfer is that the possibility to transfer parental leave is completely shared between parents with joint custody. They can transfer a maximum of 45 days each. The reserved days naturally cannot be transferred at all.
More women than men have sole custody of a child or have the child living with them full-time. A transfer possibility can therefore in many cases be considered particularly valuable for women and give them increased opportunities to combine work life and family life. The Government shares the view, held by among others the Gender Equality Authority, that the effects of the proposal on gender equality should be followed up.
The risk that a transfer possibility would enable parental leave to be systematically used as a means of payment for services rendered, for example to an employed childcare worker, is assessed as small. One of the fundamental requirements for someone to be entitled to parental leave is that the parent, or the person to whom the parent has transferred the parental leave, refrains from gainful employment or has no gainful employment at all (Chapter 12, Section 2 of the Social Insurance Code). Someone who is employed by a company or runs their own business cannot receive parental leave while simultaneously receiving a salary and must therefore refrain from it.
The Government considers that the parental leave should offer freedom of choice and flexibility. The proposal for the transfer of parental leave contributes to this. Above all, it can be a good measure for parents with sole custody of a child and in families where there are more than two who take a parental responsibility for the child. Even entrepreneurs, who are often in need of great flexibility to be able to combine work life with family life, can receive help with the care of the child with this reform.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank Anna Tenje for the answer.
It will now be possible to give away 90 days of parental leave to another person. This has met broad criticism from various sides, including on liberal editorial pages. As Anna Tenje mentioned, the proposal indeed comes from an investigation conducted in 2017. In this investigation, the transfer of parental leave was a small part of a larger whole. There were also proposals that more days in the parental leave should be reserved for each parent; the reserved days would increase from 90 to 151 days. It would also not be possible to save as many days as today until the child's third birthday. These proposals were intended to increase equality in the parental insurance.
In the investigation, it was also proposed that the minimum level days in the parental allowance should be removed and that cohabitants of parents should be given the opportunity to receive parental allowance. The latter proposal has already been implemented and is therefore not, as the government says, part of the upcoming changes to help so-called "stjärnfamiljer" (star families).
Vänsterpartiet fears that the new law could lead to market elements creeping into the parental leave, that cheating will increase, and that equality will deteriorate. Men already today take significantly fewer days with parental leave than women, and now it will become easier for men to transfer parental leave to another woman. Anna Tenje intends to follow up on the development, but why is the government heading in a direction that risks worsening equality instead of in a direction that we know increases equality? It has long been a consensus that equality needs to increase. I am worried that this is now being thrown overboard.
We see, in line with the government, a need to review the rules for parental leave for single parents, most of whom are women, in order to facilitate things for single parents.
Implementing the change the government proposes for all parents without sufficiently highlighting the risks can have major consequences. Anna Tenje argues that the proposal currently on the table has been justified for a long time and that the referral bodies have been largely positive. However, both TCO and LO, as well as Sveriges Kvinnoorganisationer, which submitted referral responses in connection with the original investigation, have directed harsh criticism at the fact that the government is now moving forward with a modified proposal, detached from the original changes that were proposed. They argue that the government's proposal is not sufficiently investigated.
Anna Tenje describes that the possibility of parental leave being used systematically on a market is small. Others do not seem to share this view. For example, the CEO of Nanny.nu has already spoken positively about the change. In an article in DN, he says that this opens up new possibilities. As it happens, the government has raised the standard deduction to 75,000 kronor per year while simultaneously opening up the possibility to transfer parental leave to another person. The government sees small risks that this could be used to hire an employee in a company. But I think it is not particularly difficult to get around. One could, for example, have someone employed at 75 percent and use the parental leave to cover the remaining 25 percent. One could receive compensation with parental leave for an entire year if one divides the 90 days and takes out 25 percent per day.
Does the Minister not see any risk that the parental leave can be used in this way? Does she not see any risk that equality could be worsened?
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me thank the member for the opportunity to clarify some of the question marks and misunderstandings that seem to exist regarding the government's reform to enable the transfer of parental days. But they do not give away parental days, they transfer them. The reserved days may not be touched either, as they are dedicated to the mother and the father respectively.
Something that is also important to emphasize based on the member's speech is that not all star families are cohabitants and that it is those who are not cohabitants who now get the opportunity to share parenthood.
Let me also clarify for the Chamber and those listening to the debate that the proposal has been investigated and prepared in the customary manner and entirely in accordance with the Swedish administrative tradition. The referral bodies have, as is customary, been given the opportunity to take a position on the proposal and were predominantly positive that parents should be given the opportunity to transfer parental leave benefits.
Let me tell you once again why we are carrying out this reform. It is fundamentally very simple: The possibility to transfer days to another person will increase the freedom of choice and the flexibility for all families. It will, however, be particularly valuable for single parents, who predominantly are women.
Madam Speaker! Much has happened in Sweden and the world since the parental leave was introduced in 1974. The view on parenthood has evolved, and it is expedient that the legislation keeps pace with the times. Under 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 be made to a spouse or cohabitant but not to any other relative with whom the parent does not live.
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. This could be a grandparent or someone else who is a close relative and whom the parents trust. There is no opposition to this arrangement, and we have seen neither signs of abuse nor that so-called nannies step in and cover the care of the child, which is already possible today. This is important to keep in mind in the debate.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! An important difference between the government's proposal and the original proposal is, as said, that this was a small part of a larger whole, that is to say, there were measures that would also increase equality. Reserving more days for fathers and mothers respectively leads to more men being at home with their children for longer periods. Implementing the government's change without reserving more days changes the playing field quite a bit, which the referral bodies have also conveyed. It is not the same thing, and risks worsening equality.
It is also not possible to equate the temporary parental leave for childcare with this, as it is paid out for individual occasions here and now that are difficult to plan.
I wanted to talk about something completely different. The Government wants to curb subsidy crime and fraud in the welfare system. We also think it is important that there is trust in the insurance system and that it is not abused.
Therefore, it surprises me that the government sees no risk that the new rules could open up for more fraud and crime. It will become more difficult to control whether the person who has had the parental leave transferred to them actually takes care of the child they are on parental leave for or not, while the parental leave is being paid out. It also opens up the possibility of transferring parental leave to someone who has a higher sickness benefit-earning income than oneself and then sharing the profit, for example.
We have seen how gang criminals find their way into new arenas to launder money. They open health centers, for example. With this change, the parental allowance could become yet another arena for the gangs. These are risks highlighted by, for example, TCO, who argues that the proposal should be paused and that these risks should be looked at more closely. Does the Minister not think it is important to ensure that a legislative change cannot be abused before it enters into force?
The bourgeois government is usually very interested in keeping costs down in our social insurance systems. It is assessed that this change only entails very small cost increases. Parents usually take out most of their parental days. Some days, however, go to waste, especially the minimum-level days. They have a low compensation, and many therefore choose to work instead.
The new rules, however, open up for more minimum wage days to be transferred and taken out. To take out minimum wage days, it is also not required that one has any connection to the labor market. They could, for example, be transferred to a young person who watches your children.
We have had the Riksdag's investigation service calculate what the cost to the state would be if the parental leave days at the minimum level that are currently being wasted were taken. For 2024, this would mean a cost of 100 million, for 2025 it would mean 190 million, and for 2026 it would mean 180 million. I therefore wonder if the Minister sees any risk that this change will become more expensive than what was originally intended. It should concern the government if the costs spiral, especially as Försäkringskassan's latest report shows that costs in the social insurance systems are increasing. I am happy to submit the report from the Riksdag's investigation service to the Minister after the debate.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! The member is absolutely right that the Moderate-led government is really focusing on costs and definitely wants to ensure that every tax krona is used in the most effective way possible. This applies, of course, to the parental insurance as well as the large social insurance systems. But it is also very important to work on ensuring that the social insurance systems we have keep pace with the lives we live.
This opportunity now increases the flexibility and freedom of choice for our families with children. It also makes it possible for parents to combine a rich family life with a rich and clear labor force participation. This, in turn, means that parents can work more, longer and – perhaps above all for the women's sake – can build a career and keep up with wage developments in a significantly better way. This in itself also generates many tax crowns for municipalities, regions, and for the state.
I am pleased that the member also raises the issue of subsidy crime and welfare crime. Vänsterpartiet has not always championed these parts.
Curbing organized crime, benefit fraud, and welfare crimes are, of course, issues that we work on and that we have very high on the agenda at all times. We have taken a number of different measures. Most recently this weekend, we were able to present that we are proceeding with an investigation to review confidentiality, so that it will be possible to exchange information between authorities and between systems and in a systematic way identify those who try to cheat and, above all, commit benefit fraud in these systems.
These questions must be able to function in parallel. We increase the flexibility and freedom of choice for families with children and make it possible for the single mother to receive help and relief so that she can participate actively in working life and get help with carrying the heavy burden of being a parent. At the same time, we can work with controls and follow-up and ensure that the systems are not exploited in an incorrect way.
For us, it is possible to do both. One does not need to reduce the freedom of choice and flexibility for families with children and only focus on one of the parts, but one can do both.
I believe that this is very important. Now that we must curb organized crime and hunt down every tax crown that ends up in the wrong pocket, we cannot stand back and create systems where we all must be the same or have the same family constellation. Then, I believe we get a system that definitely does not favor women and definitely does not give star families an opportunity to take a joint responsibility for their common children. That is not where I want to end up.
I believe that one can do both at the same time. With that said, it is incredibly important that one also proceeds with those issues.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! What I hear is that women are to pay the price so that women can make a career.
For a very long time, we have known that the parental leave is one of the biggest equality problems we have. That women take out the vast majority of the parental leave leads to women receiving lower lifetime earnings and pensions than men. To address that problem, the government does not want to ensure that fathers should take a greater responsibility, but they instead want to delegate that responsibility to someone else, so that women can continue to keep up with the wage development.
It is a policy that I do not stand behind. One tries to bring up that it is about single mothers or that one should provide for star families, but why then do one not take measures that help just that group?
It is very clear that this is about increasing freedom of choice at any cost. If it leads to increased subsidy crime, it is a price that this government is willing to pay for increased freedom of choice; if it leads to worsened equality, it is a price that this government is prepared to pay for increased freedom of choice.
We can see that we have been naive previously regarding gang crime, for example, that the rules on freedom of establishment are a gold mine for the gangs. Why are we now opening up our social insurance systems in a way that could come to be used in very bad ways?
Freedom of choice from equality - I think that one should have to pay for that oneself.
Statsrådet Anna Tenje (M)
Madam Speaker! The Member summarizes his view on freedom of choice quite nicely in his concluding remarks: Freedom of choice shall be paid for by oneself. Those who then cannot afford freedom of choice will therefore not get any freedom of choice in the Left Party's Sweden. That is not what I want.
The purpose of the reform is to increase freedom, flexibility, and the possibility for all families with children, regardless of how large their wallet is. All families with children will now have an increased opportunity to manage their everyday lives and their life puzzles, even if relatives and friends were to be in a completely different location or for various reasons cannot help to support or be an alternative.
It is more women than men who have sole custody of children and have the child living with them full-time. Therefore, this transfer reform in the parental allowance will particularly be able to benefit those women who today take on an incredibly large responsibility, so that they can combine an active family life with an active working life. It will have major consequences for their finances, not least for their pension later on. I think it is extremely important to keep that in mind.
I hope that all parties are concerned with a modern, well-functioning and flexible parental insurance that facilitates things for all families with children, but especially for the hard-working single mothers and for our star families who can now take a greater collective responsibility for their children.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.