Measures for a better housing supply

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal. This means an approval of our proposal for announcement and otherwise an approval of the government bill.

Today we are discussing a bill concerning essentially three changes. It is that the municipal guidelines for housing supply shall be replaced with an action plan. This new action plan involves an account of the need for new housing and that, in the planning, consideration is taken of coordination with other municipalities.

It is also that the Act on Municipal Land Allocation is given an explicit housing supply purpose.

And the last thing is that priority in the housing queue can also be given in a fee-based housing queue. This last point means that each municipality, together with the property owners, shall determine appropriate criteria for priority. It also means a broader view on in which cases priority can be given.

Let me give examples from reality out in our municipalities on how this issue of priority in the housing queue has been handled. Boverket has produced a survey summary, among other things regarding providing housing for newly arrived people, which came in the middle of 2024. It shows that over half of all municipalities provide temporary and first-hand contracts in and with the fact that this settlement law entered into force in 2016.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to that, we have 90 municipalities that provide time-limited contracts that can transition into permanent and first-hand contracts. A very large proportion of our municipalities out in the country make it possible in this way to give priority to these newcomers even after the establishment period and even after the purpose of the Settlement Act has been fulfilled.

It is clearly an order that is not okay. It is completely unreasonable that we have a housing policy that implies that municipalities can give a fast track in the housing queue just because one is a newly arrived migrant and thus has a foreign background. That is what the Sweden Democrats' proposal and, among other things, this bill is about.

Mr. Speaker! Let me summarize some madness, as I would like to put it, in the old migration policy. The Allocation Act enabled or, to some extent, forced the municipalities to purchase housing to accommodate the migrants arriving in Sweden, based on the fact that according to the Allocation Act, one is obliged to arrange housing.

This legislation has also led to many displacement effects and to the fact that, above all, the needs of many of the vulnerable groups have been sidelined in addition to other citizens' needs for housing. It became a displacement effect for those who perhaps had the greatest need for a home, because according to the allocation law, housing was primarily given to the migrants who came to Sweden.

We – not the Sweden Democrats – have also built up a latent housing need since 2006 based on previous governments' decisions. According to the Boverket report, there is a latent built-up need of 175,600 dwellings. The old migration policy has thus led to the housing shortage increasing in such a way that today we see appalling figures on a built-up latent housing need.

The population increased by 1 million between 2012 and 2022, according to SCB. With our new migration policy, which this government is moving forward together with the Sweden Democrats in the Tidö Agreement, SCB has shown that the population will increase by 500,000 people over the next ten years. We are therefore enabling, for the first time, to catch up with the large housing shortage that the previous governments have created in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to that, we are pushing forward to now ensure that conditions are created for genuine return migration.

In the EBO Act, which has been discussed in the debate before us here today, changes have been made regarding, for example, the daily allowance.

And rules regarding occupancy, that is, legally determining how many people can live in a dwelling, have also been enabled through previous legislative changes. The mattress apartments, the shadow society, and the overcrowding are thus removed with the new government's and the Sverigedemokraternas new legislation.

Mr. Speaker! What we present in our follow-up motion - and in the proposal for an announcement - when it comes to priority, which is needed in Sweden today, is that it should primarily be at the individual level. Priority should be able to be given, for example, for administrative reasons, in the event of a serious threat against a tenant, for medical reasons, to some extent for business reasons, in cases of divorce involving children, and to crime victims. This needs to be declared more clearly in the legislation, so that priority in the housing queue is not given all too broadly. We must respect that we have housing queues, and these need to be as straight as possible based on time in the queue.

Mainly, we see that a major deficiency in today's opportunities for priority in the housing queue stems from the fact that the municipalities provide temporary contracts and first-hand contracts to the newly arrived migrants who come to Sweden. This has resulted in that we today have a system where people who come to Sweden are not only given an opportunity for a home immediately when they arrive here but also get to keep it after the establishment period. It is not reasonable to have such a system. It is also what the Sverigedemokraterna are pressing for in the motion and in the proposal for the announcement.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Roger Hedlund for the speech. I must take the floor to make some clarifications.

In the government's bill and in the report that Roger Hedlund stands behind, it is emphasized that the municipalities' responsibility remains according to the Settlement Act, that is, the assignment act for newcomers. It states explicitly in the bill. It is also the Social Democratic line, Mr. Speaker. The question is: Does Roger Hedlund know this? Large parts of Member Hedlund's speech went completely against what the government is now placing on the Riksdag's table.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to develop another issue. Sweden has a very serious problem with housing segregation. It concerns what Boverket reports based on what the Delegation against Segregation previously produced; now it is Boverket that produces hard data on housing segregation in Sweden. The alarming housing segregation means that low-income earners, persons with low education, and persons with weak ties to the labor market tend to live in the same areas rather than in mixed areas. The investigations that form the basis for the proposition now submitted have, among other things, dealt with providing political proposals to address this, improve the situation, and reduce segregation in Swedish society.

Mr. Speaker! Then I want to ask Roger Hedlund: What housing policy proposals have the Sverigedemokraterna put forward to reduce segregation? And why is the only sharp proposal, namely that of municipal rent guarantees, being rejected? That proposal was taken all the way to a memorandum from the department but disappeared from the government bill.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Markus Kallifatides for his reply, which gives me the opportunity to further clarify something that I thought I clarified very pedagogically already in my main speech.

The Settlement Act, that is, the Settlement Act, is not regulated in the Committee on Civil Affairs. It is not here that we handle those proposals. I do not submit a motion on a government bill in the Committee on Civil Affairs when it concerns another committee. I have been very clear about that discussion.

I also thought I was clear in my main speech that the assignment law has a very flawed basis in that one provides a fast track. Above all, the assignment law becomes very flawed when one has a migration policy such as the Social Democrats designed during their period in government. The fundamental problem is that an extremely large number of newly arrived migrants are arriving at the same time as there are no housing units.

What I am talking about here is that when the establishment period has expired, one should not be able to continue to keep a housing unit and a first-hand contract; this implies a priority in the housing queue, which is not reasonable. That is what we are debating here today, and that is what the Sverigedemokraterna are submitting a follow-up motion on. We want a change of the current legislation, which enables one to keep their apartment after the establishment period, which means that one goes ahead in the housing queue.

But again: That we have this situation with a large segregation, as Markus Kallifatides expresses it in the debate here today, is primarily, Mr. Speaker, due to the Social Democrats' migration policy. The question that should first be asked is: Why did one have a migration policy that created the situation that we have in Sweden today and that the Tidö government today has to deal with?

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Roger Hedlund for the non-answers to my questions. He did not say a single word about what the Sverigedemokraterna are putting on the table in terms of sharp proposals to reduce residential segregation in Sweden.

More than halfway through a parliamentary term where one is the largest party in the government coalition, which governs and holds a majority in the chamber of the Riksdag, as is often emphasized, one clarifies that one intends to significantly exacerbate structural homelessness in Sweden by possibly depriving newcomers of the opportunity to have a permanent residence in this country. It concerns groups for whom it is important to be able to use instruments such as reservations and priority. Reservations, Roger Hedlund, mean that one still distributes according to a queue. This is something that, for example, is done in Stockholm for young people, who naturally cannot have accumulated as much waiting time as, for example, retirees. This also applies, of course, to newcomers.

Mr. Speaker! In our proposal for an announcement, which Roger Hedlund has joined, we emphasize that the legitimacy of municipal housing placement is dependent on a significant proportion of the apartments also being distributed based on waiting time in the future, and that priority shall be used for persons and households with social, economic, or medical needs. It shall, for example, not be business priorities, which today are the most commonly occurring according to the surveys and so on that Roger Hedlund refers to.

We Social Democrats, Mr. Speaker, want to see a national action plan for the housing supply, a well-thought-out whole for Sweden. I await Roger Hedlund's answer to my questions, Mr. Speaker.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There are a number of things to propose regarding how we should solve matters. We have talked about this for many years. Competition-creating measures, I would say, are the most important to provide housing that people can afford to demand and thereby create moving chains. It is something that the Social Democrats never looked at at all during their period in government. Furthermore, I want to mention starter loan opportunities, a review of the amortization requirement, and rent-to-buy models that enable vulnerable groups to enter the market for owned housing. Then there are a number of other proposals, such as planning incentives and the conversion of premises into housing to provide more housing on the housing market.

But primarily, Mr. Speaker, is a strict migration policy the best prerequisite to once again achieve a balance on the housing market, so that people are given the opportunity to have a home. Had the Social Democratic government been allowed to continue, the housing shortage would have been built up. In what way, Mr. Speaker, would that lead to reduced segregation and to vulnerable persons on the housing market getting a home? I do not understand that. I would like to receive that answer now, Mr. Speaker, from Markus Kallifatides in his final reply. How did the Social Democrats reason? Do you take responsibility for the situation on the housing market? How can it even be the case that you are not ashamed of having created the situations we see on the housing market today, but instead try to turn the question to how the Sweden Democrats should now solve the problems that you have created in Sweden?

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: This was unfortunately the final remark. Markus Kallifatides is not entitled to further remarks.)

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I did not intend to take the floor. But I was a bit surprised. The bill that we are discussing today is something I have been waiting for for quite some time: that the Tidö parties should come forward with some measures to strengthen the housing policy.

When Roger Hedlund gives the opening speech for the Tidö parties, he places a great focus on the fact that it is about immigration policy. The housing policy that is to be introduced should be about strict immigration, which is not handled in this matter, and that repatriation should be one of the solutions, instead of introducing new different measures to strengthen the housing supply in Sweden. That surprises me quite a bit.

The matter is titled Measures for a better housing supply. I would like to have a clarification, if we are to stick to the matter. Which measures in the rather thin bill being presented does Roger Hedlund consider to be the most important measures in the bill that SD has backed to strengthen the housing supply in Sweden?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that one can have tunnel vision when discussing matters and really only stick to the exact formulations found in the bill. But I do not believe that it will result in any good debate in the end.

What the Sweden Democrats highlight is our supplementary motion, which also becomes an announcement. There we explain why we step away from the purpose of the bill in its current form. Otherwise, we have great common ground in supporting the bill's starting points.

That is why I naturally place the focus there. It is about the opportunities for priority that are currently given to people with a foreign background. It is clear that we choose to highlight just that point in the bill.

It is caused by a migration policy that has failed and which has seen us end up where we are today. With a sound migration policy, we might perhaps never even have needed to discuss this form of pre-payments.

Mr. Speaker! To get a complete picture, one must take into account why we are where we are today. What preliminary reports have been submitted, and why do we want to change the legislation today? That is why we are also discussing migration policy beyond the three proposals contained in the bill.

In other respects, we support the changes that I included in my speech. It is about municipal guidelines for housing supply being replaced with an action plan and that the municipalities shall take each other into account in the coordination of the planning of housing.

It is good conditions for a planning to look at housing policy in the long term. Housing policy is nothing that one can regulate in a short time. It is things and matters that take a long time. Therefore, the proposals are very good for the long-term planning.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Even in these days, I am actually immensely surprised by the direction. We stand today in a situation where very many people have difficulty finding an apartment that suits them.

I believe that this issue is still about how to get more people to obtain a permanent home where they can find a home and can build a life. I think that the Sweden Democrats completely abandon the subject of how to achieve a better housing supply.

There is one thing that I wonder a bit about in the matter. The matter is based on several larger reports and investigations with very many proposals. Many of those investigations nevertheless point out that one needs to have a combination of state and municipality in cooperation to increase the housing supply. That is what it is mostly about.

In the proposition, one has actually removed the state's role in this and points out that it is the municipalities that are to do all of this. In another debate that I had in the matter with another Sverigedemokrat, Mikael Eskilandersson, Mikael Eskilandersson pointed out that the Sverigedemokraterna think it is the municipalities that should manage this themselves.

I wonder a bit how you in the Sweden Democrats stand. Do you think that the entire responsibility for the Swedish housing supply should lie with the municipalities, or should the state also take a responsibility?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a shared responsibility to arrange planning and provision of housing for all citizens. Neither the state nor the municipality can be fully responsible for it independently, but it runs in a red thread from top to bottom. It is quite obvious, isn't it?

Mr. Speaker! I don't really know what answer is expected when one asks that question. The Riksdag is legislative, and the municipalities are executive. That combination is quite clear.

From our side, we create the conditions through legislation so that the municipalities can execute the enabling of producing housing. It is part of the bill that we have before us and are debating here today. It is about creating the conditions for the municipalities to do so.

But it is also about being able to set requirements through the action plan so that the municipalities should coordinate with each other to a greater extent, but also plan for the housing supply within themselves.

As I mentioned earlier, housing planning is something that is primarily done over a long planning period. In that regard, this bill is a good example of how one enables planning over time so that housing can be available.

Mr. Speaker! It becomes very difficult to plan for the housing supply, however, when one has had a government in which both the Social Democrats and the Green Party have sat and which has seen to it to break down the entire housing market and long-term planning by accepting so many newly arrived migrants during a very short period.

Everyone except obviously the old government understands that you cannot handle housing policy in that way. It is not possible to arrange for housing in such a short time. Therefore, housing construction needs to harmonize with migration policy. It does so today with the Sweden Democrats' migration policy.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating CU6 Measures for a better housing supply.

Mr. Speaker! I think this is an excellent opportunity to update the Swedish people on the catastrophic housing crisis that we find ourselves in today and the enormous failure of the incompetent right-wing government that we have in Sweden today.

We face one of our time's greatest and most acute societal challenges: the housing issue. It is an issue that affects us all, from young people who are just stepping into adulthood to families with children seeking stability and elderly people who want to live securely. A home of one's own is not just a fundamental right. It is a prerequisite for a dignified life.

But today we see how more and more people are being pushed out of the housing market. The reasons are clear: a society that has become increasingly unequal and a housing policy that for decades has let the market rule without regard for people's needs. As usual, it is society's most vulnerable inhabitants who pay the price for the injustices.

Mr. Speaker! What kind of society have we become in Sweden today? It is a society where single mothers working in healthcare for low wages are forced to choose between paying the rent or going to the dentist. It is a society where nearly half of the tenants spend more than 40 percent of their income on having a roof over their heads, and where there is no money left for life-saving medicines, glasses, or doctor visits. How can we accept this?

The tenants, who already bear a large part of the burden of the housing crisis, have become Sweden's forgotten. The state pours out money in interest subsidies and rot-subsidies to those who own their homes. Around 70 billion kronor is estimated to cost in subsidies this year. At the same time, the tenants get absolutely nothing, not a single krona in support. No hand is extended when the rents continue to spiral.

Since the mid-80s, rents have doubled compared to the consumer price index – twice as fast as the costs for other goods and services. Still, rents have risen by a full 15 percent over the last three years, even in public housing.

Mr. Speaker! That is the case in a country where tenants already have significantly lower disposable incomes on average than those who own their homes. For many, the rental apartment is the only possibility for housing. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the state views us tenants as second-class citizens. Is this fair? Is it dignity? No, it is a betrayal of epic proportions.

Vänsterpartiet wants the state and municipalities to take their responsibility for the country's three million tenants as well by stopping the skyrocketing cost development.

Mr. Speaker! According to our constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN Convention, housing is a fundamental right. It is a security that should be self-evident in a wealthy country like Sweden. No children should have to be evicted from their homes. No one should have to choose between food and rent. No one should have to live in uncertainty about where they will live next month. But today, this is the reality for thousands of people. Why? Well, because our government has chosen to prioritize profits over people.

The word security has lost its meaning. It is no longer synonymous with good schools for everyone, a well-functioning healthcare system or one's own home. No, security has been reduced to an empty word that only benefits the rich.

For this government, safety means that more innocent people shall be evicted from their homes, as we heard here today. Newcomers shall not have the right to keep their housing. Safety for this government means that healthy houses are demolished because those who live there are not suitable in the eyes of this far-right government. And, yes, for some in this government, safety means that fewer black-haired and racialized people, who, among other things, look like me, shall stay in our country. But we remain. This is our home. We are going nowhere.

This is how security is defined by today's government, and it is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker! The construction of rental housing that ordinary households can afford has plummeted. Why? It is because incompetent and out-of-touch politicians rule this country, but also because this very government chose to phase out the investment support for affordable rental apartments.

At the same time, the number of evictions is reaching alarming levels. During this government's time, evictions have increased by 26 percent. It is a shocking figure which, during the first half of 2024, meant that 342 children lost their homes - 342 children, Mr. Speaker! It was 342 children who woke up one day without a roof over their heads. It was 342 children who had their security shattered. It is 342 children who are paying the price for a government that does not care.

Mr. Speaker! 342 children are 342 children too many. Remember that figure!

When a child is evicted, it is almost always because of rent debts. The family simply does not have money for the rent. The Enforcement Authority's statistics for 2024 show a sharp increase in debts across the entire country. The debt mountain amounts to almost 130 billion kronor. The number of people in debt is greater than the entire population of Malmö city - my municipality.

Still, the government chooses to continue presenting proposals aimed at selling off even more cheap rental apartments. Everyone should own - we have heard that every year since the government took power. But people cannot afford it. There is no money, not even for the rent, let alone to buy a home.

The government is selling off the cheap rental apartments and then tries to hide its passivity and incompetence by talking about priority in the housing queues. But let us be clear: priority does not build houses. I repeat: priority does not build houses. Priority is not even a bandage on the wound.

In the ongoing housing policy catastrophe, municipal housing agencies admittedly have an important role to play, but they cannot bear the responsibility for leveling the enormous class differences and injustices that characterize today's Sweden. Their task is to mediate housing - period - not to compensate for a housing system that is failing in its entirety.

Vänsterpartiet proposes that the Riksdag should reject the government's proposal to amend Section 8 of the Housing Supply Act. The proposal to increase the number of preliminary offers and reservations in the municipal housing agencies risks only to undermine confidence in the agencies without, for that reason, solving any problems whatsoever on the housing market.

Let me repeat: The main problem is that there are not enough housing units with reasonable rents. The government cannot continue to sell off the few cheap rental apartments that remain and then claim that priority in municipal queues will solve the housing shortage. Municipal housing agencies simply do not build any new housing. And again: Priority does not build housing.

Mr. Speaker! If we truly want to tackle the housing supply problem, we need to have fair mediation principles combined with concrete measures to meet the housing shortage. The challenges are many. They are great, and they are difficult.

Current policy and the proposals presented here today are not sufficient to achieve the goal of a functioning housing supply for everyone. We need reforms that can truly change the situation, reforms that reduce evictions and homelessness, and reforms that give low-income earners an opportunity to enter the housing market.

We need a new unified housing supply law, where the state and the municipality share the responsibility. We need a national action plan for housing supply that is updated every parliamentary term. We need strengthened rental guarantees and stricter rules for landlords. And we need new economic incentives to get more rental apartments with reasonable rents built.

Mr. Speaker! In the report Lower the threshold to a good home, a new unified housing supply act is proposed where the state and the municipality share the responsibility. It is a reform that we in Vänsterpartiet support. Such a law would improve the conditions for action-oriented and goal-focused work within housing supply.

Vänsterpartiet also wants the government to produce a national action plan for the housing supply once per parliamentary term. The plan shall state the needs in the housing market, the policy objectives, and which measures shall be taken to meet the needs.

We want to see strengthened rental guarantees and give low-income households and vulnerable families with children the right to demand a rental guarantee under certain conditions, as proposed in the report Lower the threshold to a good housing. And we want the rules to be tightened for landlords, so that they can no longer set unreasonable demands on prospective tenants.

Mr. Speaker! There must also be municipal or regional housing agencies across the country, agencies that are given the opportunity to collect even some of the private landlords' housing, which is then distributed based on waiting time.

Finally, we want to see new economic incentives to ensure that more rental apartments with reasonable rents are built.

These are measures that could make a real difference when it comes to achieving a better housing supply.

Mr. Speaker! It is time to speak out. It is time for change. Sweden needs a new housing policy, a policy that puts people's needs first. It is unacceptable that tenants are left in the cold while billions are pumped into subsidies for those who are already economically privileged. It is not reasonable.

A society is not measured by how well the richest are doing. A society is measured by how we treat those who have the least. Sweden can do better. Sweden must do better.

Mr. Speaker! It is time to turn the tables and give tenants and low-income earners both respect and rights. Housing is not a luxury, but a human right. Unfortunately, I harbor no hope that this government will do anything at all for those who are not rich. There is nothing to indicate that it will do anything for those who are struggling to survive.

Instead, I choose to believe in the Swedish people. I hope that they see the seriousness of the situation and vote out today's right-wing conservative government as soon as the opportunity arises, because a government that does not take the housing issue seriously does not take Sweden seriously either.

I vote in favor of reservation 7.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden was long ago known throughout the world for its social housing policy, a policy where housing policy was one of the four supporting elements of the Swedish social democratic general welfare. Alongside jointly financed welfare services, income security through social insurance, and full employment through the model of collective agreements and active labor market policies, a social housing policy was established from the 1930s onwards that ensured that people, around the time I was born in the early 1970s, actually lived in a country where a young person could choose between owned, rented, and cooperative housing in the location where they needed a home.

We are not there now – not at all. We have structural and acute homelessness, an EU-average high degree of overcrowding, and a housing market with very high prices for both owned and rented housing, something that shapes our now very interest-sensitive economy. Housing construction is now far too low, and the problems are accumulating.

Madam Speaker! In the government bill Measures for a better housing supply, the government proposes that it should be clarified that a municipal housing agency may reserve apartments for applicants in the queue or use a priority system without it affecting the possibilities to collect a queue fee.

Reservations and pre-orders are already possible and are used de facto within municipal housing brokerage, which is clearly evident from general experience and the underlying government investigation. We Social Democrats welcome the fact that this is further clarified in the now proposed update of the legislation. We do, however, want to see significantly clearer delimitations of how these tools may be used in municipal housing brokerage and therefore stand today behind an announcement that the government shall return to the Riksdag with just such clarifications.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal under point 6.

Madam Speaker! In line with what the government itself states in the bill, the proposals presented today are in practice of extremely limited significance for the housing supply in Sweden. I quote from the bill: "The purpose of the government's proposal is to clarify that there is room to allocate apartments in a municipal housing queue with a greater element of mediation based on need. Whether the proposal will entail a real change depends on how the municipal housing agencies will utilize this expanded room. This, in turn, is associated with the municipality's and the housing agency's ability to offer service and the property owners' interest in participating in such service."

One might imagine, Madam Speaker, that a bill with the heading Measures for better housing provision would contain just such measures. But that is not the case.

The government and the Sweden Democrats do not, in fact, want to improve the housing supply in the country. They want to lower taxes for high-income earners, stimulate already record-high and tax-advantaged savings, increase greenhouse gas emissions by promising cheap diesel and gasoline to everyone and everything, and build new nuclear power for all of our money. Housing may well be added, through both new production and conversion of premises into housing, but it is in all respects up to the autonomous enclaves in the country called municipalities and to the market.

I want to give an example, Madam Speaker. In my home county, Stockholm County, there are over 120,000 households that are overcrowded and who cannot obtain an adequate home, according to Region Stockholm. Unless homeowners with grown-up children in a number of the county's municipalities simply swap places with overcrowded families with children, there is a very great need to create more housing of the right size to meet the needs.

New housing needs to be built, and it needs to be converted on a large scale to meet the very large needs among overcrowded families with children, young people who wish to move out from home, job seekers, and those particularly affected such as the homeless and those fleeing domestic violence in a close relationship, this in a housing market where temporary and insecure forms of housing in the second, third, and fourth hand are very widespread.

With these starting points, Madam Speaker, we Social Democrats have proposed a very long series of measures based on already completed government inquiries.

We have proposed that a national action plan for housing supply should be developed at the beginning of each parliamentary term. We have proposed that such a plan should be translated into municipal action plans. We have proposed that a parliamentary committee for housing supply should be appointed for a broad review also of, for example, taxes, VAT rules, competition in the construction sector both in production and in the supply chain, land and planning issues, but also possibly how the social services' role in housing supply should be best designed.

We therefore propose that one should carry out what Karolina Skogs housing social investigation proposed as the natural continuation of the work for an effective social housing policy.

We have proposed that municipal housing should not be subject to the cost-driving law on public procurement as long as it is operated on business principles. We welcome the promotion of building communities and support for organizations that promote the cause-driven housing construction that actually exists all around our country. We have also proposed building incentives for student housing and housing in locations with industrial expansion, as well as favorable state building credits. Magdalena Andersson has also recently spoken about reintroducing investment support for the construction of rental apartments with lower rent levels. We Social Democrats say it as it is and are prepared to do what is required!

Many of these proposals were, therefore, found in the housing social investigation that the previous S-led government commissioned and which presented the final report "Lower the threshold to a good home". The Tidö gang rejects practically everything, Madam Speaker.

One of the sharp proposals in Karolina Skog's investigation was that municipalities should, under certain circumstances, be obliged to, with state support to the municipality, provide municipal rental guarantees for housing-seeking families with children. That proposal was actually taken a step further by the current government, and a memorandum from the department has been out for consultation. But the proposal on rental guarantees is therefore not included in the bill that the government has now laid on the table of the Riksdag.

We Social Democrats believe that the proposals contained in the memorandum should be implemented, and therefore I move for approval of reservation 5.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, the government's proposal means that when a municipality takes measures for the housing supply, the municipality shall take into account the need for coordination with other municipalities. In addition, it shall be clarified that a municipality shall take into account the need for coordination in its planning of the housing supply.

Among the referral bodies, Hyresgästföreningen, Malmö universitet, the county administrative boards in Uppsala and Örebro län, and Malmö kommun can be mentioned, all of which consider that the proposal risks becoming ineffective and that the regulation is too vague. And that is it, Madam Speaker. There is no follow-up and no sanctions. "Coffee and buns" I believe it is usually called when one deals with law violations and lawbreakers in that manner. "Oh, you haven't built a single rental apartment with a reasonable rent level since the 1970s in your municipality? Well, then there will be coffee at the county administrative board so that we can talk about this."

The Government further proposes that the Act on Guidelines for Municipal Land Allocations shall be supplemented with a provision stating that the guidelines for land allocations shall specify how land allocations are used to follow the municipality's action plan for housing supply. Hyresgästföreningen, along with several referral bodies, lacks in that context a reasoning on how municipal land ownership is to be ensured at all.

Referral bodies emphasize that more tools are needed to ensure access to land at all and to provide opportunities to contribute to the housing supply goals that are set. This could, for example, be achieved by reintroducing municipal right of first refusal, but the government states instead that the right of first refusal should only be used in particularly justified situations. Among these are not shortages of adequate housing. It is the same thing again – "saft-och-bulle" politics from the Tidö government on the housing issue.

Madam Speaker! The message to the inhabitants of Sweden is clear and distinct. The Tidö government does not want to invest any money in measures for better housing provision. They do not want to challenge the self-interests of individual property owners, and therefore, there will be no better housing provision either. We get what the municipal planning monopoly and the market deliver together, which means a large shortage of good housing with affordable rent, especially for people with lower incomes or special needs. This applies not least in our country's dynamic growth regions.

The Sweden Democrats and the government also recently took the opportunity to lower the housing allowance again. Housing allowance is an increasingly poorly functioning measure for better housing provision that is practically on its way to being phased out, unless a major upgrade takes place.

In the spirit of dialogue, one should ask the colleagues in the Civil Affairs Committee why they are doing this. But I actually think I already know the answer: Because they represent those who already have it really good and live really well. To paraphrase Jimmie Åkesson, that is what SD and the government have managed to do together – that is, to represent those who already have it really good and live really well. It is classic right-wing politics. Sweden could be much better than this.

(Applause)

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Markus Kallifatides, for a good speech!

If I had been mean, which I am not, I could have said that the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats are joining forces to destroy the right to priority. But both I and Markus Kallifatides know that is not true. One has arrived at the same conclusion even though one has distinctly different perspectives.

The Sweden Democrats' perspective is that everything related to immigration should be struck down. The Social Democrats' perspective is what the member should be given the opportunity to account for, because the result is that when the government is to handle the so-called announcement, goal conflicts arise that will be interesting to resolve.

I would therefore like to ask Markus Kallifatides how you intend for this to be handled, regardless of whether it is this government that will discard the announcement or if another government is given the honor of handling this Social Democratic experiment of joining forces with the Sverigedemokraterna.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Alireza Akhondi, for the question!

As I see it, we are discussing the Sweden Democrat experiment of aligning with the Social Democratic line, which is expressed in the announcement that we support in the report that the Riksdag has to take a position on today.

As for how we Social Democrats think about this, it is a fairly simple and low-hanging, accessible, fruitful solution to follow Sveriges Allmännyttas line on the issue, that is, to decide that a majority of the allocated apartments shall be allocated according to queue time. There are other conceivable percentages - 40 percent, 70 percent - but it could be handled that way. There are referral responses, lines, and arguments that respond to the announcement in that part.

I can clarify that priority shall be used for people with social, economic and medical needs and not to give, for example, the business sector priority. There are answers from heavy referral bodies that one can take as a starting point when this government – or, which I believe and truly hope is more likely, the next government, where we Social Democrats hold the Prime Minister's post – handles the announcement that looks to be voted through this afternoon.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Markus Kallifatides, for the answer! But in the name of honesty, I am not satisfied with it.

When two distinct perspectives are to be reconciled in an announcement, a very strange situation is created in this case in such a way that you also add income requirements.

We know why the Sweden Democrats want this announcement. They want to attack everything related to immigration. The Sweden Democrat member entered and tiptoed into the area of migration policy with everything from EBO legislation to the assignment law and so on, but I hear from my Social Democratic colleague that there are other reasons for the Social Democratic position.

Somewhere, the result is still that a government - regardless of whether it is this one or the next - will in some way have to handle this announcement. Besides the fact that it is substantively wrong to attack local self-government and the municipalities' possibilities to, based on their unique circumstances, set up a queue and priority system for the benefit of the individual, a conflict of objectives is created in what the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats de facto propose.

The debate is not over yet. There are still opportunities for the Social Democrats to back down. Both I and the member know that this will not work out.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Akhondi, for the follow-up!

What is being announced, if it goes that way when we vote this afternoon, is that the government shall return with how the instruments of reservations and priority shall be used within the framework of municipal housing brokerage. It will then be up to the government to handle this based on whatever basis they wish.

I have pointed out some ways to proceed in order to follow the announcement, as it stands, for this or any other government. Then each party can take a position on what that government proposes in the form of measures in connection with an announcement. That is how it works, isn't it?

I can assure Member Alireza Akhondi that I am very aware that Roger Hedlund's and the Sverigedemokraternas perspective is that it is immigration that is the problem's problem. This has emerged from this debate. It does not matter what it is about. Even in a bill debate regarding a proposition, one would rather talk about everything that should not be solved with one's own policy than about the shortcomings in the measures, or non-measures, that are placed on the Riksdag's table.

I believe that Alireza Akhondi from Centerpartiet and I share the view in long passages that there are not many effective measures here that lead to a better social housing policy. And as long as the Sverigedemokraterna are in charge with Sweden's government, we will also not get any such policy.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was a bit unfortunate in my previous exchange with Markus Kallifatides. I asked a question when a reply was not possible. Therefore, I am asking the question again in this exchange.

Markus Kallifatides mentioned in his speech that there is structural homelessness, high housing prices, families who demand larger apartments but have difficulty obtaining them, and young people who have to stay at home because there is a housing shortage in Sweden. Those who are most vulnerable are now even more vulnerable.

Madam Speaker! It is impossible to escape the fact that the whole thing was prompted by the Social Democratic migration policy. A large proportion of newcomers have had a need for housing, and they have been given priority in the housing queue. Consequently, we have had a severe housing shortage in Sweden. The question is how the Social Democrats and the members of Parliament intended to act when they implemented their migration policy with knowledge—I hope—that when the migration curve increases, housing construction does not keep up. What problem-solving did they have? They must have had a thought about how they would solve the housing shortage that arose?

Now, in hindsight, people are saying that it is the government that is responsible for the situation. Of course, we are responsible for today's situation, but the cause of the situation is the Social Democrats. Therefore, I ask the question: How do they intend to solve this? The Social Democrats' policy means that one hits hard against those who are already vulnerable due to the housing shortage in Sweden. It is these who are affected by the Social Democrats' migration policy.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Roger Hedlund for the opportunity to answer the questions that remained hanging in the air during the previous exchange of remarks.

It has almost been ten years since Magdalena Andersson and other leading Social Democrats changed Swedish migration policy. In a party leadership debate recently, my party leader in this rostrum displayed a graph to try to explain to Roger Hedlund's party leader when the Swedish migration policy was changed. This was done from the standpoint that an all-too-large flow to Sweden during the same period became overwhelming. This was the argumentation in 2015-2016. We as a party stand by that view.

The lack of adequate housing in Sweden in the near term was laid, not least, during the Alliance government. Large parts of the integration problems that have been allowed to become large were also laid during the Alliance government. I particularly want to point out Ulf Kristersson's actions as social welfare councillor in Stockholm when it occurred.

Roger Hedlund's party is now cooperating here in the Riksdag and around the government power with exactly those parties that governed the migration policy that applied during the 2010s, for example 2015, 2016 and 2017. This applied to both asylum and labor migration. They also governed over large parts of the deficient housing policy, including social housing policy.

Roger Hedlund nevertheless admitted that the government is responsible for the situation now. It is very good that it is said. Thus, my questions remain. Which of the measures proposed here today will contribute to a better situation? What are the Sverigedemokraterna doing to achieve a better housing supply?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! The so-called reorganization that Markus Kallifatides mentions took place a number of years ago. I cannot say that the situation on the Swedish housing market looks any better following that reorganization; rather, it has continued to deteriorate even afterwards. Obviously, not all the policy that the Social Democrats put forward in this area creates better, but rather worse, conditions on the housing market. The housing shortage has been built up during every year that the Social Democrats have governed.

Housing policy is something that needs to be solved in the long term, not in the short term. If one opens up the country to an extremely large migration, one also creates an extremely large housing shortage.

I assume that we will also in the future have to live with the fact that the Social Democrats' policy can always be presented with the words "we didn't see it coming" when things go south.

Now we solve the housing problem, the main cause of which was resolved through reduced migration, with a long-term perspective on the housing market and by creating conditions for increased competition so that we can bring down housing prices and get more people demanding what is being built. But I must also pose a question to the Social Democrats: Why should migrants be allowed to go first in the housing queue even after the cessation of the Settlement Act?

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Roger Hedlund for the questions.

For me, the Sweden Democrat and Roger Hedlund perspective on politics is stuck. It is as if the clock has been turned back. People talk about things that happened 10, 20, and 25 years ago, even though they are the largest party in the government support and hold the legislative, budget-approving, and prime minister-appointing power in Sweden's democracy. They are more than halfway through the mandate period and submit propositions to the Riksdag based on large government inquiries with long series of proposals to achieve a better functioning social housing policy in Sweden, but almost not a single one of the proposals remains.

Not even the only sharp proposal that also came as a memorandum remained, that is to say, the proposal on municipal rent guarantees, with state support, for families with children under certain conditions. It would have made it possible for families with children with lower incomes to demand adequate housing in different areas. In that way, it could have functioned as a mechanism to begin breaking the housing segregation that is an entirely overwhelming reality and which we Social Democrats have committed ourselves to combating. But for that, something more than words is required; reforms are required. Today, we receive no such things.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government is pursuing an offensive policy for a better-functioning housing market. We are easing the regulatory burden for new construction and renovation, shortening lead times in construction processes, and working to create more buildable land.

But the government's policy is also about obtaining better-functioning regulatory frameworks and legislation regarding how the housing market functions. The main problem, Madam Speaker, is namely that for several decades we have not had a functioning housing market in this country, with housing shortages, low housing construction, and lock-in effects as a result.

In 2024, 148 out of 290 municipalities in Boverket's housing market survey responded that there is a housing shortage in their municipality. This is admittedly 59 fewer municipalities than before the sitting government took office, but still over half of Sweden's municipalities. Furthermore, the housing shortage occurs by definition primarily in large cities and in growth areas – i.e., where people want to live.

The consequences of the Swedish housing shortage are enormous. At the macro level, it affects society through reduced growth, increased segregation, and increased social costs – something that, among others, the Productivity Commission has pointed out. At the micro level, it is about individual people who cannot move to where the dream job or the dream education is, who cannot start a family, or who are forced to live under insecure housing conditions. Those with the fewest resources, such as young people or single parents, are the hardest hit.

Madam Speaker! A little over a year ago, I had the opportunity, together with Katarina Luhr from Miljöpartiet, to arrange a seminar here in the Riksdag, where Sveriges Stadsmissioners homelessness report was presented.

In the report, one could read, among other things, about Sara. Sara had contacted Stadsmissionen when she was pregnant with her third child. She and her two children were then living with a friend, an arrangement that would soon need to end. Sara was single. She had several jobs and combined them to the equivalent of a full-time position. She was in queues on various housing sites and also actively sought housing on, among other places, Facebook and Blocket, but without result. When the homelessness report was written, the family moved between different temporary accommodations, which created stress and insecurity for both Sara and the children.

Madam Speaker! The name Sara is fictitious, but the case is real. And unfortunately, the case is not particularly unique. Sara and her family are a typical example of how people end up in a bad situation because Sweden does not have a functioning housing market and of how even people with their own means of support, their own income, have difficulty getting out of homelessness.

Madam Speaker! The homelessness report also contained a number of proposals on how the situation could be improved – proposals for a better-functioning housing market, where homelessness decreases and families like Sara's get more stable housing conditions. We will make decisions on some of those proposals here today.

Simplified, it can be said that this bill concerns two things. Firstly, it concerns the fact that the municipalities receive a clearer mandate to actively plan for the housing supply in the locality. Current municipal guidelines for housing supply are replaced by an action plan. The plan shall include measures to handle different needs, for example, new establishments in the municipality or interventions to reduce homelessness. The action plan shall be adopted by the municipal council every mandate period. Since municipalities are often large landowners, the Act on Guidelines for Municipal Land Allocations is also given an explicit housing supply purpose.

Madam Speaker! Secondly, we are reforming the legislation so that it is clarified that municipal housing agencies may mediate housing that has been reserved based on different needs and offer priority without it affecting the possibility of collecting a queue fee from the applicants. A housing queue obviously does not become shorter depending on how the housing is distributed. At the same time, it can be stated that how much time has passed since someone declared interest in a housing unit does not, in any case, by definition determine who has the greatest need for the housing.

The legislation has already previously allowed for certain exceptions, but the legal situation has been very unclear. Now we are clarifying this, and the municipalities are given increased opportunities to distribute housing in the housing queue on grounds other than time in the queue. This, Madam Speaker, is a proposal that a united Riksdag is prepared to stand behind.

At the same time, paradoxically, there is also a majority in the chamber that wants to announce to the government that it should once again complicate the legislation in this area by introducing new rules for how municipalities may allocate housing in the housing queue. I cannot help but note that it, as we have also heard earlier in the debate, is a rather motley argument being put forward so that the government should once again review the legislation regarding priority in the housing queue. Today we simplify, but we also direct an announcement about making it difficult once again.

The Riksdag is, of course, free to issue motions to the government; it is an important part of Swedish parliamentary democracy. But I, as a member, am also free to question that there is a desire to once again complicate the regulatory framework for the municipalities regarding priority orders. Is this really, Madam Speaker, one of the most prioritized issues for the government to work on on the housing policy front?

Madam Speaker! As I began my speech by stating, the moderately led government is conducting an offensive housing policy. In addition to working on reducing the regulatory burden, shortening lead times, and increasing buildable land, we also want to achieve a more purposeful and functioning regulatory framework – all with the aim of once again obtaining a functioning housing market in Sweden.

Today's decision will not solve all the problems in the housing market. But they will entail a clearer mandate to the municipalities regarding the housing supply and provide expanded opportunities for the municipalities to distribute housing in the housing queues to those who need them most. In short: Today's decision increases the possibility for homeless people like Sara and her children to get an apartment in the municipal housing queue.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I hear a different approach from David Josefsson than the one that previous Tidö parties have expressed. We have talked about homelessness issues together previously.

I still think that the bill we are talking about contains quite few measures compared to how many measures could have been developed given the reports the bill rests on. What I reacted to perhaps most when I received the bill was that the state's role has been completely withdrawn. Very many of the measures in the bill are fundamentally based on the idea that all actors need to take a shared role when it comes to housing supply issues.

They are now introducing, for example, a municipal action plan, which I think is good. But in the report, it was very strongly linked to a national action plan, where the government would take greater responsibility for housing supply issues and the municipalities would be the implementers.

My question to David Josefsson is whether he does not consider that the state should have a role when it comes to acting for a better housing supply. Is it perhaps being considered to submit an additional proposition in the future, where the state's role is linked, or is this what we will see in the housing supply area during this mandate period?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the question!

I do not know if I share the member's view that it is only the municipalities that are responsible for the housing supply. I think that the state takes a very large responsibility. A basis in housing policy in Sweden is that there is a municipal self-government - the municipality is responsible for its land or its area - but also a regulatory framework at the state level.

Then the question is: Should there also be a government action plan or not? I think the most important thing now is that we, in this bill, clarify the municipal mandate: to move from guidelines to an action plan.

I would say that the most important mission for the state, which the Moderate-led government is working on, is to establish a functioning regulatory framework so that there are no obstacles for the municipality regarding, for example, land use. There are many municipalities that say they would very much like to build more housing, but that there is a shoreline protection, national interests, or other rules that prevent them from building.

Then the state's task, as I see it, is primarily to create the conditions for the municipality to take its responsibility. But it is the municipality that has the primary responsibility for the housing supply. As a Moderate, I believe in local self-government. I do not believe that there should be an overcoat in the state that decides over the municipalities' heads. On the other hand, the state shall clarify the municipality's mandate and give the municipality the conditions to fulfill the mandate.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! All of us who have worked in municipalities can see that it is considerably simpler when the municipality's mandate and the state's mandate go in sync, so that they can help each other in various issues. I really want to emphasize this. I do not think anyone wants the state to be an overcoat, but the state needs to help out when the municipalities have it tough.

These are difficult questions to work with. The responsibility for housing provision needs to be much broader than what is included in the bill.

I would like to jump to the other major question in this. When the proposition itself was presented, it was the new proposal with mandatory rental guarantees for families with children that was the large, overarching question. It was the question that was presented first. Then it disappeared completely without a trace. I just want to ask: What is the Moderate Party's position on these rental guarantees? We have received the answer that this is still being prepared in the Government Offices. Is this something that the Moderate Party wants to see or not?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the question! I can only agree. I have also worked in municipal politics. I was a political secretary in the City Hall in Gothenburg and worked specifically with urban planning issues. What we experienced the most frustration around was precisely what I described: We want to build housing, but the state says no for various reasons because there is a shore protection zone, national interests, or a county administrative board that perhaps is not always perceived as the helping hand.

From my perspective, I mean that the state's task, above all, is to remove the obstacles and enable the municipalities to conduct an active urban development policy.

Let me answer the second question. The boring answer is precisely that the question is being prepared in the Government Offices. We are absolutely not closing any doors on that question. It has even been included in the memorandum. It is absolutely not off the table.

At the same time, I can state that the major problem is usually not the ability to pay rent, but rather getting access to a home at all. As I described in the case of Sara: There is an income and a possibility to pay. A municipal rent guarantee would not help. On the other hand, it would help if she actually got the opportunity to rent a home.

We must also be careful not to create parallel systems. We have housing allowances. We have a social service that has the possibility to provide subsistence support. Should we then also have an obligation for municipalities to issue rent guarantees that are to be state-funded?

We must be careful when we implement the legislation. I believe that the bill now being presented will involve important steps that will help. Then we are always open to trying additional things, but these are important and good steps to achieve better municipal housing provision.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I sincerely hope that Sara is not watching this debate, because if I were Sara, I would have been deeply disappointed.

The bill that we are debating today is called Measures for a better housing supply. Quite honestly, I do not find a single proposal in it that actually provides a better housing supply for people such as Sara. I am concerned to the extent that two and a half years of the parliamentary term have passed—two and a half years in which fine words have been spoken in this chamber, but we are still waiting for concrete proposals to actually ensure that the supply of housing is increased.

We have spoken about quite a lot in this speaker's chair. My Sverigedemokratiske colleague spoke about the latent need for housing - the number is approximately 170,000. It is a figure that increases every year. It is a figure that several governments of different colors are responsible for. This government, however, stands out in that regard in that, in two and a half years, they have not presented a single proposal to solve the problem.

Of course, it is great that we are changing the names from municipal guidelines to municipal action plans. But what does it solve if we do not ensure that we have an offering that solves the housing market's fundamental problems?

But let me change feet a little bit. I want to move for approval of reservation 9.

We in the Center Party want to push for it to be time to come forward with concrete proposals on how to tackle these important issues. We know that this is primarily a phenomenon in large cities and growth centers. No one here can say with 100 percent certainty how great the need is. We have a housing queue, and to get a home in Stockholm's inner city, one must stand in queue for approximately 30 years. Does that mean one has not had a home for 30 years? It falls on its own absurdity that those who have stood in the housing queue for 20-25 years would be those who have the greatest need for housing here and now.

My Sverigedemokratiska colleague spoke about the allocation law. He gave the impression that people would get priority. That is not true. Very many Moderate-led municipalities engage in social dumping. During the period when, according to the allocation law, one must offer housing, they actively contact other municipalities – Filipstad, Hofors and other places – to avoid offering housing to the people in question. These are people whose children go to school. They have begun their establishment process, but the municipality dumps the responsibility on other municipalities.

Roger Hedlund, let me take an example from my home municipality Danderyd. Do the members know how they have solved this issue there? Yes, they have built barracks at a gas station by a grove of trees to handle the requirements of the assignment law. Who wants to live at that grove of trees by a gas station, far from communications? To stand here in the speaker's chair and lie would be to show contempt for the voters.

We have also spoken about other things. In a previous exchange of remarks, I raised the so-called announcement.

I would also like to appeal to the Social Democrats from here to reconsider. When two contradictory signals are sent, I am prepared to sign here and now that the result will only be a complication of the regulatory framework, just as David Josefsson touched upon.

Shall we see to it that those people who have the greatest need of getting a home actually get it, let us start at the right end! Let us start by seeing to it that there are homes! It might not be a stupid start to see to it that there actually are homes to apply for.

For the Center Party's part, we do not want to become an overcoat for the municipalities. We know that the municipalities know best what their housing supply responsibility can look like. Sure, it is very good with clarifications in some parts. But this thin document does not have measures anywhere for a better housing supply. To be honest, I don't know what to call it - an action plan for the action plan, perhaps.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Alireza Akhondi from Centerpartiet stands here in the chamber and says that I am lying. But I am only referring to what Boverket writes about housing for newly arrived people in its survey summary, just as I did in my speech.

The summary clearly shows that half of the municipalities provide permanent contracts, i.e., indefinite and first-hand contracts, to newly arrived migrants with reference to the Settlement Act, and that 90 municipalities provide contracts that can transition to indefinite and first-hand contracts after a period of time has passed. A large proportion of the municipalities thus provide permanent contracts to newly arrived migrants, according to Boverket. This is a fact in a survey that comes from the middle of 2024.

The ways in which municipalities provide housing vary, of course. It is also possible under current legislation to carry out the variant the member refers to, with housing at a gas station. That is how it is, but it is probably primarily an exception.

So don't come and say that I am lying in the speaker's chair! One only has to check Boverket's survey regarding this question.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! One can interpret statistics as one reads the Bible. I usually say that statistics are among the hardest things to interpret. One can, in principle, derive arguments for one's position regardless of what. I can read the same document and come up with completely different arguments.

At the same time, we know that this issue of housing shortage is primarily a metropolitan phenomenon. We also know how metropolitan municipalities choose to handle the Settlement Act.

I also want to point out that it is approximately every third of those who receive a residence permit who are covered by the Settlement Act. It is about 30 percent. The rest are referred to solve their own housing situation, so 50 percent of municipalities that perhaps do not have a housing shortage - you do the math!

Madam Speaker! The debate on this committee report is not a debate between me and Roger Hedlund. It is a debate on measures for a better housing supply. Can Roger Hedlund point out a single proposal that actually solves the housing supply for vulnerable groups, which the member argues that this committee report aims to do?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! I ask the question again to Alireza Akhondi. What does the member mean by that I have stood and lied about here in this chamber? What does the member mean by that I have lied about in the statistics from Boverket? I would very much like to have an answer to that. It is one thing to say that one interprets statistics differently, but where am I lying?

My second question, Madam Speaker, is why migrants should be allowed to go first in the housing queue. For what reason should we enable this for foreign citizens? I absolutely cannot understand the purpose behind it - rather, one completely unnecessarily creates conflict in society when priority is given to certain groups with reference to their foreign background.

The last question that came, Madam Speaker, was in what way this bill solves the housing shortage. It is clear that this bill does not solve the housing shortage in its entirety. I do not think anyone expects that either. This is one of several proposals that are to solve the housing shortage and create conditions for both strong and weak groups on the housing market to gain access to housing.

Primarily, long-term perspective is required in housing policy, something that the Center Party can hardly be considered to be contributing to creating the conditions for. It is not long-term to break the housing market with the migration policy that has been pursued all these years. Long-term perspective we create, for example, by creating competition in the housing market so that people have the opportunity to demand what is actually being built.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Roger Hedlund speaks about strong and weak groups in the housing market. My counter-question to the member is then why we have a queue system if it is not the case that there are strong and weak parties in a housing market.

In this report, the Sweden Democrats join the Social Democrats in wanting to review the regulations for waiting times and priority. When one does that, one admits in my world that there are strong and weak groups in the housing market.

The basis for a newly arrived person's establishment in Swedish society is that one has a roof over one's head. One learns the language, gets a job, and contributes constructively to the society of which one is an important part.

The problem arises when Roger Hedlund, in the same breath, starts talking about return migration grants. He is talking about migration policy. That is not the subject of the debate. This debate concerns people who have been granted residence permits according to current legislation, which the Sweden Democrats have now been involved in deciding upon. They have been granted residence permits, and to facilitate their establishment in society, we propose that this should be organized. But the Sweden Democrats refuse to talk about that part. They choose to talk about return migration grants.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Government's goal for housing policy is a long-term and well-functioning housing market where consumers' demand meets a supply of housing that meets the needs. This is intended to be achieved by shortening lead times, building more efficiently, and removing unnecessary red tape that hinders housing construction. The needs of those who are vulnerable on the housing market shall also be met.

I mean that many of the proposals here mean that we put a little more pressure on the municipalities. One must create an action plan - not just a strategy but an action plan - for how to meet the need for housing that exists in the municipality.

There is a priority principle. One can use it a bit more broadly if one wishes, based on the needs that exist in the municipality one is in. This does not mean that one should not provide housing based on waiting time as a principle. This is also stated in the memorandum that exists. One can therefore use it based on the needs that exist in the municipalities.

Why do we do that then? Well, if we set higher requirements on the municipalities to actually meet the need for housing, we must also give them the opportunity to choose the alternative that is best for them themselves. We believe that.

We also solve a problem that there have been discussions about in the municipalities, namely whether one can charge a fee when mediating a housing unit after priority. The answer is yes. That can be done. I mean that it is quite obvious that one should be able to do so, and we clarify that.

From this rostrum, it has been said that this reform does not solve the big problem. No, it does not. It has also been said from this rostrum that this is the wrong type of bill and that there should be some other type of bill instead. Yes, one can always complain, either that there are no bills or that the bills that arrive are wrong. I mean that in the end, one must see it as a whole, and the evaluation can well be made after the parliamentary term.

We also know that there is a list of bills that has been sent out to the various committees. There are also bills that stem more from the fact that one actually must manage the housing supply.

I can however state that many of the parties that have been up here agree that the municipalities should be able to charge a fee when they mediate after priority. We also agree that the majority of the housing should actually be mediated after waiting time and that an action plan is actually better than a strategy.

Then, as has been said, it is that this does not solve any problem. No, but we must also ensure that the national level tries to handle this by also controlling which action plans exist in the municipalities, what measures are taken and what the result becomes. It is also about that the national level does not just place the responsibility on the municipality but also controls. That is what I mean, that one has the possibility to do in this.

I believe that this is something that can be of use. I believe that it can help the municipalities in the housing supply. What we have discussed most is whether we should have limited priority or not. I mean that we are probably actually quite in agreement all together that we should have a limitation, that is to say that the majority shall be distributed according to time in queue.

I also believe that we in the vast majority of parties agree that the distribution should take place based on the needs that exist in the individual municipality. The state should not dictate what gives the right to priority and what does not. Many have experience from municipalities, and I also have experience of a municipality. It can be stated that the need for priority has changed over time. Why one wants priority and what types of people need to have priority changes. This bill makes it possible to actually make such trade-offs in the municipalities.

I believe we have a great need to discuss housing policy with one another. It comes up here. We probably talk more about everything that lies outside of this bill than what is in the bill.

We still believe that we can handle the motions proposed here, but I also see the problems in the motions being proposed because they have different points of entry into the problem itself. But I believe that everyone can still be very happy with the result in the end, i.e., that we put more pressure on the municipalities.

In this speech, David Josefsson (M) agreed.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not exactly news that many have great difficulties getting into the housing market today. The challenges for the housing supply are great. In addition to the stalled construction pace we have seen in recent years, it is clear that the supply on the housing market does not match people's housing needs.

There are major challenges ranging from strained housing economics to insecure housing solutions and homelessness. Certain groups are hit particularly hard by a tough housing market, such as families with children with weak finances or those affected by violence who may quickly need a new home.

Boverket estimated in a 2021 investigation that 56,000 households in Sweden were overcrowded with a strained housing economy and that 44,000 of these households were families with children living at home.

The bill we are debating is named Measures for a better housing supply. Unfortunately, it is a thin collection of measures we see today, despite a glaring need to create opportunities for more people to find a home where they can also create a secure home. This is also extra disappointing as several relatively new inquiries have produced a larger collection of measures that together could actually make a difference for quite many.

To see the government's bill is like looking at a broken puzzle. One can discern a picture and some colors, but one does not directly get a context. Far too many puzzle pieces are missing.

I would therefore like to begin by highlighting the need for a unified housing policy – a policy that aims to create conditions for everyone to live in good housing, and a policy to promote equal upbringing conditions and to counter residential segregation and homelessness. To achieve this, policy is actually needed at all levels.

I support that the current municipal guidelines for housing supply are now replaced by a municipal action plan for housing supply, because action is what is needed. The obvious connection that housing supply is also a national matter is, however, missing in the government's bill.

The state needs to take its share of the responsibility for the national housing supply and not shift all responsibility onto the municipalities. In the report *Lower the threshold to a good home*, which partially forms the basis for the government's proposition, the municipal action plan is closely linked to a national action plan for housing supply to clarify how the state and municipalities shall assist each other with housing supply issues. In the report, it is proposed that the national action plan shall be presented at the beginning of each parliamentary term. We in Miljöpartiet stand behind this.

In the government's bill, instead, all responsibility is placed on the municipality. For me, it is incomprehensible that a national action plan for housing supply has not been carried forward in the bill. That it is justified by the fact that the proposal is still being prepared in the Government Offices seems quite unlikely when the government is now simultaneously proceeding with the requirements for a municipal action plan, but also after I have listened to the earlier debate today. Those of us who want to see a national action plan for housing supply simply have to keep an eye out for a new bill from the government – a bill with measures that hang together.

We also have a hope that in a potential upcoming government bill, we will receive a new unified housing supply law that covers both the state and the municipality. We want to see a law that clarifies the shared responsibility between the state and the municipality for the housing supply. That should include work aimed at goals and measures. We also want to see a common goal for the housing supply, which aims to create conditions for everyone to live in good housing with equal upbringing conditions without any housing segregation or any homelessness.

To take this work further and clarify the shared responsibility, we also want the government to establish a council for a socially sustainable housing supply where the government each year creates a forum for discussions on the measures needed to develop more policy so that more people can gain access to an appropriate home.

Madam Speaker! I mentioned earlier that certain groups are extra important to keep in mind when it comes to securing the possibility of a permanent home. This applies, for example, to families with children and those subject to violence. It is therefore much-needed that a regulation is introduced clarifying that municipal housing agencies may mediate housing that has been reserved based on different needs and offer priority in the housing queue, because certain vulnerable groups can be hit extremely hard by an insecure housing situation. A discussion on what can be done exists in some municipalities.

We also consider it important that the housing queue continues to have waiting time as the main principle and that the main proportion of the housing shall be distributed based on waiting time. It is therefore important that the municipalities adhere to certain predetermined rules when it comes to which cases are treated as priorities.

For many, despite payment possibilities, it is difficult to enter the rental market because the requirements that a landlord sets for their tenant can be very high. Therefore, Miljöpartiet also wanted to see the government take the proposal from SOU 2022:14 further regarding a regulation of the requirements that a landlord may set. We believe there is a great need to set frameworks for the requirements that landlords set for a new tenant when a rental agreement is signed. The requirements need to be reasonable when it comes to, for example, a tenant's ability to pay, so that one does not shut out a large group who would indeed be able to manage to pay the rent that is requested.

Madam Speaker! Last but not least, I would like to once again raise the issue of rental guarantees for families with children. When the government presented the bill that we are discussing today about a year ago, mandatory rental guarantees for families with children were the main focus. The purpose was very laudable, namely to facilitate access to housing for homeless families with children, with the state and the municipality as guarantors that the rent will be paid. But as we have previously discussed, the proposal was slipped away somewhat discreetly, without explanation, even though the money for the municipalities remains in the national budget.

We know that children living in an insecure housing situation are hit particularly hard. One lives in uncertainty, perhaps in temporary housing with relatives and friends. One may need to change schools often and risks losing social connections with friends and extracurricular activities. Investing in secure housing for specifically families with children can therefore be one of the most important housing policy measures we can take. The issue is not primarily about someone else paying the rent, but about families with children getting access to an apartment by ensuring that for the landlord, there is a guarantee that the rent will be paid.

I have before me a long list of measures that I would have liked to see in the report. The government's answer regarding several of them is that they are being prepared in the Government Offices, which is often a euphemism for that the minister has set the issue aside. I truly hope that is not the case in this instance, and I therefore want the government to return with a new proposition that complements the one we have now debated and thereby complements the broken puzzle we have before us with all the pieces that are missing.

Today, the Social Democrats have moved for approval of reservation 5 regarding the rental guarantees. I therefore choose to move for approval of reservation 4, which concerns a national action plan for housing supply.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Access to suitable housing that meets people's demand and needs has become one of Sweden's greatest societal challenges.

For many people, the housing shortage has turned the dream of a home into a pure nightmare of long housing queues and high housing costs - yes, quite simply a lack of flexibility in mobility on the housing market. This is particularly clear in our growth areas but is also noticeable in the countryside, where the housing supply is often far too narrow to meet the needs. It is completely obvious that the housing market must function better, both for those seeking their first home and for those who need to move on in life.

The proposal we are now debating, Measures for a better housing supply, is a step, albeit a small one, towards creating a slightly more efficient, transparent and fair housing market. By establishing clearer rules for the municipalities' responsibilities as well as better coordination and greater flexibility in housing brokerage, we are now taking these steps.

Madam Speaker! With this bill, we are strengthening, among other things, the municipalities' responsibility for the housing supply. Today, every municipality has an obligation to plan for housing, but there is a lack of clear requirements on how this should be done. Therefore, we are now replacing the municipal guidelines with an action plan for the housing supply. This simply means that the municipalities must now make a more concrete assessment of the need for housing within their municipal boundaries and plan for how that need shall be met.

At the same time, Boverket will be tasked with regularly assessing the housing construction need at both the municipal and higher levels. Why is this important? Yes, it is important because housing supply must not be seen as an isolated issue. We clearly need a clearer overall picture where we cooperate better at different levels.

Madam Speaker! We know that the housing shortage affects both young and old, as well as students and low-income earners - yes, it affects very many very hard. Therefore, it is also crucial that we begin to work a bit more proactively in our planning of housing. As several others have already said from the rostrum, the municipalities must now more clearly report the need for new housing and how they take measures to achieve these.

Furthermore, we strengthen the coordination between municipalities, and the county administrative boards shall have a continued responsibility to coordinate the municipalities' housing supply. Housing construction, of course, is based on cooperation and is about creating better opportunities for the labor market, the individual small person, and society as a whole.

Madam Speaker! The housing agency's function has long been an important part of the municipalities' housing policy. In that case, it is also fundamental that we deal with the uncertainty that has existed regarding what is permitted and what is not in terms of mediating housing using pre-viewings and reservations.

According to us, it needs to be clear what flexibility actually exists when it comes to conveying housing in a way that facilitates for households that have difficulty asserting themselves on the housing market. The proposal we are now putting forward means that the municipalities get a clearer opportunity to reserve housing for certain groups and introduce priority without it affecting the possibility of charging a queue fee.

This is, as mentioned, particularly important for the groups I just mentioned who have difficulty asserting themselves on the regular housing market, but it is also very important to mention that this change needs to be used with immense clarity. It is crucial for the system itself that it is perceived as transparent and, above all, fair both for those seeking housing and for those who facilitate it. We will have to see how it works in practice, but we must continuously monitor this and ensure that it works as intended.

Madam Speaker! Another important change proposed in the bill is that the work with land allocations shall have a clearer connection to the housing supply. This means that land shall be used in a better way to promote housing construction and ensure that construction takes place where it is needed most.

Measures for a better housing supply

It is also so important that we are at the forefront in terms of this happening in a transparent way. It is, in fact, something that recurs when one is out and talking with actors in the industry – the lack of transparency and knowledge of what applies. It is also cited as a major reason why construction projects are complicated and delayed. As we know, every delayed construction project means a family that cannot be formed, a person who cannot say yes to a job, or a student who has to postpone their university dream.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs more housing; if that is the case, there is a broad consensus in this chamber. It is one of the most fundamental societal issues. We are now taking a small step towards a better housing supply.

(Applause)

In this speech, David Josefsson (M) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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