Housing policy

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That one should feel safe on one's own street should be a matter of course, but unfortunately, that is not the case in today's Sweden. 27 percent of all Swedes say that they feel unsafe in their own residential area. Among women, the figure is 35 percent. 10 percent of all women state in Brå's safety survey that they even avoid going out late in the evening in their own area due to insecurity - 10 percent, Mr. Speaker!

One might think that safety issues have very little to do with housing policy, but it is actually quite the opposite. My home is my castle, the saying goes. The original meaning was not literal, however, that the home should become a castle whose walls one stayed within at night in fear of what happened on the other side of the wall. But the housing and the residential area are also important tools for creating safety and combating crime.

During the spring, I have visited several different areas with so-called BID cooperation to hear about their safety work. BID cooperation, or Business Improvement Districts, is roughly simplified as when property owners join together in some form of association, often a non-profit organization, to systematically work together with public actors to increase safety in an area. I was in Skärholmen in Stockholm together with my comrades in the Tidö parties, and I have been in Tynnered and Gamlestaden in my own hometown of Gothenburg. Some areas are on the police's list of vulnerable areas, others may have been in the risk zone but through strategic work have turned the development around and created safer environments. Some of these collaborations have been ongoing for decades, and some are relatively newly started. What is common is that property owners systematically work for increased safety, and it yields results.

It is good and important that the Tidö parties are now, among other things, reviewing whether a constitutional basis is needed for BID collaborations and how we can strengthen this work further in different ways, as these are important tools. No one should have to feel that they do not dare to go out in their own residential area due to insecurity, Mr. Speaker.

This debate is the first of three debates today and tomorrow that in different ways touch upon housing policy: housing policy, planning and construction, and rental housing. During the previous parliamentary term, we Moderates drafted 70 concrete proposals for a better-functioning housing market, which we gathered in our housing policy motion here in the Riksdag. These were important steps to solve the structural problems that characterize the Swedish housing market - 70 concrete proposals for simpler rules, reduced complications, increased freedom of choice, and strengthened ownership rights. The 70 proposals then became the basis when we entered the government negotiations regarding housing policy after the election. Fundamentally, they were not particularly difficult negotiations because the four parties in the Tidö Agreement were in agreement both regarding problem formulations and solutions already during the previous parliamentary term, even if the exact solutions sometimes differed in matters of form.

That is why I am also extra proud that the Tidö Agreement has resulted in three clear reform areas within housing policy. The first is simpler rules, including for construction. It is not reasonable that it takes up to ten years on average today from idea to finished house. There is very much to be done to simplify and enable more housing. The second is to broaden ownership. We want more people to be able to realize the dream of their own ownership. This requires both reform power for increased savings and more types of tenure and ways into the housing market. The third is to increase security through, for example, cooperation within BID collaborations, which I began my speech with.

Already now, the government has delivered, among other things, assignments regarding simpler rules for student housing and is well on its way in a number of other areas. Against this shall be set the previous government's passivity in the housing policy area and the January Agreement's fragmentation regarding what even was the problem and even more what were the solutions within housing policy. One of my wise colleagues noted in an earlier debate here in the chamber that the previous red-green governments during their eight years had more housing ministers than housing policy reforms. Whoever wants can try to amuse themselves by remembering the names of all the housing ministers and even more what the reforms actually were.

Mr. Speaker! The consequence of eight years of Social Democratic mismanagement is today a housing market that does not function. The government parties the Social Democrats and the Green Party, with the support of the Left Party, bear a heavy responsibility for the fact that we now have a housing shortage. During 2022, 204 municipalities in Sweden stated that they had a shortage of housing.

We have in Sweden today a situation where the waiting times for a rental apartment are so long that only those with connections can get an apartment immediately. We have housing prices that during the boom shot up so that only those with millions in the bank can afford to enter the housing market. At the same time, the previous government diluted [the situation] with investment subsidies that made a hot construction market white-hot. The developers were literally carving gold with a carving knife. One of the consequences was that we now stand with record-high inflation while construction appears to be coming to a sharp halt. Investment subsidies were not responsible policy then, and it is not responsible policy now, Mr. Speaker.

The previous government had eight years during a period of economic boom to solve the structural problems in the Swedish housing market. These are problems that manifest through housing shortages, overcrowding, skyrocketing housing prices, and years-long queues for rental apartments. Instead, they devoted themselves to passing the housing minister title like a relay baton between the cabinet members, and at the same time, they pumped billions into the developers' pockets through investment support. To quote one of the progressive movement's perhaps most famous stanzas, from Blå Tåget's Den ena handen vet vad den andra gör: Side by side, together they help each other, the state and capital, they sit in the same boat.

The National Audit Office stated that it was difficult to see whether the housing that received investment support would not have been built anyway, or if other housing would have been built instead if the support had not existed. Nor could it be seen that the housing reached those most in need. On the contrary, many housing units had been distributed via waiting time, which primarily meant that older and more well-off individuals received the rental contracts.

Mr. Speaker! The change of government in the autumn entailed a long-awaited reorganization of Swedish housing policy. It is not reasonable to build a housing policy based on the premise that construction companies must receive subsidies to be able to build new homes, as the red-green parties did during the last parliamentary term. The premise must instead be to try to solve the structural problems that today make it impossible both to utilize the existing stock effectively and to build the housing that is needed.

We find ourselves in an economically complex time. The consequences of eight years with Social Democratic prime ministers and finance ministers are that we now have record-high inflation and low or even negative growth. The government's primary task now is therefore to combat inflation. The greatest risk for the Swedish economy is continued high inflation and even higher interest rates, as this would mean even higher thresholds and make it even harder for those who are outside the housing market to get in.

The government has a clear plan for how we are to navigate the troublesome economic situation, but the right thing must be done in the right order. The first priority is to fight inflation and support households. Therefore, I am pleased that the government has extended and increased the housing allowance for those groups who have it the toughest.

The government's priority is also about managing the recession and accelerating Swedish growth. In that case, it is important to solve the structural problems. This requires reforms that restore the work principle and increase productivity in Sweden, but it also requires regulatory simplifications and strengthened reforms for ownership.

Unlike previous red-green governments and their supporting parties, we are not satisfied with today's situation on the Swedish housing market. Now, the work begins on reforms for a simplified regulatory framework, strengthened ownership, increased security, and increased freedom of choice on the Swedish housing market.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by reminding David Josefsson that the Moderates are no longer in opposition, but the Moderates are governing this country.

David Josefsson said that the Moderaterna during the previous parliamentary term presented 70 housing policy proposals. I do not remember a single proposal. But I do remember debates when I have stood here and said that I would like to criticize the Moderaterna's housing policy but that I cannot because there is no housing policy. That was when you were in opposition, David Josefsson, but now you govern the country.

I have not seen a single proposal. David Josefsson talks about simple rules and broadened ownership and that everyone should own. Now that it is a recession, when interest rates are high, when there is inflation and when people cannot even afford to buy food, everyone should own their homes. It is completely out of touch with reality.

My question, now that the Moderates with their Tidö parties are governing this country, is: What specific proposals do you have to counter the housing shortage and to enable the construction of housing? Because right now, it is a complete standstill. No housing is being built. But the solution to get rid of the housing shortage is to build – it is that simple. What is David Josefsson's government doing so that housing that people can afford will be built?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, for your contribution!

To begin with, fortunately, the Moderaterna are no longer in opposition; instead, together with the Liberalerna and Kristdemokraterna, we sit in the government and have a cooperation within the Tidö parties.

We have sat for half a year, but one must remember that we have eight years of Social Democratic rule behind us, where Vänsterpartiet was an active part and supported the government. In that case, it is appropriate to give a picture of how the situation looks. The housing market in Sweden does not work, and regardless of whether one is in opposition or not, one should not sugarcoat how the situation looks today. I think that is important for all parties.

To speak concretely about what we do within the Tidö parties, we have, as I said, three main focuses.

The first is simpler regulations. Now we are giving a mandate to be able to build student housing more easily, something that I have understood Member Jallow opposes.

The second is ownership, where we have previously announced things such as rent-to-own, to make it easier for people to enter the housing market. Unlike when Vänsterpartiet was part of the government, it should not require millions in the bank to be able to buy one's own apartment or one's own house.

The third is to acknowledge how important the residential area is for increased safety. In insecure residential areas, we get a housing shortage because people seek to leave them. This is also something that I have understood that Member Jallow unfortunately opposes.

To concretize the Tidö parties' housing policy: simpler rules, strengthened ownership but also increased security.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! I note that David Josefsson did not answer my questions about what is being done to ensure that more housing is built.

David Josefsson is pleased to refer to the previous government, which I can further state that the Left Party was not a part of. We were not in that government.

What David Josefsson's government wants to do now, today, one does not want to talk about. After a month, one said that one had only been there for a month, after two months one said that one had only been there for two months, and now after six months one says that one has only been there for six months. I have a feeling that we will be standing here in four years and that then one will say that one has only been there for four years. That will be the answer. This is not acceptable.

You have nagged about wanting to rule, and now you have been given that opportunity. Show then what you want to do! It is catastrophic when it comes to housing construction. There is no housing construction.

This is a problem for many people. Homelessness is increasing, overcrowding is increasing, rents are skyrocketing, the number of evictions of families with children continues, and retirees who have worked their whole lives have nowhere to go. Then David Josefsson says that everyone should own their own homes. People say that they cannot even buy tomatoes or peppers at Ica because it is so expensive. David Josefsson's answer is that they should own their own homes. They say that they are being evicted because they have a debt of 10,000 kronor. David Josefsson's and the government's answer is that they should own their own homes.

If one cannot afford to pay a debt of 1,400 spänn, how is one then supposed to be able to buy their own home? We must be reasonable here.

Answer the question! What is the government doing to ensure that everyone who needs a place to live gets one, and what are you doing to ensure that housing is built that people can afford?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by saying that there are a few things in what Jallow says that I agree with. First and foremost, it concerns the description of the problem and the description of reality. As I said, the housing market in Sweden does not work. This government has been in power for half a year. The previous government sat for eight years. Then one can wonder who is responsible for the situation being as it is.

Another thing that I agree with Malcolm Momodou Jallow on is that I believe we will be standing here again in four years. Member Jallow always highlights that one does not say what one's policy is, but I just told exactly what is included in our housing policy. I said it in my speech, I said it earlier in the exchange of remarks, and I can say it again: simpler regulations to get more housing built, strengthened ownership because we know that an owned home is an important way out of poverty and toward a better economy, as well as increased security in our residential areas because no one can be satisfied with how things look today.

I am getting a bit tired of the housing policy debate. Now we have a government that has concrete proposals and that is driving the policy forward. We would very much like to talk with the opposition about these issues. Unfortunately, there is no one on the other side who listens, but instead, one ends up in a rhetoric that ownership is the worst thing there is and that it must be stopped at all costs, that increased security is bad and that it must be stopped at all costs, and that simpler rules are bad and that they must be stopped at all costs.

I can state that we, unlike the previous government, where three, four or five parties were not even in agreement on what the problem picture looked like, now have four parties that are in agreement on what the problem picture looks like, who are in agreement on the solutions and who have begun a work to achieve a housing market that actually functions in Sweden today.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have listened with interest to many words from the Moderates' David Josefsson, who represents the government parties.

I am going to read out some headlines:

Housing construction is collapsing - can be halved next year.

2023 looks like it will be the worst in several years. We are heading towards a real shit year, says Catharina Elmsäter-Svärd, CEO of Byggföretagen.

David Johansson, CEO of the wood and furniture companies, believes that the crisis within the construction industry will be worse than the financial crisis.

The construction company's crisis - all carpenters must leave.

The pessimism is greater than during the corona crisis among the construction companies.

Mr. Speaker! These are some headlines from the construction industry that have been read during the recent period.

David Josefsson's contribution was about how we Social Democrats have mismanaged the country for eight years. During the previous government's time, 400,000 homes were built. That is 60,000 homes per year. This year, perhaps 25,000 will be built according to the latest forecast.

The heaviest proposal from the government parties is constitutional protection for corporate cooperation so that more housing can be built.

As my colleague Malcolm Momodou Jallow said earlier, I do not see a single proposal from the government parties, or for that matter from their support party Sverigedemokraterna, that is intended to facilitate the construction industry right now. Probably, people will go into secure bankruptcies, and many people will become unemployed.

What do you do concretely?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in an extremely complex and difficult economic situation. I completely share Denis Begic's description of reality that we have a crisis within construction right now.

During a booming boom, 60,000 homes were built. Boverket usually talks about how we should build 63,000 homes per year over time to meet the housing shortage. It is natural when a market becomes overheated, as it did with the investment support, and we get sky-high inflation because we do not manage our fiscal policy, that it eventually stops and we enter a recession because construction slows down. It is that situation that the new government has inherited. And the new government's primary goal is to limit and fight inflation. If inflation increases further, it is only the multi-millionaires who will be able to afford to build new homes. And the construction price index is one of the indices that has risen the most in absolute terms. The government's priority now is to stop this and get housing construction moving again.

My and the government's request to the municipalities is that they shall ensure that there is buildable land and that we make regulatory simplifications so that it will be easier to build in order for this to be reversed quickly.

I would like to turn Denis Begic's reasoning around and state that the previous government, despite a booming economy, only built 60,000 homes. They did not tackle the structural reforms that would have needed to be made to achieve a healthy construction market where people can build their homes regardless of whether it is a boom or a recession. It is this work that the new government is now carrying out. And in that case, it is not about safety-creating work, but it is about regulatory simplifications, freeing up more land, reviewing restrictions, and ensuring that it becomes easier to build.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! There is much one can accuse the Social Democrats of. But when it comes to the claim that we would not have implemented reforms, the Moderates' David Josefsson will have to read up on that.

If we disregard investment support, it has become renovations, energy efficiencies, earlier planning decisions, time limits have been introduced in PBL, there have been more exceptions when it comes to building permits, clearer and simpler detailed plans, digitalization etcetera. I can rattle off as many regulatory simplifications as we have made.

Mr. Speaker! We are in a crisis. The only thing the Moderaterna are talking about right now is that we should fight inflation. And we shall do that. But people cannot afford to buy food and even less to buy a home. For me, it is completely incredible that this government, in this situation, is doing nothing to ensure that all people get jobs and can make the priorities in life that they are currently facing. You have inherited full chests of money that you can use to carry out various reforms.

In today's editorial in DN, it states that the Moderates' land of hope became a land of mockery. It is written: "Now they have the power, but the whining continues - about immigrants, environmentalist activists, Social Democrats."

Give us real reforms so that people feel safe in this country!

(Applause)

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Denis Begic for the contribution. I do not believe that I have complained about immigrants in any of the housing policy contributions, even though I understand that it is a funny comment to throw into the debate.

Just as Denis Begic notes, people are finding it difficult to buy food due to the high inflation. Therefore, the government's priority must be to combat inflation. It is not construction companies that we must save now, but it is people's household economies that we must save now.

But it is also important to now carry out these structural reforms to achieve a better functioning housing market. It is therefore not just words, but concrete reforms that we in the Tidö parties are now working out.

Denis Begic says that the previous government had a major reform agenda within housing policy. Then he is a bit vague regarding various things that happened during the previous mandate period.

The two big things that the red-green government did in 2018-2022 were the investment support, which meant that a number of billions were given to developers, and the freedom from building permits for balconies. It was the major simplification of rules that was included in the January agreement and which was implemented.

The last Social Democratic housing minister's major reform was that he led Sweden into the Bauhaus initiative so that the EU would get more influence over design issues. That was his major reform within housing policy.

It can be stated that this government is not coming to a set table, whether it concerns fiscal policy or housing policy. I believe that both I and Member Begic can agree that the Swedish housing market does not function today. It is the people who have it toughest who also have the hardest time getting into the housing market.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin this debate by issuing a missing persons report. Where is the Minister for Housing? Has anyone seen the Minister for Housing? The Swedish people have not seen the Minister for Housing. Where is Sweden's Minister for Housing? He shines with his absence. When there is a crisis in Sweden, not a single person knows where the Minister for Housing is. I hope that my colleagues here on the right side can tell me where the Minister for Housing is. This is, therefore, a missing persons report. If anyone knows where the Minister for Housing is, please be so kind as to tell us, the Swedish people.

Homelessness is increasing, overcrowding is increasing, rents are skyrocketing, and the number of evictions of families with children continues to be unacceptably large. Pensioners who have worked their entire lives can no longer afford to live. Young people cannot move out from home. People cannot move to where the jobs or the education are.

Yesterday, Hyresgästföreningen released this year's first housing report. It shows that the cost of living continues to increase, that housing construction is decreasing, and that the demands for rent increases from property owners are historically high. It states that property owners have demanded increases of an average of 7.68 percent in this year's rent negotiations. These are three times as high demands for rent increases compared to previous years. A preschool teacher may need to spend more than half of their income on rent and has 20,300 kronor less left to live on this year.

Housing construction has been affected by the worsened situation in society. In just one year, the number of housing units with allocated land has been halved. This is the result of the government's passive attitude towards housing policy. It is the poorest residents who are most dependent on there being a state housing policy, but the government has not understood this.

Mr. Speaker! The right-conservative government is in fact pursuing a single housing policy issue: that more people should own – and most preferably, they should own small houses. The government's lack of interest in the situation of ordinary people cannot be overstated, nor can their inability to understand how difficult it is for far too many people today to make the money stretch for the most basic things, such as food, electricity, and rent.

It is for this reason that families with children and pensioners are being evicted from their homes. It is for this reason that young people cannot leave the parental home. People have no money. Still, the Minister for Housing and his government continue to only talk about how more people should be able to take out housing loans to build small houses. Even in today's report, the will to conduct a serious state housing policy is lacking.

Mr. Speaker! Everyone should have somewhere to live - a home where they feel safe and can stay. That everyone has their own home will always be more important for the Left Party than that a few more individual people should be able to buy their own small house. The focus for a state housing policy must be to create better and more just regulations and conditions that better reflect housing as a human right and a part of our welfare - not just as an owned object on a market.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has many good and important proposals in today's committee report. Together, our proposals can contribute to a new housing policy where the state takes its role seriously and where the words that housing is a social right mean something for real. This must be clarified in Swedish housing policy.

We need a national strategy to ensure everyone's right to a home at an affordable cost, and we need a housing supply law that covers both the state and the municipalities. This would partly clarify that the responsibility for housing supply issues is shared, and partly clarify that public-benefit municipal housing companies and municipal support for housing are important municipal tools when it comes to housing supply.

Mr. Speaker! Housing construction is falling dramatically. The negative forecasts are pouring in, and in Boverket's latest analysis, the number of started homes is estimated to decrease from over 70,000 in 2021 to around 30,000. Other forecasts are even more pessimistic. At the same time, Boverket states that the national need for housing for the period 2022-2030 lies at over 63,000 new homes per year.

In the midst of this catastrophe, the right-wing parties thus welcome in today's report that the government in its budget has stated that more people shall own their homes. They add, positively, that "the government's direction for housing policy can meet the needs and challenges that exist in the area." What a strange claim! Beside these joyful cheers from the right, reality is unfolding here outside. People are becoming poorer. Inequality in society is becoming increasingly unsympathetic when the government prioritizes empty words and small houses over children who have nowhere to live.

Mr. Speaker! Ordinary people must also have a place to live. More housing must be built, and it must be the right type of housing. When the other parties choose to phase out all support for the rental market, the Left Party chooses a different path. We want to reintroduce some form of investment support for the construction of rental apartments because Sweden is in need of more, not fewer, rental apartments with reasonable rents. Let us listen to the industry, which wants long-term thinking in housing policy!

Rental apartments with reasonable rents can contribute to positive moving chains that free up the smallest and cheapest housing - exactly the type of housing that new production will always have difficulty managing to deliver. With the help of the now discontinued investment subsidies, we got some way; a three-room apartment produced with investment subsidies has a mean rent that is 2,000 kronor lower. When the state takes a greater financial responsibility for the housing supply, it simply yields results.

If correctly designed, a new investment support can become the long-term and stable reform that the industry wants and that can truly contribute to more rental apartments that ordinary wage earners can afford. Let us discuss what such an investment support could look like in the future! Perhaps it is possible to find a compromise. The same applies to the support for renovation and energy efficiency of more residential buildings. It is not enough to support small houses, as the government has now chosen to do – if we are to achieve a proper green transition, the state must dare to invest financially.

Mr. Speaker! Public utilities are owned jointly by the citizens. Therefore, it is important that we also talk about them in this debate.

Public housing has the task of providing sustainable and affordable housing for everyone. Public housing is an important part of the welfare society. A strong public housing sector is crucial in social housing policy and for us to meet the housing supply we need today. We must therefore stop all sales of our public housing. Every public housing unit that is sold is a loss for the entire society. The government should therefore ensure that a long-term ban on sales within public housing companies becomes a reality.

Mr. Speaker! We must also stop the unfair and often illegal profit transfers from public housing companies to other municipal activities that some municipalities engage in.

In 2020, the total value transfers from the public housing companies amounted to over 1 billion kronor. Of this billion, 320 million were so-called illegal transfers, which is the largest unauthorized amount since the regulations were introduced. In today's report, we can read that it is not justified to propose any change because there is "a real improvement in regulatory compliance behind the development of recent years." What is meant by that? The regulatory compliance is, in fact, catastrophic.

Mr. Speaker! I believe that public housing companies should be run based on goals of social utility and social responsibility, not based on market principles and return requirements.

Let me conclude by highlighting a very important issue, Mr. Speaker. All too many landlords today set unjustifiably high income requirements for new tenants. This leads to increased housing segregation and to it becoming harder for many to obtain a first-hand contract. Boverket's mapping from 2017 shows that approximately every fifth housing company has an income requirement of three times the annual rent. This is completely unreasonable.

The guidance for landlords, which was developed by Sveriges allmännyttiga bostadsföretag and Fastighetsägarna Sverige on behalf of the previous government to try to address the problem, has also not been effective, according to Boverket. Few housing companies are even aware of it, and even fewer have lowered their unreasonable demands because of it.

Vänsterpartiet therefore considers that it is high time for the government to return with legislative proposals ensuring that landlords, both private and municipal, cannot set unreasonably high income requirements that exclude large groups of people when renting out housing. It is a simple measure that would truly help those who need it most.

With that said, I would like to move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 12.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! A Christian Democratic social construction means planning for safe, purposeful, and beautiful environments where the citizens themselves can be active in the decision-making process and feel involved in the creation of their immediate surroundings. To build such a society, where people thrive and feel involvement and security, requires a vision of the good society.

A good society also means that society takes care of all citizens based on their needs. Socialstyrelsen's latest mapping of homelessness showed that approximately 33,000 people lived in some form of homelessness. According to the mapping, 11,400 people within the entire group were homeless parents to one or more children. Children living in homelessness and having insecure housing conditions are particularly vulnerable, I believe. That children lack a home is the ultimate consequence of a life in economic vulnerability for a family. It is not worthy of a nation like Sweden not to take decisive action in the housing social area.

"My home is my castle," people sometimes say. For the vast majority of us, it is so, but for about 33,000 people, those words ring very false.

On 17 October 2022, the government decided on a national homelessness strategy that can counteract homelessness. The strategy specifies four goals to counteract homelessness: homelessness shall be prevented, no one shall live or sleep on the street, Housing First shall be introduced nationally, and the social perspective in urban planning shall be strengthened.

I mean that we, as social builders, must take responsibility for the development of the housing social area, and that we have taken far too little responsibility for this. This is an area that normally does not have any strong voices, but nevertheless, it is our responsibility as social builders. We also cannot rely on the homelessness strategy to solve these problems for us, but we must take an active step to begin discussing these issues on our own level, where we can be involved.

We must dare to place trust in the civil society organizations that want to work with this. They can, want to, and should be able to help and be part of the solution.

We must dare to put pressure on the municipalities, and not only through Bostad först - even in other ways they can take the housing social situation in the municipality into account when they renovate or build new housing.

It is a matter of building mixed housing and building safe housing, but also of considering how to create the best conditions for the housing social situation in the municipality.

Karolina Skogs investigation, as I call it, came last year and has some good proposals on how one could facilitate this work. Some of the proposals could be used as a basis for cross-party discussions for a good housing social policy in the country - together.

One of the most important parts of Karolina Skog's investigation is that the interaction between the national level and the local level must be strengthened, both through common goals that are distributed to each municipality and through follow-up at the national level. How many housing units were there? Why did it become housing, or - perhaps - why did it not become housing?

It is simultaneously proposed that methodological support be provided to show good examples of how the housing social situation has been solved or is intended to be solved.

What do I want with this? I want us to lift our gaze and see those who actually do not always have a voice here. The 33,000 people that I spoke about, who are out there, need us to get help and support and are deserving of it.

I move for the rejection of all motions and would like to fill your heads with this thought when you leave here.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I listened very carefully to Larry Söder. I think it honors him that he raised these questions in his speech. Many people do not have a home and also do not find it easy to get a home. There are many reasons for this. The reason may be that one cannot afford it – one perhaps cannot move out of home because one has not received a job. Perhaps one has a different name and is therefore not allocated an apartment. There are many reasons that we need to work on, so I think it is incredibly important that we take up these questions.

But one of the most important issues in this discussion is that one must have access to housing. My daughter cannot move out of home if she does not have access to an apartment - even if she has a job and the means, it is about having access to an apartment.

In the exchange I previously had with David Josefsson, the question was: What is it that one does? My question to Larry Söder from Kristdemokraterna is: What concrete measures will the Minister for Housing, who is a Kristdemokrat, and the government take to help all those who do not have it so easy on the housing market? I know that it is not just housing that is the answer, but good schools, good social interaction, etc. are also needed. But what is done concretely to facilitate for these people so that they can be able to get a home?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Denis Begic for the question.

I and Denis Begic have a quite similar view of society. There are people who are vulnerable and who need help and support from the government and society to be able to create a secure existence for themselves. It is a secure existence that it is about, and I mean that a home is a way to get a secure existence.

I believe everyone in this chamber agrees that there is no quick fix in this matter. There are long processes to be able to create new homes. We can help to create opportunities by making these processes much shorter. In a situation with high prices to build a home and high prices to rent a home, I believe there are fiscal measures that can be taken, but that is not something that lies within the housing policy area. We must ensure that there is an opportunity to build homes when the tide turns—as soon as possible.

Just as David Josefsson said in his speech, it is a matter of having simple rules. We must ensure that there is buildable land and that the municipalities and housing developers are in a starting position when things turn around again.

Hand on heart: No one believes that we can turn this around in one or two months, but we must ensure that the economy becomes stable for Sweden and for the citizens and thereafter try to find a way to increase housing construction again. I do not believe that we should give people delusions that it is possible to solve the crisis that currently exists in housing construction with housing policy goals, but we must work more long-term.

I mean that the state, the county administrative boards, and the municipalities must take responsibility. I have previously spoken quite a bit about planning bonuses, and I have spoken about that the county administrative boards should be able to speak about where housing can be built. But this is not some quick fix, it will take longer. We must be able to be honest and say that.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Larry Söder for the answer. Just as he honestly says, there is no quick fix. The government actually has no proposals that would make it easier for people to enter the housing market. This is a fact - it is nothing I have made up, but one can open any newspaper and read about it. The construction industry is crying out for support and help from the government.

Someone once said that the society that takes care of its weakest is the society that has come furthest with its reform agenda. Right now, one is not taking care of its weakest. In yesterday's debate, there was talk about social dumping and how wealthy municipalities behave. It is very regrettable that one commissions investigation after investigation that actually could have given us answers to all the questions we are asking right now.

I have enjoyed looking at how the debate in this chamber has gone in the past, when I did not sit in the Committee on Civil Affairs. It has been very different.

One of the questions that has arisen is: Where is the Minister for Housing? Someone asked earlier what the Minister for Housing is called. Does anyone know what today's Minister for Housing is called? I do not see that any Minister for Housing is here and speaking with us about housing policy, as a Minister for Housing should do. Where is the Minister for Housing? What is the Minister for Housing doing? Does the Minister for Housing care about all those people who today are looking for somewhere to live? Does the Minister for Housing care about all those young people who unfortunately just left the stands and did not hear this and that one day, when they leave school, they will have a home? Unfortunately, I must tell Larry Söder and the Chamber: No, he does not, because he is not here.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can answer the question. Andreas Carlson is the Minister for Housing, and I can assure you that he cares, Denis Begic. He works quite hard, and I want to assert that the reforms that are coming forward will demonstrate how methodically he works with his staff. I have some insight, and I am quite confident about what this work entails and what it will lead to moving forward.

Housing Minister Andreas Carlson has an advantage in the issue Denis and I are discussing, namely those at the bottom of the housing situation, the homeless, and that Jakob Forssmed works with civil society. They belong to the same party and can therefore discuss with each other and let their departments work jointly on this.

I agree with the member that it says quite a lot about a society how one takes care of the weakest, those who need help and support and cannot speak for themselves. If we solve the situation for them, we often solve the situation for everyone else. This must be kept in mind, and that is why I want to discuss homelessness. If we ensure a housing social situation for them, we solve it for everyone else because it means that we build more housing so that there are homes for all types of people, which solves the housing situation moving forward.

If you ask any industry professional, they want one thing: long-term rules of the game. The investment support was removed two years ago, and by 2026 it will have been gone for six years. If the Social Democrats can promise that it will not return in 2026, we have long-term rules of the game that there is no investment support.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Larry Söder has debated homelessness and children many times. I appreciate it, because he seems to care just as much as I do on this issue. But it is not enough with fine words and good intentions, because it does not help the homeless. If we do not convert the fine words about the vulnerable receiving help into action, it makes no difference for a single human being.

The reason I am saying this is that Larry Söder says that we must help those at the bottom of the housing situation and, above all, homeless children. If Larry Söder and the Kristdemokraterna care about homeless children, how is it then that the Kristdemokraterna's housing minister can propose a reform so that it should be easier to evict relatives of someone who has committed a crime?

When it comes to the person who has committed a crime, we agree. If one commits a crime, one should be prosecuted. My question concerns all the others who have not committed a crime but live in the same apartment: mother, father, and little sister, who behave in school and just want peace and quiet. Larry Söders housing minister wants them to be evicted as well. How does that add up? You want to get rid of homelessness but present a reform that will make even more people homeless. Where are all these people supposed to go?

The social services say that this is the worst they have heard and that it will not help them in their work. The police say that it is not the right way to go and that it will make the preventive work more difficult. But Larry Söder and his minister do not want to listen. Why do you say that you want to stop homelessness but carry out a reform that creates even more homelessness?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Malcolm Momodou Jallow and I have discussed this issue quite many times, and I believe we agree that we care about the children and that if the children are doing well in Sweden, then Sweden is a good country for both children and adults.

However, I do not tolerate criminals. They should not be allowed to exist in Swedish society. The fact that they can hide at their mother's or brother's home should not be a reason for others around them not to feel safe in their residential area.

The government will do everything in its power to ensure that Sweden has safe residential areas, and this also applies to today's vulnerable areas. This means that the one who is criminal must know that they are not free just because they live with someone else. One must take their responsibility as a fellow human being, and if one knows that loved ones are tied to the residence, one must be cautious. Whether we can save one, two, or three people, I want to assert that this is a price that society must set. If one is a criminal in Sweden, one must pay a price for it and not have a sanctuary because one lives with someone else.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! To those listening: Those who are criminals shall be prosecuted. But those in your family who have not committed crimes shall not be punished. Collective punishment does not belong in a constitutional state. But if I understand Larry Söder correctly, the government wants to start with collective punishment.

I agree with Larry Söder that criminals should be prosecuted. But why should siblings, mother and father who have not committed crimes be evicted? Such things happen in dictatorships, and then Sweden points at them and says that is not how it is done. There are conventions, the European Convention and UN conventions, that are against collective punishment, but the government and its representative Larry Söder say that it is okay to evict families with children just because one in the family has committed a crime. Prosecute instead the one who has committed the crime!

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is law in Sweden, and according to it, children have a right to a safe home. Evicting children who have not committed crimes and who are trying to maintain a dignified standard of living goes against the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Is Larry Söder against the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

There are women who live in destructive conditions and cannot move. If the man hits her, it is the man who commits a crime and should be prosecuted. Why should the woman have to be evicted? She needs support, not to become homeless.

Please, Larry Söder, explain to the people listening what you and the government mean by the reform? You want to evict and thereby punish people who have not committed any crimes. It is a new phenomenon in Sweden.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Malcolm Momodou Jallow has tunnel vision in this matter. You are not thinking about the neighbor who lives above. You are not thinking about the neighbor in the stairwell next door. You are not thinking about the neighbor who lives across the street. Collective punishment already exists. They are exposed to insecurity when a criminal lives in the area.

I do not intend to let neighbors be collectively punished because of this, but we must find a way to handle this and make the area safe. We must use a firm hand in unsafe areas to make them as safe as possible.

We can improve the outdoor environment so that it becomes beautiful and pleasant, and we can mix social housing with condominiums and owner-occupied apartments. Ultimately, however, it is about which people are in the area and what they do in their daily lives. If there are criminal elements there, they must not go free because they live with someone who is not a criminal. We must ensure that such areas do not become safe havens.

I want to assert that Malcolm Momodou Jallow does not see the neighbor who lives next door. It could be 80-year-old Agda who does not dare to go out because there is a criminal in the same stairwell. It could be a twelve-year-old girl who does not dare to play on the street where the criminal moves.

One must see society as a whole, and I mean that the disturbing element is the criminal. It is this person who should be removed, not the neighbors.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! We, of course, stand by all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 1.

Good and secure housing for everyone is a goal for us Social Democrats. This presupposes a national housing policy that focuses on good housing for everyone, not on a market that works for only a few. A general housing policy aimed at everyone is very important to achieve a good balance throughout the entire country. When Sweden is built, when jobs move, and when people are in different stages of life, they should be able to choose a home that fits. It is important for an elongated country like Sweden to build more and more housing.

Mr. Speaker! I am new to the Committee on Civil Affairs and during this short period have tried to find out as much as possible about the housing market and the housing issue and hear what the experts say. In my notes, I have written a few lines about what the housing market means for a country.

It is a fundamental human right to have a home. It is important that all people have access to a secure and safe home. It contributes to increased well-being and better health for the individual but also to the stability and development of society.

Housing shortages can lead to higher prices and increased segregation. When the demand for housing is greater than the supply, prices rise. This makes it more difficult for people with lower incomes to find housing. This, in turn, leads to increased segregation. Certain areas simply become inaccessible for those who cannot afford them.

Building housing also has a positive effect on the economy. Through investments in the construction sector, more jobs can be created while the supply of housing increases. Consequently, prices also fall.

An increase in the housing stock can also affect the environment positively. If one builds housing with high energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, emissions are reduced. And we get a better and more sustainable lifestyle.

In summary, it is important to build housing to fulfill the basic human right to have a home, to reduce the risks of high housing prices and segregation, and to have a positive impact on the economy and environment of society.

We Social Democrats want to see more rental apartments, good housing for the elderly, student housing, climate-smart houses, and mixed residential areas with villas, terraced houses, and multi-family buildings that break the growing segregation. The municipalities should have a concrete tool in this work by being given the right to specify the form of tenure in the detailed development plan.

Mr. Speaker! All the positive that housing construction means for a society is being erased by this government. One can ask why. The answers can only be given by those in this chamber who represent the government: Moderates, Christian Democrats, Liberals and not least Sweden Democrats.

The Sweden Democrats had a chance to make an announcement to the government, but they sold themselves out for the writing regarding Sverigehuset. What it will mean in practice remains to be seen. Some investigation will surely be appointed while companies testify about an industry that is currently slowly but surely heading towards the toughest times in years. Now that one really needs to gather strength, we see nothing that indicates the government will take any responsibility.

Today, as I mentioned earlier, one can read headline after headline about how difficult and tough the construction sector is having it. That the government in that situation does not come forward with any proposals is truly worrying. People will end up in unemployment, and companies will go bankrupt. These warning bells have been known to everyone, but the will to do something is unfortunately not present in the government.

Mr. Speaker! Politics makes a difference. When it comes to housing construction, it is clear that it is politics that makes a difference. The will and the ability to make necessary decisions and allocate sufficient resources are absolutely crucial.

During the last two parliamentary terms, when Sweden has had Social Democratic-led governments, the construction of over 400,000 homes has been initiated. Between 2015 and 2021, the construction of an average of 60,000 homes per year was initiated. That is approximately the level that Boverket has projected we must maintain to avoid a housing shortage.

During 2007-2014, when Sweden had Moderate-led governments, the construction of only 200,000 homes was initiated, approximately 25,000 homes per year. Even then, the investment support was abolished. History is repeating itself, therefore. The Moderate-led government immediately began the work of dismantling the housing policy step by step, with low housing construction as a given result. It created a shortage of housing and has caused extensive housing shortages. It has taken a long time to rectify this total lack of active housing policy.

Our challenge today is to develop a sustainable social housing policy. It fundamentally concerns three overarching tasks: to build more and sustainable homes, to counter social segregation and thereby improve the conditions for equal upbringing and living conditions, and to make it possible for economically weak groups to meet their housing needs. We must build mixed. We must also build economically and ecologically sustainably.

As politicians, we have a responsibility to ensure that the causes of housing segregation are combated. It is clear that it is not just about housing and construction. It is also about active school policy, active labor market policy, and active social policy. When we see that from this government, it remains to be seen.

Overcrowding is another issue that must be addressed. It depends on a number of different factors. But they have one thing in common; it exists to a greater extent in our suburbs and vulnerable areas. Overcrowding is therefore a class issue.

Unfortunately, it will get even worse. When too little is built, when rents become higher, when interest rates eat up the disposable income, and when food is so expensive that one cannot afford to buy it, overcrowding will increase. We already see the increase among young people who choose to stay at home, not because they do not want to move out from mom and dad, but because they cannot afford it or because there are no homes available.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say a few words about social dumping. Yesterday, we had an interpellation debate in the chamber on social dumping with Minister Erik Slottner. Social dumping has become a phenomenon; wealthy municipalities ensure that their socially vulnerable citizens move to another municipality. They even have employees who actively work on searching for apartments that are then offered to these people. If one does not take the apartment one is offered, one can become homeless. Municipalities are therefore actively working to move benefit-dependent people between municipalities. It is a real problem that must be taken seriously.

The government is now shutting down the investigation that we initiated and which was supposed to present its result in October. They are showing that the issue is not important, despite several municipalities, especially those in rural areas that receive [refugees], testifying how difficult it is.

One might ask if it is truly in order to do so. A friend of order might say that there is no law that forbids it. But there is a moral dilemma in the question. We must take that seriously. I truly hope that the government parties take the question seriously and do something about this.

(Applause)

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Denis Begic, for the speech! I agree with everything. This reply is about something else. In the report, it highlights, among other things, the investigation on creating safe residential areas. The Government has chosen to leave additional directives which, according to them, are in some way supposed to strengthen parental responsibility. It shall become easier to evict families with children from their homes, for example if a child commits a crime.

The investigation was commissioned by a Social Democratic government. It was before the additional directive arrived. Now the additional directive exists, and we heard exactly what the colleague said about the Convention on the Rights of the Child that I asked a question about. Evicting children is against the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I asked the question where they should go, but I have not received any answer to that.

I have also asked the question about collective punishment. Why should people who have not committed crimes be punished? It is perfectly okay to punish criminals; there we agree. But those who have not committed crimes should not be punished, because that is collective punishment. I have not received an answer.

My question is now simply whether the Social Democrats will support this proposal. Do the Social Democrats want collective punishment in Sweden? Do the Social Democrats want to go against the Convention on the Rights of the Child by evicting children and making them homeless? If so: Where are all these people supposed to go when they are evicted?

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have absolutely nothing against receiving a reply from Malcolm Momodou Jallow, but when I looked up at the board, I thought it was something from one of the government parties. This shows flaws in the government's policy. Unfortunately, that is the case. Instead, I and the Left Party, as the opposition, are debating an issue where I, as a Social Democrat, know very well where we stand.

Collective punishment is nothing that the Social Democrats could stand for. Collective punishment shows a society that is weak. That has been seen historically. One can read a lot about what collective punishment entails, for it has been experienced by many different groups of people.

What the investigation will show now that a supplementary directive has arrived, I dare not say. What one can do is read what the investigation concludes, write motions, and see where it heads. But given what government we have and what support party they have, I must tell Malcolm Momodou Jallow that I am incredibly worried. I believe we are heading towards a society that is harsher towards certain people depending on where they come from, how they look, or what parents they have. We have seen that, and we will continue to see it.

My mission - and probably also the member's mission - is to resist the right-wing populism that is currently gaining ground here in Sweden's Riksdag.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is very pleasing to hear. I agree with and share that description one hundred percent. Sweden has a government that uses repressive methods towards certain groups in society. We have seen it in reform after reform, proposal after proposal. Poor people, people who are vulnerable, racialized groups, immigrants – it is they who are being targeted.

This proposal does not concern rich people who own their homes, but it concerns 3 million tenants. And who are the ones who live in rental apartments? Often, according to the statistics, it is people with low incomes. It is poor, racialized groups and immigrants who live that way. That is what the government is doing: They are taking repressive measures to truly make life as difficult as possible for as many people as possible.

The Sweden Democrats talk about repatriation and population exchange. If one cannot bear to stay, one wants to leave the country. This is part of a larger plan for the government and the Sweden Democrats. I hope that the Left Party and the Social Democrats can continue to fight for all these people so that they can live a dignified life and not be punished for happening to be poor, immigrants, or similar. They should not be punished if they do not commit crimes.

In a rule of law, the order is that one is punished based on their actions and judged based on them. If one has not committed any criminal acts, one should not be punished. I hope that we Left Party members and Social Democrats can continue to fight so that this shall be the order in Sweden also in the future.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am a Social Democrat for one reason. The reason is that I see all people as equally worthy, regardless of where they come from, how they look, and what they want with their lives. For me, it is an important principle that I truly try to follow fully, and I have done so since I became a Social Democrat.

I can admit here in the chamber that I attended a meeting with the then Folkpartiet, but I left it quickly, because I realized - even though it was in the 90s and they were called social liberals - that it was not a policy that I could stand for. Today, the policy of Liberalerna is incredibly, incredibly strange. We will soon hear a contribution from Liberalerna here in the chamber.

I can assure Malcolm Momodou Jallow that as long as I am in this Riksdag, I will work against people being punished collectively and for all people to have an opportunity to live well and good in this country, regardless of whether they live in a villa, a condominium or a rental apartment. Even those who live collectively are welcome to live their lives as they wish! I can promise Malcolm Momodou Jallow that I will work on this.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the proposals in the report.

I am a bit shaky today. My Easter holiday consisted of practicing what we are going to debate today, namely housing construction. It reminded me that it is hard work to build housing and that it is associated with a great deal of toil and danger, which my knee got to experience.

It affects those of us who today are engaged in housing construction. They build and work hard and currently face a very difficult economic situation with high inflation and high interest rates that have put a spoke in the wheel of the housing industry. People are holding their breath and awaiting news on where inflation, core inflation, and interest rates are headed and what the Riksbank does.

The government's fiscal policy involves measures to see how one can combat inflation. It is currently number one for the families with children who cannot make their finances work, who cannot afford their housing and who are struggling on all fronts. It is about the high interest rate and the high inflation. It is number one for everyone and hits particularly hard those who are most vulnerable. Therefore, it is simultaneously important that the government now has a new approach in housing policy and in this situation works out and creates new conditions to build the housing that is in demand when things turn around.

Seven out of ten wish to own their home today, according to many surveys. Therefore, the housing policy needs to have an impact precisely when it comes to owned housing. Of these seven out of ten, most dream of their own house, their own plot, something large or something small – a small house. With the dream of an own villa comes also the personal responsibility to maintain and take care of what one owns in order to, in that way, also have the opportunity to influence one's housing economy. For those who cannot afford to renovate with the help of craftsmen, there is the possibility to do the work entirely or partially themselves and in that way keep down their housing cost.

Therefore, the freedom in owned housing is different compared to rented housing. Being on a housing market always creates a cheaper housing in the long run. It is possible to amortize down one's housing cost. In the long run, this was needed to create a low housing cost in owned housing. It is the feeling of freedom in being able to influence one's housing economy and take responsibility for one's owned housing that now seven out of ten dream of. That is what we call house dreams.

That people own their housing also counteracts segregation and overcrowding, as it creates a greater variety of housing forms in a residential area. That is why it was welcome that the government signaled that reforms are needed so that those groups who have difficulty entering the owner-occupied market can do so. There are now many such tasks and investigations on the government's table.

At the same time, there is an inherent freedom - now I am saying it - even in the rented accommodation. I hope that everyone in here heard that. This government works for all forms of housing. If one is young, a student, or new to a location, if people's lives have gone separate ways, if a new home is needed quickly for some reason, or if one simply values the freedom of not having to worry so much about the practicalities surrounding a home, then the rented accommodation can, of course, be very good.

That is why it is important that the government has now tasked the county administrative boards to report on which measures were needed to cooperate with our municipalities in order to increase total housing construction. This will provide a good and clear picture of which national measures were then needed to achieve increased housing construction.

Even in the budget for 2023, the emphasis lies on the fact that these measures are needed to enable more people to own their homes, and it is very welcome that this is in focus. Regardless of the type of housing, all housing construction always begins with the land issue. Without the municipalities' planning readiness, no housing will be built, especially no small houses.

According to statistics from SCB, we have not had such low single-family house construction in 100 years, despite the boom we have had behind us. We are the worst in Europe at building single-family houses – that which seven out of ten demand. How is that? It is good that we have built rental apartments; we shall continue to do that. But internationally, Sweden stands out in a remarkable way when it comes to precisely single-family houses and owned housing, even though seven out of ten dream of the small owned lawn.

Those who have built their own small house know that it is associated with great challenges regarding both land issues and construction technical issues. Something that is always cost-driving for a developer is difficulties with standardization and efficient residential construction. It also has to do with municipalities' different specific requirements. Therefore, it is now natural for the government to work with, for example, type house approvals and see what it can mean, especially for industrial construction.

Mr. Speaker! As my colleague from the Moderaterna told, there were a few of us who visited Skärholmen. We met the property owners of Skärholmen and heard about the place-based cooperation they conduct together. It is a very good initiative where scientifically proven methods are used. It is about obvious things: taking care of one's residential area and creating safety together. This has been done with great success.

There is, however, a "but". In areas where there are property owners who have chosen not to participate in this very good cooperation model, which we call BID cooperation, it can be as little as a bicycle path that separates a safe residential area from an unsafe residential area, where mattresses are stacked by the windows and children live by stairwells with criminal activity. A few weeks ago, a young man fell victim to gang crime in just Skärholmen.

This illustrates the problem. We are doing a lot, but tougher requirements are needed. It is clear. In order for more people to be able to live in their housing dream, regardless of where it is, in a rental or in owned housing, more powerful measures need to be taken. Here I want to mention again the BID area cooperation. The Liberals want, together with the cooperation parties, to see mandatory area cooperation in vulnerable areas. The entire residential area shall become safe, not just what is on one side of the cycle path. And one must not be able to hitch a ride on others. It must not be the case that some do the work and the others do not need to participate in creating an attractive and safe area.

We look forward to the mandate period ahead of us. We will work to develop a housing policy that makes a difference for all people.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! It pleased me - hear and behold - that Jakob Olofsgård spoke about rental apartments. Since it is Ramadan, I may well say: Subhan Allah!

Every time people talk about homelessness increasing, the Liberals say: If only the homeless could buy their homes, everything would be solved. When people talk about overcrowding, the Liberals say: It is overcrowded because they don't buy their apartments. They must buy the apartments; then it won't be overcrowded. When people talk about people being poor and unable to afford food, the Liberals say: Just let them buy their small houses - then everything will be solved. When people talk about pensioners who have worked their whole lives and saved but cannot make the money last, the Liberals say: They must fight to have somewhere to live - only if they work a little harder can they buy their home. Then the problem will be solved. Everyone should buy their homes.

I have heard this mantra - seven out of ten want to own their apartments. Yes, if one does not take into account what income people have, what conditions they have to choose work, what family circumstances they have and a thousand other conditions. If one does not take into account how much money people have, anyone can buy a home. It is wishful thinking that is not based on reality. Poverty is increasing today in Sweden, even in my own city. Many people are evicted. Most are not evicted or homeless because of some mental problem, but it is about poverty.

What proposals does this government have so that all those who cannot buy or do not want to buy their homes can have somewhere to live?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question. I did not touch upon social housing policy in my speech. We have many topics on the agenda today. But as my colleague from the Christian Democrats mentioned, Karolina Skog's inquiry on social housing policy is on the government's table, and we are now looking at this in order to submit proposals.

Then I must remind the members that the Liberals during the entire previous parliamentary term clearly highlighted what we call housing for those in need, which are not owned homes. I want to remind the members of what I said in the rostrum just now – I highlighted the rental apartment as important and said that it is important that rental apartments are also built. I want to remind member Malcolm Momodou that more construction frees up an existing stock of rental apartments. We have pointed out that it is important. Newly built rental apartments will never be the cheapest. But if we build more rental apartments and, above all, more small houses, we get a moving chain, and then cheaper rental apartments are freed up.

I want, Mr. Speaker, to remind the member that we highlight the rental apartment as something good and important. I also want to remind the member that we submit proposals for those who have a hard time entering the owned market. For example, we look at rent-to-own as a good model for those who are far away from the housing market. I want to remind the member, Mr. Malcolm Momodou, that we do a lot in this area. To the member, it sounds like we are not doing anything at all, but that is not true at all.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! One can have fine rhetoric, but it is actions that count in reality. Jakob Olofsgård's party sits in Sweden's government today, and the government has a lack of housing policy, I would say. There are many things that Jakob Olofsgård says. But I, as chairman of the Committee on Civil Affairs, see no reforms coming, and it is not just me.

No housing is being built at all. What is Jakob Olofsgård doing for those who cannot buy their homes and so that rental apartments can be built? I do not mean what Jakob Olofsgård calls "need-based housing," that is to say social housing. There, they should build cheap ghetto housing with low standards for poor people. Those are poverty housing. We do not want that. It creates segregation. We do not want that. How do you do it to be able to build regular rental apartments for the people who cannot buy their homes?

I have 50 seconds left of my speaking time. I want to take the opportunity to ask the question that I asked earlier regarding safety and secure housing.

Once again, it is about evicting families with children whose children commit crimes. I have no problem with children who commit crimes being prosecuted. My question concerns everyone else who has not committed crimes. In this proposal, they will be evicted.

The first question is: Where are they going to go? The second question is: Is Jakob Olofsgård and his government for collective punishment?

What do you think about the fact that it violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child that children will be evicted? What does Jakob Olofsgård say about all the women who are subjected to violence by their husbands and who also risk being evicted and receiving no support? I would like to have an answer to that.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for your questions! There were several questions, and I shall try to answer them.

First, I want to point out what we are not doing in the government. We are not driving inflation. Stimuli and further investment support would have driven up inflation. Therefore, it is completely counterproductive to do so right now in the situation we are in today. It drives up interest rates and creates even more problems for the most vulnerable.

I find it difficult to reconcile the politics of the member from Vänsterpartiet. It hits the vulnerable even harder, who they say they care about very much. If interest rates go up, inflation goes up and it becomes more expensive to buy food, it becomes tougher to also pay one's rent. How that equation adds up for Vänsterpartiets member, I do not understand.

What social housing is, I have explained several times from the rostrum. I want to remind the members again that it is not about worse housing and that one should segregate. On the contrary, they must not be in the social housing areas that already exist today. It is particularly vulnerable areas where people end up that need to be moved from. It is, for example, about breaking crime by not staying in a stairwell.

As the Christian Democrat member Larry Söder pointed out, it is for the sake of everyone who lives in the stairwell. If there is, for example, a gang criminal in a stairwell, it does not create any security. It needs to be broken away from its context.

There, our housing for those in need, which was highlighted earlier by the Liberals, is a way to move to another place, another neighborhood, and get away from the social context. It breaks the criminal pattern. It is part of the housing for those in need that we in the Liberals have worked for.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Housing policy requires good foresight. We know that it takes somewhere between six and nine years to build housing in Sweden today. It is a very long process. Therefore, foresight is so important when we talk about this area.

An important success is that the Sweden Democrats were involved and ensured that we got a new government where the Sweden Democrats have a powerful influence on the policy driven from the government side. We ensure that we get a significantly reduced migration to Sweden.

One of several reasons why we see the housing shortage we have in Sweden today is that we have had a high migration at the same time as we have had a low housing construction. When more migrants come to Sweden than houses are built, it is not strange that we then have a housing shortage.

The government we have had for eight years has contributed to expanding the housing shortage. When we are in the situation we are in today with sharply increased prices, inflation, and very great economic pressure on our households and citizens, it is of course not better when the cheap housing that once existed today has become a scarce commodity.

For that reason, it is important that we get the moving chains right. Therefore, it is important with the owned housing stock. Those people who have an opportunity to buy their own home also have an opportunity to, in the long run, achieve a better economic situation. In the long run, it is cheaper to own a home.

It also benefits the group that stands outside the housing market or that is seeking a cheaper home. That group can, in turn, take over the home that the person who chooses to buy their home leaves behind. These chains of relocation are extremely important in the situation we are in today and that we have always been in.

When it comes to the opportunities to enter the owned housing market, we need to introduce a housing savings scheme so that one has a good long-term position to own one's own home. This also applies to the introduction of a starter loan.

We also need, of course, as the Sweden Democrats have said many times, to review the amortization requirements in order to change these in the long term and enable more people to be able to own their own home.

The rental purchase model is an important matter that the government is investigating. It could enable more people to enter the owner-occupied housing market again.

Type-approved houses, similar to Sverigehuset which the Sverigedemokraterna have proposed, are also an important model to get housing construction started.

Increased competition among the construction companies and strengthened financing for the construction companies regarding the construction loans is an important part of bringing down the cost for the new production that we see.

The climate declarations that the previous government implemented are also a reason why we see increased costs for housing construction today. It is a self-evident matter that the system needs to be abolished. We cannot have models where it becomes more expensive to build housing in Sweden today.

Mr. Speaker! Today we have major problems with vulnerable, insecure residential areas. It is something the Social Democrats have left behind and which, throughout their entire time in government, they have completely overlooked when it comes to interventions.

I am happy and proud that we have the Tidö Agreement where BID cooperation is part of the measures we have to achieve more safe residential areas. BID cooperation is a model where property owners and community actors can work together to create safe residential areas. It is something that is highly relevant given the many vulnerable areas we see in Sweden today and the many areas that are on the threshold of becoming a vulnerable area.

A national action plan is also needed so that the municipalities can work from the outside to secure their residential areas. It is something that needs to be developed so that the municipalities can counteract the situation where upcoming residential areas, and also those that exist in Sweden today, become insecure.

The area planning in these areas is extremely important to enable a safer presence for blue-light personnel. It must also enable a safer everyday life for all these people who live in areas where a high sense of insecurity is felt.

We also need to involve more actors in urban planning and construction. When we build new residential areas, we must not make the same mistakes that we saw, above all during the million program years, where we built in insecurity in the residential areas.

When we build new, we need to broaden the aspects and build in safety as a natural and obvious part of new production. Safety issues need a larger part in the urban development process as Sweden looks today.

All these measures can enable us to once again have safe residential areas in Sweden. We have a long way to go in that area. But we now have an opportunity with a new government that tackles these problems together with the Sverigedemokraterna.

Mr. Speaker! I want to highlight reservation 18 to underscore its importance in this context and therefore move for its approval.

We need to review the accounting rules. We need the conditions to build in the entire country. As it is today, when the construction cost exceeds the market value, one is forced into large write-downs of the buildings' value - this primarily in the weaker housing markets.

Despite the demand to build housing, construction is not being enabled due to the EU's directives on state aid rules. Therefore, I argue that we need to appoint an inquiry to once again propose changes regarding the Annual Accounts Act that can be compatible with the EU's state aid rules. This is an important issue for housing construction throughout Sweden.

The Sweden Democrats have a number of proposals in the report. One of the proposals concerns student housing, which is an incredibly important part when it comes to getting into the labor market. People should have the opportunity to study even if they do not live in a large city. They should have the opportunity to move to a large city where the educational institutions are located, receive the education that is needed, and then move back. In this way, we ensure that the entire country has its demand for the labor market's needs met.

In order for this to happen, we need to have a prioritization of student housing in the municipalities' land allocation decisions. Municipalities with educational institutions shall also be assigned a greater responsibility to provide housing.

With these words, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are on a completely new track with the new government with the support of the Sweden Democrats. We will once again get order and clarity on the Swedish housing market.

(Applause)

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! Housing policy wins no elections, it is said, and this House seems to have adopted that saying to such an extent that for decades Swedish housing policy has been grossly mismanaged - this regardless of the color of the government.

My Moderate committee colleague's claim that only the previous government bears responsibility is therefore not only devoid of historical context but also less robust than Swiss cheese. The same applies to the Social Democratic colleague's claim about 400,000 started housing units during the previous government's eight years in power. Even my nine-year-old understands that planning processes take longer than that.

In the autumn, when I changed policy areas, I amused myself by requesting all investigations within the framework of Swedish housing policy. I was shocked by how many investigations have been conducted since 2006. Virtually every centimeter of Swedish housing policy has been investigated both in length and breadth. It is over 60 investigations, Mr. Speaker - over 60 investigations! How many times does one need to investigate the same things before one actually does something about the problems? I honestly wonder.

At the same time, the housing shortage is great, and housing construction has practically stalled. The global situation, inflation, and the economic development significantly affect the housing market. It is therefore of crucial importance for the housing market's development and the households' economy that the economic policy is responsible. But the responsibility must not lead to sluggishness or an unwillingness to act.

Mr. Speaker! I belong to those who have criticized the previous investment support. It had large deadweight effects. Our much-needed tax money went to housing that would have been built in any case. We thus filled developers' pockets while simultaneously building in additional problems in the housing sector - this at the same time as municipalities exacerbated the cost development through well-adjusted land prices to fill other holes in the municipal finances. In 2020, the municipalities withdrew 9.5 billion kronor, and in 2021 nearly 12 billion. A very large amount of today's problems in the municipal sector stem directly from the housing policy at large.

The Riksbank is not entirely innocent in this mess. Heavy purchases of housing bonds financed developers' cross-ownership, which both built in risks in the housing sector and created a loan carousel where many companies are extremely highly leveraged and are thus very sensitive to the slightest interest rate change. One example is the companies in Malmö, where, as a result of the interest rate increases, they demand a new rent negotiation immediately after the previous rent negotiation is finished.

One can observe the following: No one has wanted to take a holistic approach and carry out necessary structural reforms in housing policy. The price for the policy's failure is paid by Fatima in Botkyrka, but also by Inger in any location in the interior.

Mr. Speaker! It is high time for a parliamentary crisis commission for the Swedish housing market. I read the other day that 3,000 shops risk going bankrupt in the near future due to the index change that has kicked in because of inflation.

It is time that we take our responsibility for our elderly, for our vulnerable areas, for the students, for young people who want their own home - for the hundreds of thousands of people who, by light and lantern, search for a roof over their heads. A home of one's own - a roof over one's head and something that feels secure - is part of our basic human needs.

Mr. Speaker! If one is to be completely honest, much of the housing policy lies outside the scope of the Committee on Civil Affairs and thus also outside the consideration. The interest deduction, capital gains taxation, general monetary policy, and so on are handled in other committees. The state's financial responsibility for housing policy is, however, a fundamental steering method to achieve results. Certainly, there are things even within the scope of the Committee on Civil Affairs' area of responsibility to facilitate housing construction, but we will take that in the next debate.

Approximately half of Sweden is today classified as a state interest. The scope is too large and interferes in an unreasonable way with pressing needs. Therefore, the state interests must be specified so that smaller areas are covered. A state interest claim should, as a rule, be for the protection of an area that is of just national interest rather than a regional concern. State interests should in normal cases also not be used to protect land that is already protected through other legislation or that is claimed for the intended purpose.

Mr. Speaker! As a member of the Centre Party, it is a hygiene factor to talk about construction in the countryside. In Sweden's rural areas and smaller towns, there are different challenges than in the metropolitan regions, where high land prices and construction costs are covered by the value of completed housing. Low housing prices outside the larger cities make it difficult to achieve profitability in investments when the property value must be written down as soon as the house is built.

The accounting rules for non-profit housing companies mean that in many municipalities it is difficult to build new homes, despite the demand. The Center Party has for many years campaigned for a review of the regulatory framework in order to find solutions that facilitate housing construction across the country without colliding with the EU's state aid rules. We believe that an investigation should be commissioned to propose appropriate changes to the Annual Accounts Act. Additionally, the state credit guarantees, among other things, need to be directed more clearly towards weak markets, where it is particularly difficult in the short term to achieve profitability in the new production of housing.

Mr. Speaker! Let me finally touch upon the question of the need for a reform of the rental market. The rental pricing model with collective negotiations and use-value rent has not succeeded in achieving a housing supply that corresponds to the actual needs. Instead, it contributes to low mobility and lock-in effects for groups and individuals. At the same time, the poorly functioning rental market has fueled housing prices, increased households' debt-to-income ratios, and forced people to, with interest-sensitive calculations, seek out the owned market.

The waiting time for a rental apartment in the large cities is unreasonably long. The many social contracts and the all-too-extensive homelessness also show that the model has failed to take the necessary social considerations into account.

The system of negotiated rents always has a role to play on the Swedish housing market. But it must be complemented by both more demand-driven solutions and targeted measures for those people who today fall between the cracks and fail to enter the housing market and maintain a home.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party and I naturally stand behind all our reservations in this report, but for the sake of time, I only move for approval of reservation 24.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have several problems, as we have heard from previous speakers here this morning, connected to the housing industry today. On one hand, we have a glaring housing shortage that now risks becoming even worse as a result of the decreasing construction we are now seeing in the wake of the economic crisis. On the other hand, the construction sector and the real estate sector also have an enormous environmental impact. Just over one-fifth of Sweden's total emissions stem from this sector.

If we in Sweden are to reach our climate and environmental goals, something that we in Miljöpartiet are still fighting for in any case, we must find smart solutions to tackle both of these problem areas. We simply must use our premises and buildings more smartly. By, for example, promoting local sharing and different forms of flexibility, we can reduce the need for new construction.

In order for this to have the desired effect, we must take a holistic approach to this issue. It is partly about the fact that tax rules, the Rent Act, and the Planning and Building Act need to be designed in a better way, and partly about the fact that the government must facilitate the conversion of buildings to new purposes, for example from office premises to housing. Furthermore, newly produced buildings need to be flexible and be able to be adapted to different needs over time as these change and develop.

Mr. Speaker! We naturally have several proposals that we support, but today I specifically want to move for approval of reservation 4 with a motion from our party motion 2022/23:2175 which concerns exactly measures to promote local sharing and various forms of flexibility to reduce the need for new construction, something that contributes to solving both the housing shortage and Sweden's high emissions.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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