Housing policy

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a tough situation on the Swedish housing market today. Mortgage rates have nearly tripled compared to the peak year 2021. Construction costs have risen by 27 percent. Housing prices have fallen by 14 percent. It will take time before the households' purchasing power is restored.

That is why the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are implementing inflation-fighting measures, simplifying the building regulations, shortening lead times, and attempting to improve the utilization of the existing stock through, for example, the conversion of premises into housing. People must be able to afford to demand the housing that is built. Long-term changes and competition-creating measures were needed in the housing policy area. It is necessary to enable more people to own their own home.

Mr. Speaker! We face an uphill battle after taking over the government from a Social Democratic government. The labor market suffers from a major housing shortage, and just as bad is the situation regarding students' opportunities to obtain student housing. The overcrowding is significant, and the housing shortage has led to price increases on housing. The anxiety in residential areas and the increased insecurity have spread widely.

A major cause of the problems in the housing market today is previous governments' migration policy. According to Boverket, the agency that provides reports on these issues, a latent need of 175,600 housing units has been built up since 2006 because housing construction has not been able to match the population increase that has occurred over the last ten years.

I can exemplify with the last ten years, even though the housing market has been strongly affected by migration for much longer than that. Over the last ten years, the population has increased by 1 million. It is clear that under such conditions, it is difficult to have a long-term perspective in the housing policy area. It is also difficult to build to keep pace with the housing shortage that exists when one conducts that form of migration policy.

The population increase over the next ten years will, according to SCB's forecast, be 500,000 people. This is a figure that will be adjusted in conjunction with the Tidö Agreement changes that will be implemented in the migration policy area and which are not included in the new population forecast. In addition, the incentive measures that we are implementing regarding repatriation shall be added.

Mr. Speaker! Never did the previous government succeed in reaching Boverket's goal for how many homes need to be built. It is a serious situation that the old government has put us in. Now a long series of measures need to be taken. We are working on that together with the government today. We need a long-term perspective. We need to create demand and moving chains and create security in our residential areas again.

That is why we, together with the government, in the latest budget have introduced planning incentives for small houses. We know that seven out of ten people want to live in a small house. We have also introduced a planning incentive for the conversion of premises into housing, because we know that there is currently a large surplus of premises, partly due to the pandemic measures that were taken; more people are now working from home. There is an opportunity to produce more housing by creating conditions for the municipalities to be able to work on that issue better.

A proposal has also been submitted regarding a changed mortgage ceiling, which the Finansinspektionen is now looking at. It is another measure from the government side to enable more people to own their own home. We are also, of course, investigating the development of more efficient private rentals in order to be able to utilize the existing stock in a better and more efficient way. The development of rent-to-buy models is being investigated so that more people can have the opportunity to own their home and to create conditions for getting more homes onto the market.

A committee is reviewing the amortization requirement. As the Sweden Democrats, together with the government parties, have raised for a very long time, it has been a restrictive measure for people's ability to own their own home. The amortization requirement is an important issue for getting housing construction started in the future. We have also tasked Boverket with looking at relaxations in building requirements for student housing. This means, together with many other measures for which proposals are now being submitted, opportunities to in the future have better conditions for the Swedish housing market.

Furthermore, measures were needed in the area of creating safety. The Sweden Democrats have over the years highlighted several proposals that we now, together with the government, for the first time get the opportunity to implement. This concerns, for example, the investigation on strengthening safety in residential areas through so-called BID, as well as stay bans, visitation zones - or security zones, as we call them now - and stricter rules for eviction in the case of crimes in the immediate vicinity for those living in rented apartments. These are important measures to once again create safety in the housing policy area.

Furthermore, not to be forgotten, we also soon need to establish an opportunity for starter loans for first-time buyers, an opportunity for young people to enter the housing market, together with changes to the amortization requirements, rent-to-buy models, and a number of other measures that the government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, are presenting. In this way, when things change and inflation is dampened, we can again create conditions for the Swedish housing market to get back on its feet and provide an opportunity for more people to enter it. We can create moving chains that enable people to actually afford to demand new production so that other households can take over in the older stock.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the Sweden Democrats and I agree on one thing, namely that we are in the middle of a construction crisis and are finding it difficult to match housing with people's incomes. We therefore need to make changes.

During the record year 2021, construction of 71,000 new homes was started under a red-green government. I think we should remember that. The pace of construction was high.

Since the new government took office, the investment support has been removed, but we see very few measures in place. Roger Hedlund highlights several things that could be interesting, but we do not see that any exist today in this situation where we might end up at a construction level below 20,000 homes this year.

Do the Sweden Democrats really seriously believe that it is the migration policy that is the great solution to the housing crisis and the housing shortage in Sweden?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for your question! It is very good that this discussion arises and that you are asking exactly the question about the impact of migration policy on the housing market.

It is quite easy to state, if one looks at the diagrams from a historical perspective, how high the housing construction was under the previous government where Miljöpartiet was included compared to how high the migration has been. We then see that the government that you have supported and that Miljöpartiet has been part of has contributed to building up a latent housing shortage in Sweden. One only has to read Boverket's report. All these figures are stated there.

It is the previous government, together with other governments, that has contributed to the situation we have today. It cannot be avoided. When we stand in that situation, we naturally need to change the migration policy in order to be able to achieve a possibility of balance on the housing market. As long as we have a high migration, it will be difficult to catch up. It is a basic prerequisite to catch up. Then measures are needed to stimulate the conditions for more people to be able to demand housing so that we can build more housing. The fact that we build more housing does not mean that people can afford to demand them.

That is where the measures that the government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, propose come in. They are investigating the amortization requirement, which the previous government refused to look at. They are looking at the conditions for rent-to-buy models with starter loans and other measures to create competition in the housing market and bring down prices so that people can demand a home. I see nothing there, neither historically nor today, from Miljöpartiet and the old government.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I interpret it as that the Sweden Democrats' greatest tool is to reduce Sweden's population instead of building new homes. I think that is remarkable. We can go back to the different figures from both Tillväxtverket and Svenskt Näringsliv regarding how difficult it is to recruit in Sweden, how difficult we have it with skills supply and how difficult it is to fill jobs in different places.

The construction sector is having a very difficult time now. We see a great risk that those who work within the construction sector will leave Sweden and start working somewhere else, which will make it even harder to continue building housing when the economy turns and we get momentum in housing construction again. I do not quite understand what the solution will be on how we are to make Sweden continue to function, how we are to take care of our elderly, how we can build more housing, and how we can get all these services that we want in Sweden if we pursue the politics that the Sverigedemokraterna are now propagating for.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I think we are drifting away a bit in the discussion on housing policy, but I am happy to take up that glove.

The migration that has been ongoing in Sweden for a very long time has not been a migration that has constituted a skill-enhancing resource for this country. To mean that we are in need of high migration in order to be able to achieve the conditions that companies demand is simply pure nonsense.

It is also not the case, and that must be remembered, that everyone who came to Sweden through the migration that the previous government together with Miljöpartiet has driven have been people in their 20s who have been educated and were able to go directly into the labor market. It has been about people of all ages, even people who went directly into elderly care. To believe that migration in some way has solved the problems with the labor force that we need within, among other things, elderly care is just a comical analysis of a failed migration policy.

I absolutely assert that if one looks at the figures and reads the reports from Boverket, it clearly shows exactly what the Sweden Democrats have talked about for all these years: Migration is a cause that has strongly affected the housing supply in Sweden. It has been one of the fundamental problems behind why we have not been able to build fast enough to keep up with the housing shortage in Sweden.

We know the consequence of the housing shortage in Sweden. It affects the labor market, studies, the security in society, and a number of other areas. If we do not have housing, we cannot create the conditions to counteract all the problems that I raise. Therefore, migration is crucial. With a strongly limited migration, together with all the measures that I have stood and read out here, we can however regain balance in the housing market.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Roger Hedlund for the speech. It was clarifying in some parts. It was factually incorrect in several parts. I will not comment on all of them but will content myself with first asking a question.

Listening to Roger Hedlund, it seems, just as my colleague said here earlier, as if return migration is the Sweden Democrats' solution to the housing shortage. Then I must ask: In what way, concretely, does return migration solve the competence supply needs in, for example, Norrbotten, Västerbotten and Västernorrland?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Repatriation is, of course, a measure to enable us to have a functioning integration policy in Sweden today, because today we have very many people who have difficulty becoming part of Swedish society and entering the labor market and, furthermore, as we have heard in this housing policy debate, the housing market. It is a reason why we today have the insecure housing areas that we see all around Sweden. We have a housing market that does not function. We have overcrowding, we have insecurity, and we have a number of other problems that lie behind this. Migration policy is a directly influencing cause of what we have in Sweden today.

Mr. Speaker! Jennie Nilsson raises the issue of competence. It is about creating the conditions so that the regions mentioned can build housing so that the competence can be brought in. The Government has asked an investigator to look at the proposals in order to enable better conditions.

We also have a five-year extension for having temporary housing in Norrbotten. It is intended to make it possible to move and to have temporary housing while the regions are building. It is about the conditions for bringing in the competence that there is a great need for today.

I think that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has handled that situation very well based on what we have been handed over from the old government.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that Roger Hedlund is correct in his answer. The perception in these regions, or other regions where large corporate establishments are underway and the need for extensive construction is crying out, is not that the Sweden Democrats and the government have done enough. Their perception is that the government and the Sweden Democrats have done nothing at all.

In his speech, Roger Hedlund claimed that no government has ever succeeded in meeting the construction need that Boverket assesses exists. That is not true by definition. It has been done in individual years. Above all, it can be stated that during the previous government's period, an average of 60,000 homes were built per year. That is, if not exactly on the mark, very close to the mark. In other words, it is entirely possible to build a lot through active housing policy.

A number of logical fallacies are made when reasoning about how to solve the housing shortage through repatriation and migration policy. Roger Hedlund points out that the population increase has been 1 million in ten years. This has also been a prerequisite for the economic growth that we have seen in Sweden. With stagnated or decreased population development, it would automatically result in decreased economic growth. There would be less money to give to healthcare, to school, to the police, to security systems and so on. All of that the Sverigedemokraterna and Roger Hedlund leave out in their reasoning.

Roger Hedlund raises a few points regarding what has been done. One thing is that we have given the Finansinspektionen a mandate regarding mortgage caps. I can inform Roger Hedlund that the Finansinspektionen has responded. They say no.

They are raising the start loans. There is a majority, together with the Social Democrats, who are in favor of getting it in place. Make sure the government sends it!

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Financial Supervisory Authority is withholding a decision pending investigations elsewhere.

Interesting in this context is that Jennie Nilsson speaks a lot about what the government does not do, but she does not take responsibility for what her own, previous government failed to achieve during all those years. What was achieved was a large deficit in housing. One only has to read Boverket's report. We have a latent deficit of 175,600 homes, and it has built up over a ten-year period. It is the consequence of the previous government's housing policy.

Then one stands here and claims to have had high construction numbers. That does not help, Madam Speaker. When we look at the final result, we see that migration exceeded the number of housing units that were built. Having high construction numbers does the same if one simultaneously increases the imbalance in the housing market. That is the consequence.

If the Sweden Democrats had governed during the ten-year period, the situation would, of course, have looked completely different, with the Sweden Democrats' policies. We would have had the same good conditions to achieve the high construction numbers for a time without the high inflation and the high interest rates that we see in Sweden today. But the difference would have been that we would not have had the large migration, which the previous government stood behind and which created this situation.

We would have therefore had a much better, more favorable outlook on the housing market with the Sweden Democrats' policy, which is a combination of sound migration policy and good foresight within housing policy. It is something that the previous government was never interested in. You do not build housing in two years. The planning period is long. One cannot have a wrecked migration policy that destroys the housing market in such a short time.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I am outraged to sit and listen to out-of-touch, hateful politicians. I shall deliver my speech and hope that a rebuttal is taken.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by moving to approve the Left Party's reservation of motive in the report.

Sweden is in a crisis, a comprehensive housing policy crisis that the current SD government lacks the political will and competence to solve. It is not only the Left Party that criticizes the government's non-existent housing policy and inability to recognize the seriousness of today's situation. In principle, all social actors have raised their voices.

Even this year, rents continue to soar, even this year the number of evictions of families with children continues to increase, and even this year pensioners who have worked their entire lives continue to find it increasingly difficult to pay for food and rent.

There are still 180 municipalities reporting that they have a housing shortage. And according to figures from SCB's latest consumer price index, the cost of housing was the cost that increased the most on average last year. Calculated as an annual average, housing prices rose by a full 12.2 percent during 2023. In other words, the chaos in the housing market continues, and so does the government's passivity.

From the government, we hear the same whining about building small houses and the same nagging that more people should rent housing on a secondary market with absurd rents. Especially in the large cities, young people and others are referred to this secondary market. And in Norrland, the society's green transition risks being stopped because there is a lack of housing. This is the result of the government's passive attitude towards housing policy.

Madam Speaker! In the report we are now discussing, it can be read that the construction rate decreased by 55 percent last year compared to the year before. The decrease is furthermore expected to increase further during 2024, so that the number of started homes will be approximately 19,500. This can be compared with the 67,000 homes that would actually need to be added, according to Boverket.

Important reasons for the sharp decline in housing construction are weakened purchasing power among households as well as difficulties with financing of new production. A government cannot arrange everything in society, but these are things that a government could influence through an active policy, if one wishes. But the will, or possibly the knowledge, seems to be lacking, even though all conceivable social actors seem to be in agreement.

Svenskt Näringsliv, LO, Byggnads, and Stockholms Handelskammare are some of the many who wonder where the political capacity for action has gone. The latter presented a report this week where they argue that the construction crisis could cost 1,000 billion kronor until the year 2030. I quote the vice managing director of Stockholms Handelskammare: "It cannot be overemphasized enough that it is time for political capacity for action."

Thoughts go back to the 90s crisis. At that time, large parts of the construction industry's workforce left the profession, which led to a prolonged crisis. It is a crisis that, for example, Byggnads argues that we still suffer from to some extent today. Now the same thing is happening again. When the construction industry is hit, it spreads to other neighboring industries. It affects employment and skills across the entire country.

But in the midst of all this, the government announces that no further measures are needed to get construction started. They have done nothing, but they still claim that it is sufficient. No one other than the government itself believes that regulatory simplifications, continued sell-offs of the few cheap rental apartments that exist, and larger profits for the villa or condominium owner who wants to rent out their home in the second hand can solve today's crisis. It is simply unserious.

Nowhere in today's report or in this autumn's budget does it appear how the government intends to help produce more affordable housing or how it intends to curb unemployment in the construction industry, beyond the expensive, unfair, and inefficient rotavdrag, which it seems to believe can solve all problems.

After a couple of years in power, it is now clear that the government's lack of interest in the situation of ordinary people is well cemented. The understanding for the country's tenants, construction workers, homeless people, and poor pensioners is zero and non-existent. There is a total inability to understand how difficult it is for many people in today's Sweden to make the money stretch for the most basic needs. There is nothing more to cut back on when the rent is raised again by 5 or 15 percent. More and more people simply do not have enough money and more and more in the construction industry lack work.

Madam Speaker! While many agree that the government is not doing enough, just as many agree that there are ways to get closer to a solution. It is possible to implement measures to reduce the housing shortage and simultaneously create jobs in the construction sector. It is a win-win situation.

Here are some examples that actors in the industry have requested. High on many people's wish list is a cross-bloc agreement on the introduction of a new, expanded and long-term investment support for the construction of rental apartments.

Byggnads and GS-facket point out the great opportunities in developing more circular construction with less waste and more recycled material. Sweden could become a leader in sustainable construction and simultaneously create more jobs.

Give the county administrative boards a greater responsibility to stimulate construction by identifying areas for housing construction! Set higher requirements for municipalities to release build-ready land! The municipalities' responsibility in the statutory housing supply responsibility must be clarified.

Give the municipalities economic incentives to build more based on actual needs, and introduce a fine for those who do not build according to the specified goals!

Increase the number of educational places with requirements for apprenticeship positions within the construction sector so that important skills can remain even after the crisis!

It is some of the proposals that the government chooses not to care about in its eagerness to sit still in the boat and watch as the crisis deepens further. Vänsterpartiet stands behind all these proposals.

Madam Speaker! The green transition of society is a must. Housing and premises account for around one-third of the country's energy consumption. The construction sector accounts for 35 percent of all waste within the EU, and in Sweden, the sector accounts for over 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. The equation is not so difficult. Lower energy use means lower environmental impact. More recycling promotes a sustainable society.

The construction and housing sector is simply a very important piece of the puzzle if the green transition is to become a reality. The EU is trying to address the issue, among other things, through the directive on the energy performance of buildings, but the member states must themselves choose which instruments and measures are to be used to achieve the agreed levels. Sweden's government chose, of course, immediately upon taking office, to phase out the previous energy efficiency support which was intended to improve the energy performance in existing multi-family dwellings. They phased it out and replaced it with, in principle, nothing.

In the current situation, there is admittedly an energy efficiency grant that was introduced last year but which only – not so surprisingly, perhaps – is aimed at owners of small houses. Significantly more than that was needed. If we are to achieve a proper green transition, the state must also dare to invest financially.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party has many good and important proposals that 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. It is about a housing policy that also invests in the necessary green transition.

We need a national strategy to ensure everyone's right to a housing at an affordable cost, and we need a new housing supply law that covers both the state and the municipalities.

We need a state housing policy that dares to invest in housing construction and also contribute financially, not least in these times of crisis.

We need a state housing policy that understands that the green societal construction presupposes both secure and climate-efficient housing throughout the country. An effective climate transition requires that both new construction and existing buildings reduce their climate impact. Therefore, it is not enough for the state to only invest in owners of small houses.

We need a state housing policy that makes targeted investments towards increased construction in wood. Despite Sweden being one of the world's most forested countries, it is still only 13 percent of multi-story buildings that are built in wood. If, instead, half of all multi-story buildings were built in wood in 2025, the climate impact during the construction phase could be reduced by as much as 40 percent per year.

We need a state housing policy that invests in reforms that increase the proportion of reused building materials.

We need a state housing policy that safeguards children's right to housing instead of the government proposing reforms that will with one hundred percent certainty lead to even more children being evicted.

Vänsterpartiet has a housing policy that fulfills all of this.

Madam Speaker! Everyone should have somewhere to live, a home where one is safe and can stay. That everyone has their own home will always be more important for the Left Party than that a few more individuals should be able to buy a small house.

The focus for a state housing policy must be to create better and more just regulations and conditions, which better reflect housing as a human right. The focus cannot be that those who own their home should get to receive a multitude of subsidies while the rest have to manage as best they can on a secondary market where those who own homes get to dictate and rule and earn unreasonably large amounts of money at the expense of those seeking housing.

When other parties choose to phase out all support to the rental market, the Left Party chooses a different path. Financial support from the state is necessary if we are to stop the housing crisis with the subsequent unemployment crisis.

When the government chooses a policy that, according to the Climate Policy Council, will cause Sweden to increase emissions for the first time in decades, the Left Party chooses the opposite path.

When the government does not deliver any reforms that help against the crisis we are in the middle of, Vänsterpartiet is ready to do so.

Madam Speaker! After a few years in opposition to this government, my faith that they will carry out reforms that can increase housing construction is honestly thinning. I want to highlight this, my somewhat resigned statement, by concluding with a quote from the CEO of Trä- och möbelföretagen: "The only sharp proposal to favor new production that the government has presented is 60 million kronor to the municipalities for increased small house planning. It is a shockingly low ambition in the face of one of the worst construction collapses in 100 years."

Madam Speaker! I also want to take the opportunity to say: Free Palestine!

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Directly across the street from my bus stop on Danska vägen in Gothenburg, there is a deep excavation. In the excavation stands a construction crane. On the fence around the excavation, there are advertising signs for a condominium project. It is a parking lot being densified.

What is not stated on the signs is that the construction is currently paused. The crane remains, but the construction workers are not there working. The apartments are not selling in today's economic climate.

Madam Speaker! The empty construction site is a good symbol for where our Swedish housing policy has ended up. I intended to devote my time in the speaker's chair to explaining why we are where we are, and how we are going to get out of it.

When the Moderate-led government took office just under a year and a half ago, we did not come to a set table. Sweden was characterized by insecurity and gang shootings. We had a volatile electricity price that constantly hit new price records and a broken power grid that caused industrial investments to be put on hold.

Inflation had picked up pace, and food prices had become a topic around the kitchen tables. On the housing side, Sweden had been characterized for decades by a housing shortage, low mobility, and constantly rising construction costs. Despite a booming economy and zero interest rates, it was only in a few individual years that housing construction reached the levels that Boverket assesses as necessary to meet the needs.

At the same time, the pace of reform within housing policy had been low during the past eight years. Apart from an investment subsidy that fueled price developments and pleased property developers on the stock exchange, the biggest reform concerned some building permit freedom for balconies. The only thing that maintained a high pace was the pace of changing housing ministers. The moving boxes were carried in and out of the housing minister's office faster than in a second-hand apartment in a student town.

Madam Speaker! The voters' frustration over the situation in the country was evident. The 2022 election resulted in a clear mandate for the Tidö parties to get Sweden in order. It is a mandate where the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have now begun to deliver.

In just 18 months, we have dampened inflation and lowered taxes for ordinary people. The tax burden is now the lowest since 1975. It is lower than during Bohman, Bildt, and Borg. Step by step, we have given police and prosecutors new tools to push back insecurity and the criminal gangs. We have taken important first steps toward building new nuclear power and granted permits for a record number of wind turbines.

Madam Speaker! We have begun to reform Swedish housing policy in order to regain a functioning housing market. What is it that has not functioned? Today, housing construction has plummeted as a consequence of prices and interest rates rising sharply. It is difficult or even impossible to make the calculations work when building new today, regardless of whether one is to rent out or sell the apartments as condominiums. Households do not dare to take the risk of building small houses.

According to a report from Byggföretagen from December last year, the rate of increase in construction costs has only been as large at two previous occasions since 1950, during the Korean War and during the oil crisis in 1973. The high prices have not only hit households hard. They have also led to a historically large fall in housing construction.

At the same time, according to Boverket, there is a housing shortage in 180 of the country's 290 municipalities, and the shortage is greatest in our large cities and growth centers. Those hardest hit are, among others, young adults.

In the report Young Adults' Housing from Hyresgästföreningen, it is stated that more than every fourth person aged 20-27 still lives at home with their parents. The report also shows that every third person hesitates to move to pursue an education or start a job because they are worried about not finding a home. They even hesitate to start a family. This is how the situation has looked for decades, Hyresgästföreningen states.

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, we have extremely long lead times in construction. The detailed planning process for the construction opposite my bus stop began in September 2015. If the construction is not resumed soon, it will take ten years from the time the process began until someone can move in.

According to the initiative Bygg i tid, which a number of construction and real estate companies stand behind and which measures lead times in the construction process, it takes an average of five years from the time a planning process is initiated until permits are granted and a first spade can be turned. That is the average time. That does not include, for example, the time for a land allocation before or while waiting for a planning process to be initiated. Then the actual construction time also remains.

Madam Speaker! All of this has been well-known and accelerating problems for several decades. Still, the S-led government under Stefan Löfven and Magdalena Andersson chose not to take any measures. They did not address the fact that the housing shortage has taken hold of Sweden and that young people but also families with children and retirees have difficulty finding suitable housing.

They did not address the accelerating construction costs that have pushed up the prices of both detached houses and condominiums as well as rental apartments. They did not address the long lead times, which mean that there is still only a trench and an abandoned construction crane opposite the bus stop on Danska vägen.

Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government has now begun the work of getting the housing market in order. We are reviewing the regulatory framework to achieve simplifications and reduce construction costs. Among other things, we have given a clear mandate to Boverket regarding the possibility of exempting student apartments from certain requirements in order to enable more and cheaper student housing.

We are increasing the availability of buildable land by reviewing the shore protection rules and continuing work on, among other things, noise regulations and national interests. We are looking broadly at lead times, including based on the proposals that the initiative Bygg i tid has put forward. Here, it is not a single problem that must be solved, but a process that must begin to function better.

But the government is also doing other things to achieve a better-functioning housing market. We are strengthening security in the rental housing sector by making it easier to evict grossly criminal individuals who use the housing to commit crimes or create insecurity in their local area.

It is the criminal, not the law-abiding neighbor, who should have to move. No one should be able to hold a whole stairwell, a house, or a neighborhood hostage. We have commissioned an investigation to review how cooperation for increased safety between, for example, property owners, civil society, and the public can be strengthened through legislation. These are two important reforms to increase safety in our residential areas.

We are also investigating how existing housing can be converted into condominiums and how we can create legislation on rent-to-own models. These are important reforms to broaden ownership, create more housing forms and lower the threshold into the housing market.

We are investigating how to facilitate for private individuals to rent out all or parts of their residence in order to achieve a better utilization of the already existing stock.

We do this based on a clear mandate that we have received from the Swedish people and for which we in the Tidö parties also have a broad political majority in the Riksdag. But our political platform is not just about getting Sweden in order here and now. There is also a vision of a better Sweden on the horizon.

Madam Speaker! In the Moderates' Sweden, it should not take years in a housing queue, millions in the bank or good contacts to secure a home.

In the Moderaternas Sverige, one should not have to say no to the dream education, the dream job or the dream partner because one cannot find a home.

In the Moderaternas Sverige, one should be able to choose how one wants to live, whether it is a condominium in the city, a problem-free rental home, or a house with its own garden.

In the Moderaternas Sverige, new construction occurs according to what the people demand, not according to what monuments architects want to leave behind.

In the Moderaternas Sweden, no one is homeless due to a lack of housing, and those who need help from society for their housing for social reasons receive exactly that.

In Moderaternas Sverige, regulations are not designed so that the calculation does not add up, but rather so that it becomes economically possible to both build and manage good properties where the residents thrive and are safe.

Madam Speaker! After eight years with the Social Democrats in power, there is much that needs to be done. The inflation monster must be wrestled down, security must be regained, and the energy supply must be secured. It must become easier to build, the planning processes must take less time, and the buildable land must increase so that we can get construction started when the economy turns. We have now initiated that work in just 18 months.

If inflation goes down and interest rates stabilize, the possibility of resuming the construction at Danska vägen also increases. Instead of an empty hole in the ground, as a monument to the failed Swedish housing policy, it can become a house filled with people where there was previously an empty parking space – a monument to the fact that faith in the future has returned and a monument in the small, that we have started to get Sweden in order again.

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

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to take the floor today, but honestly, I was quite provoked by David Josefsson's ten-minute speech about everything that was looked at and investigated and all these monuments all around Sweden.

I want to ask a concrete question to David Josefsson: All these investigations and everything that the government is looking at, when will they come to the Riksdag for consideration? When I look at the list of government bills, I cannot see any proposals regarding these monuments that are to be put in place.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I must apologize to the Speaker if the Center Party is provoked by the Moderates telling us about their housing policy. Unfortunately, it is well collateral damage, that is, something one has to expect sometimes.

I can start by stating that there is a fairly broad consensus in this chamber precisely when it comes to rule simplifications and those types of reforms. I hope that we will be able to return with various proposals quite soon.

But let me answer the specific question. I am afraid that the member from the Center Party, Alireza Akhondi, has not read the list of bills. A bill is coming this spring to make it easier to evict criminals. It has been sent for a Government Offices review, and I hope that the changes can become legislation as early as the end of May, according to the schedule.

I would also wish that there were even more proposals on the table and that Axel Oxenstierna's administrative model moved faster, but we are working as fast as we can. I hope that we will manage to achieve necessary, important and good changes to the rental housing legislation already by the summer, so that we can make our residential areas safer and so that criminals cannot hold stairwells, squares or neighborhoods hostage. It is not the law-abiding neighbor who should move, but the criminal.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! David Josefsson thus confirms that the government has no proposals on how these monuments shall be put in place, apart from a proposition that they intend to bring to the Riksdag during the spring. They also intend to fast-track that proposition.

Since David Josefsson himself brought up the subject, I thought I would ask him the same question that I asked the journalist who called me and wanted a comment on exactly this. If one commits a crime in one's rental apartment, it is surely reasonable that one should be considered to have forfeited their right of tenancy. Already today, such possibilities exist for the property owner.

If a person has committed a crime in connection with their rental apartment, one could, if one wants to be tough, consider that the rental apartment is forfeited. But in the debate, it seems as if the government intends to submit a bill where it is proposed that the person who is a criminal—however one defines the weight of different crimes—should not have the right to have any rental apartment at all.

Then I would like to hear from David Josefsson how this bill is intended to be designed. Will state secretaries who commit fishing crimes lose their property or their rental apartment?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! There is a story about a Centre Party member who is said to have said from this rostrum: The Centre Party has always wanted and will always want.

First, the Centre Party criticizes the government for moving too slowly and for too little happening. Then, the government is criticized for too much happening and moving too fast. The criticism must be consistent: Are we doing things too slowly or too fast? Here, we are apparently doing things both too slowly and too fast.

Then I think the criticism is quite trivial in a very serious matter. I have stood outside an apartment where drug sales have occurred. Outside the apartment was a playground. No children played on that playground, because one didn't dare. No one dares to let their children out on a playground where drug sales occur through a window.

I have stood in a corridor where an apartment owner shot and killed two people. Who dares to continue living in such an area? I have seen houses where doors have been blown up, houses where drugs have been stored, and houses where explosives have been stored.

Then the criticism from the opposition, with a nonsensical argument, is about whether one has fished for eel with a permit or not and whether one should then be evicted! I assume that the person who is the housing policy spokesperson for a party and has an opinion on the government's bill has at least read the Council of State referral and understands what the proposal is about.

I am becoming concerned if we cannot achieve a broad parliamentary anchoring regarding things that are quite self-evident, for example, that it is not the law-abiding citizen who should have to move, but the grossly criminal one. This is about grossly criminal people who use their residence for crime or commit crimes in close proximity to their residence. It is a concrete and important proposal that I am proud that this government is implementing.

(Applause)

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Let me continue the discussion on the proposal for safer residential areas. David Josefsson says that it is the criminal who should be evicted and not the law-abiding. I agree with that one hundred percent. But the proposal actually says that if a child living in an apartment with their family commits a crime in close proximity to the residence, the entire family will be evicted. It is therefore the entire family that is to be evicted and not just the individual who has committed a crime.

I am trying to be as clear as possible, because otherwise David Josefsson will start talking about the one who has committed the crime. I do not want to talk about the one who has committed the crime, because there we agree. If one commits a crime, one should be punished in accordance with the law.

Now I want to talk about everyone else who lives together with the person who commits the crime. It concerns the mother, the father, or the siblings, who have not committed a crime. They are, therefore, to be evicted.

This does not align with what David Josefsson says, that it is the one who commits a crime who should be evicted and not the law-abiding. Does David Josefsson mean that if a child in a family commits a crime, the entire family is guilty of the crime? It becomes collective punishment, which David Josefsson refers to. I really want an honest answer to this. Do not focus again on just the one who has committed a crime, David Josefsson, but on all others who have not committed a crime.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, for the question! It is exactly as the member says. This is part of the proposal. This shall be the basis for forfeiture of the lease agreement not only when the criminal is on the lease agreement but also when someone else is on it.

I will begin by stating that it is not about a punishment. It is not a collective punishment. It is also not an individual punishment. It is a protection for the neighbors who live nearby. They should not have to live with grossly criminal individuals.

Madam Speaker! I can also state, just as I stated in the previous exchange of remarks, that the question is actually answered already in the referral to the Council of Legislation.

Let us say that we have a family where one or a few commit crimes but others are on the lease, and that those who are on the lease passively allow the crimes to occur. They do not, for example, intervene against the disturbance that affects the neighbors. In that case, they – and this is actually already clear in the rental legislation – have a responsibility for what happens in or around the apartment.

A family member who is genuinely worried that someone is committing a crime, who contacts social services, who tells the police, and who ensures that no drugs or weapons are kept in the apartment will, of course, not be evicted. But if one allows this to happen, if one looks away or if one watches and remains silent and does not tell the authorities, it is actually grounds for termination. I do not think that is particularly controversial.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I am not as sure that the others, who have not committed crimes, will be protected even if they do everything. All parents I have met, whose children have ended up in criminal environments, have done everything to get help. We have seen TV programs about this. Parents have said: I have contacted social services. I have contacted the police. I need help.

It is the parents and their other children, who have not committed any crimes, who will end up on the street with this legislation.

The question I want to ask is: Where are all these families with children, especially those who have not committed any crimes, supposed to go when you have succeeded in evicting them? Having a home is a right. This legislation will one hundred percent lead to several families with children being evicted. When you have succeeded in doing this, where are these children and parents supposed to go? How is this going to help integration? I would really like to have answers to these questions. Where are they supposed to go once they are evicted?

The second thing that David Josefsson mentions is an argument that is used from the government side: We want to protect all neighbors. If someone lives in an apartment or a residence and that person is subjected to threats, violence, a bomb, or whatever it is, that person must be removed or at least move or be evicted from their housing.

I am a politician. A couple of weeks ago, my family was threatened. They threatened to bomb my home. I have not committed any crime, but it may be that my neighbors become very scared and worried. Should my family and I be evicted because I was subjected to a bomb threat? Is that the government's reasoning?

I agree that the neighbors should be able to feel safe, but I must also be able to feel safe. The families whose children have ended up in criminal environments should also be able to feel safe. Why don't we create a prerequisite to remove only those who have ended up in criminal environments, instead of evicting the families, so that the rest can stay?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! If one is to be able to have a serious political discussion about a proposal, one must have read what the proposal is about. Obviously, a crime victim who has not committed any crimes will not be evicted. This is pure disinformation. It is pure misinterpretation. I actually think it is unworthy to at all draw such conclusions from this speaker's rostrum.

I would like to pose a counter-question to Malcolm Momodou Jallow. We all know about the families where one tries to intervene against their children. What one must be aware of, even if it is difficult to accept, is that there are actually also kinship-based networks in Sweden where one raises their children into criminal structures. Crime becomes a family business or a kinship business. It is not that all families do not want the children to commit crimes. I can state that these families will never get in touch. They will never get in touch with me. Nor will they get in touch with Malcolm Momodou Jallow.

Then the question is: Where should these kinship-based networks move?

My question is: Where are all the people who today want to move because crimes are committed in their immediate vicinity – drugs are being dealt in the stairwell or at the playground, and drugs, weapons, and explosives are stored in the basement – supposed to move? They do not dare to stay because it is simply unsafe.

The truly important and difficult question, which I think those who oppose this proposal should answer, is: Where are these people supposed to move? Why is it reasonable that it is the law-abiding citizens who do not want to be subjected to crime who must move and that one cares about the families of the gang criminals? That is my question.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We have not had such a low level of housing construction since the last time Kristersson sat in a government. The construction crisis is a fact. All curves are pointing downwards, and Boverket points out that the decline is expected to continue.

In a situation where 67,000 homes need to be built per year until 2030, only just over 20,000 homes were started during the first three quarters of 2023. This is a decrease of 55 percent compared to the same period the previous year.

The negative trend is judged to continue both during 2024 and during 2025. It should be remembered that the deficit accumulates. For every year that the need for 67,000 housing units is not met, the conditions for coming years increase. Despite that, the government does not seem to have any plan to handle the crisis.

The little that has been done has been insufficient and, above all, in large parts incorrect. In a beginning recession, the choice was made to cut back on precisely that policy which facilitates construction. The choice was made to break entered agreements on Sweden negotiations and investment support without replacing it with anything else, which has likely contributed strongly to the construction crisis we see now.

Briefly, the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy so far can be summarized as that, instead of investing in housing construction, they have pulled the rug out from under the construction and timber house industry.

We see how long-established companies that have survived both financial crises and the pandemic are now being broken by the Tidö government's housing policy. The timber house industry has seen more bankruptcies during the autumn than during the pandemic. During the last quarter of 2023, the number of bankruptcies in the construction sector was at a level we have not seen since the crisis of the 90s. This continues during 2024. In February, the number of bankruptcies within the construction sector increased by a staggering 84 percent.

With the construction crisis and bankruptcies come layoffs. The total number of laid-off construction workers increased by 154 percent during 2023. The figure for this year is expected to be even higher. For the timber house industry, it looks even darker. GS-facket reports that the number of layoffs within the timber industry increased by as much as 270 percent last year compared to the year before.

Despite this, the government is cutting back not only on housing policy but also on job and education policy. One also chooses, in this situation, to announce that the Sweden Democrats and the government are now in agreement to scale back the unemployment insurance (a-kassan) after 100 days. It is a death blow for the construction and timber industry workers who are now forced into unemployment, not because their skills are no longer needed, but as a result of the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy, or perhaps rather, the lack of policy.

We now see how unions and employers, when the government fails, are forced to act themselves to save Swedish jobs. The hard-hit timber house industry is activating its own short-term support, without state support, as a way to manage the consequences of the construction crisis that the government has caused. The system resembles the one we Social Democrats put in place during the pandemic, but without the state's support. It is a demonstration of strength that shows the parties' ability to take responsibility for Swedish jobs. But it also shows the inability of the Sweden Democrats and the government.

Madam Speaker! We have the worst construction crisis since the 90s crisis. It will occur if nothing is done to permanently keep the housing shortage at a high level for a long time to come, and the consequences will be great. Fewer young people can move out from home, fewer can divorce, and women exposed to violence may be forced to stay in violent relationships. More will become overcrowded, while fewer can move out of a house that has become too large. Fewer will be able to move to take a job or to get an education, which affects the supply of skills, jobs, and growth. And Sweden will become poorer.

The National Institute of Economic Research assesses that the reduced construction lowers Sweden's GDP by 1 percentage point. This corresponds to approximately 60 billion kronor that could have been spent on schools, healthcare, police, pensions or security insurance - the list of needs is long. And possibly that figure is underestimated.

Stockholms Handelskammare has produced a report, Notan för byggkrisen, which highlights the effects of the construction crisis until 2030 in the Stockholm region. According to the report, the production loss for a single year is estimated to amount to between 30 and 49 billion, just in the Stockholm area. Their figure for the country is a staggering 88-153 billion kronor.

The negative employment effect is estimated to be as large as 3.4 percent fewer employed persons. This corresponds to 55,000 fewer jobs in the region. For the construction sector, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 33,000 more will become unemployed, and this again only in the Stockholm area.

Madam Speaker! Sweden cannot afford to let the construction sector collapse. We Social Democrats have therefore delivered a number of proposals to mitigate the crisis. We have proposed a construction stimulus in the form of production support to locations with large corporate establishments, as well as to student apartments. We have proposed favorable state co-financing in the form of state construction credits for new production.

We want to see targeted support for the energy efficiency of multi-family housing and a rotation reform that saves jobs and lowers electricity bills. We have demanded that the government immediately send the prepared proposal on start-up loans to the Riksdag for a decision and that it proceeds with the proposal that public utilities should be exempted from the requirements to apply the Public Procurement Act.

These are just a few examples that would have made a difference here and now. The Government and the Sweden Democrats have voted down all proposals. They also stubbornly and consistently refuse to listen to the plea from the business community, the unions, the Tenants' Association, and several others, all of whom want to see some form of crisis commission with the purpose of handling and mitigating the crisis.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that the serious situation requires a collective political responsibility. Sweden has at several occasions previously shown that it is possible to take collective responsibility in difficult times. Both the 90s crisis and the cross-bloc housing policy discussions during 2016 are good examples of that.

We are prepared to participate in work aimed at clarifying which acute measures are necessary to take and what is required to establish necessary long-term rules of the game. We want the government to appoint a housing commission with representatives from the construction industry, the parties, and politics, which shall primarily have the task of handling the acute construction crisis but which shall also work to develop long-term conditions for a high and stable level of construction over time.

In conclusion, I noted that David Josefsson, in his speech a short while ago, fell back into campaign rhetoric due to a lack of policy. As a brief reflection on that, I must state, David Josefsson, that in the Moderates' Sweden, there is a construction crisis. In the Moderates' Sweden, one might then say that we now have Uffepriser and perhaps Jimmiehyror.

It is the result of the fact that we now appear to be facing a lost parliamentary term. It is the result of the fact that, despite the construction crisis, we do not receive any proposals that actually handle this crisis on the Riksdag's table. The list of government bills contains three proposals that one, if one is well-disposed, can say concern housing construction in Sweden.

The first – this was debated in the exchange of remarks – is not addressed in this debate, but I look forward to discussing it later. It is important that one secures our housing environments, but that does not mean that more is built. The second is a report from the National Audit Office, and the third is that one should exercise caution in construction, demolition, and so on. This is what the government has managed to deliver, and it is failing.

Madam Speaker! With that, I move for approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Rising inflation created today's problems together with higher interest rates. Housing construction decreased sharply, as we have heard in today's debate, and to low levels that none of us can be proud of or accept at all.

We have been in this situation before, during the 90s. I hope that we do not repeat the problems of the 90s, that is to say that we ensure that we have a workforce that can take over when the turn comes so that we can build with strong force thereafter.

We have tried to strengthen with roots, we have introduced a planning bonus and we have introduced a conversion bonus to convert premises into apartments. We have made concessions in student housing construction. Boverket has been tasked with mapping buildable land for small house construction. These are some parts that have already been done.

We must acknowledge that the problems we have in the housing market did not start now. The queues for rental apartments have been long in the large cities for quite some time. Long processing times at municipalities and authorities to plan new housing have been there all along. Rising overhead costs as well as rising material costs at a faster rate than customers have received increased income in their pockets have also been there for quite some time.

The EU, in its eagerness to make more things a bit more complicated for us Swedes, has also contributed to the fact that we may in the future have a problem with renovation requirements for energy efficiency and difficulty in using our wood to build housing.

I mean that these are things that we also must think about working away. But unfortunately, it is no quick fix.

A report was released regarding a national lead-time index that one can look at. One can wonder if this is not part of the problem. The lead times for detailed plans and building permits in the municipalities are between 3 and 6.6 years, with an average of 4 ½ years - if you are lucky.

Add to that the uncertainty about which investigations are needed when the process begins, how long an appeals process takes and what it ends with, which carousel one ends up in, and whether one ultimately gets to build at all.

I mean that the state has homework to do when it comes to both what is expected of our authorities and what the state expects from the municipalities.

I mean that sometimes one has forgotten who pays for the party. It is the individual, every time, who pays the cost for the new homes. The municipalities and the companies dump the costs on the end customer, which they have to do. It is unclear what actually applies and what is expected. It affects the individual.

I mean that we must take responsibility for reforming the process for the construction of housing. We should not only make it innovative with new grants but dare to engage in the debate. What is it that makes it so expensive to build housing in Sweden? Why does it take so long?

This government has tried to put long-term perspective in focus by having six lead sentences: Simplify the rules for building! Shorten the lead times in the planning and building process! Increase the availability of buildable land, especially in attractive locations! More people should be able to take the step into the owner-occupied housing market! Utilize the existing stock more effectively! Provide long-term and predictable conditions to increase the willingness to invest!

I mean that if we have a government that succeeds in delivering this, we have come a bit of the way. But nothing started yesterday. Nothing started in 2018 or 2014. It has existed for quite a long time, and we actually have to be honest and say that we have a common problem that we must solve in one way or another. It does not go fast. We must try to give it the time it needs and then try to debate our way to a common solution.

With those words, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! As I have said here earlier, it is not often that I agree with Larry Söder on substantive policy issues, but I have respect for him. Therefore, I would like to ask two questions.

One concerns something we have heard from the Sweden Democrats, which is a coalition party to Larry Söders government.

We know that SD was founded by Nazis, and Europe's history tells us what Nazism stands for. Nazi Germany's solution to all problems was to get rid of the Jews.

The Sweden Democrats' solution to all problems in Sweden is to get rid of all immigrants. To drive people with an immigrant background out of Sweden is such an obsession and such a central issue for SD that it overshadows everything. All sense and reason drowns in this madness and this hatred one has towards immigrants, especially those who look like me. It is to such an extent that it has now even become the immigrants' fault that we have a housing shortage in Sweden.

A colleague, the vice chairman of the Committee on Civil Affairs, said the other day that if you just send away all immigrants or non-whites, you solve the problems with the housing shortage. For me, it does not come from a vacuum, but it is based on the Sweden Democrats' policy from day one.

Jomshof thought that my party colleague Daniel Riazat should leave the country.

We also heard Jimmie Åkesson say that one should be able to identify individual persons who do not fit into society and deport them.

My question is simply whether Larry Söder shares SD's conclusion that if one sends away all these immigrants, including me, one will solve the housing problem. Does Larry Söder share that conclusion?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can observe that the member only managed one question, not two. We might take the second one in the next exchange of remarks.

I am the housing policy spokesperson for Kristdemokraterna. I am responsible for our policy and our government constellation.

I can state that my and the party's view is that all people who are in Sweden shall have the right to a home, completely regardless of why one is here or how one is here, as long as one is here. We do not solve the problem by excluding people from homes, but we solve it by including people in homes.

My perception is, as I said from the rostrum, that we shall increase housing construction so that people can be able to get a home. This applies to both rental apartments and owner-occupied housing.

Then I can state that this government has a constellation where there are three government parties and one cooperation party. For me personally, it has worked perfectly in housing policy. We have roughly the same view on many different issues but different thoughts in other parts, where we can discuss and reach a solution. I think the government holds together. I think the government does good things. But ideologically, I am a Christian Democrat and stand for the Christian Democratic ideology.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! It was pleasing to hear that answer from Larry Söder.

The second question concerns the housing shortage.

"Do you also want a job to go to? For young people to be able to move out from home? A secure home that you can afford to live in?" These rhetorical questions were posed by Byggnads before a demonstration held in Stockholm on February 6 this year under the slogan Build away the crisis. Over 18,000 names were also handed over to Housing Minister Andreas Carlson for increased construction.

It is therefore not only Vänsterpartiet that criticizes this government. It is all parties and actors within the housing market that have the same criticism regarding the government's passivity.

My question is how you intend to act to speed up construction and thereby curb the wave of chaos that is now sweeping over the country's construction industry. I want to know that, not how you will benefit those who own their homes even more than you already do. We have heard that, so that is not what I am looking for. I would like to know what other reforms you will implement for the purpose of increasing construction in order to counter the ongoing housing, construction, and societal crisis.

The wave of layoffs that we are now seeing affects very many people. Within the timber industry, the number of layoffs increased by 270 percent in 2023 compared to 2022. In the construction industry, a total of 3,512 employees were laid off during the last quarter of 2023. That is very many people. This is a societal crisis, and everyone is screaming. Do you not see how serious this is? What do you intend to do - now?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can bring up some figures that Malcolm Momodou Jallow mentioned in his speech.

The Chairman spoke about housing costs having increased by 12.2 percent. I can report that in 2023, wages increased by 3 percent. That means there is a significant difference in what people can actually manage to pay.

In my speech, I attempted to demonstrate where the problem lies. Someone must take responsibility for the cost increase in one way or another. It could be the state by subsidizing or ensuring that housing construction is reformed in such a way that costs are kept in check.

I choose the latter. I believe that it is long-term rules of the game and long-term reforms that enable people to afford a home that they can pay for. I do not believe that short-term subsidies do this. I do not believe that economic incentives would be able to bridge the 7 percent difference.

I believe we must realize that the housing market has been dysfunctional for 20-30 years. Now is actually the time for us to do something about it. Someone must dare to tackle the long-term rules of the game and work on them so that we get a housing market where everyone can actually get a home.

One can be proud that we built 60,000-70,000 homes a few years ago. I am not proud of it. During that time, we should have built 100,000 or 120,000. The problem was that we had a housing market that did not function. We subsidized housing in order to be able to achieve that solution.

I mean that we must have a housing market that can meet its own conditions. But then we must also dare to stand by the reforms that are being made.

We have the same thought in the end regarding the goal, but we have slightly different views on the path there.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating Swedish migration policy - or sorry, Swedish housing policy. I apologize for the confusion, but in my defense, I would like to say that it is not so difficult to land there when one listens to the Sweden Democrats' contributions in the speaker's chair today. So, in true Sweden Democrat spirit, I shall take the opportunity in this debate to bring up a number of other irrelevant matters.

Madam Speaker! Did you know that labor immigration contributes 44 billion SEK per year to the Swedish economy, or that it provides a net contribution to the Swedish treasury of approximately 16 billion SEK per year? Did you know that the number of full-time persons living on social insurance has decreased from approximately 1.3 million at the beginning of the 90s to just over 800,000 today, while Sweden's population has increased by 1.8 million?

No, just these figures, which are facts, do not seem to be present in Sverigedemokratisk rhetoric. But let us not get stuck there, but let us return to the topic of the day.

During 2023, 1,714 construction companies, contractors, went bankrupt, according to UC. The number of construction projects started in 2023 was 29,350, a decrease of 49 percent compared to the year before. During 2023, 9,126 people in the construction sector were laid off, an increase of 154 percent compared to the year before.

The housing costs for a household have skyrocketed by over 50,000 kronor since the government took power.

Municipalities are extremely disappointed by the scrapped plans for trunk lines, despite promises and initiated processes and despite that they have taken on very large costs to fulfill their part of the agreements with the state that were underway.

Madam Speaker! I was in Skellefteå a few weeks ago and visited the barracks that have been set up to enable a new industrialization in northern Sweden, the likes of which we have not seen in modern times. I spoke with the municipal director and with the municipal real estate company, and they were extremely disappointed with the government – or rather with the government's sluggishness in coming up with proposals that can, both in the short and long term, create the conditions so that the region can continue its growth and this important part of Sweden gets the opportunity to become even stronger.

I know that an investigation is underway and that a first partial report has been submitted. But what we should see in this chamber, a lot of proposals and bills that improve the situation for the struggling housing and real estate sector, still shines by its absence. When one asks both ministers and colleagues from the Tidö parties in the committee when and what is in the works, the answer is always: It will come later, we are looking, and we are investigating. Somewhere, it is actually important that all contractors and construction companies—everyone active in the construction sector—are given answers about what is in the works and if they can expect a brightening further down the horizon.

Madam Speaker! What does the Centre Party want with Swedish housing policy? Well, quite a lot. We naturally want to simplify the building regulations; I believe there is quite broad consensus on that in this chamber. We also want to change the rules for appeals to ensure that the lead times of around five years that my colleague mentioned can be reduced so that we can speed up the processes.

We wanted to change the coastal protection legislation, a proposal that the Tidögänget shot down at the end of the last parliamentary term and which has been promised, dearly and solemnly, to be resurrected somewhere in the Government Offices.

We want to change the rent-setting model to create opportunities for more new constructions.

We want to build more trunk lines and fulfill the promise to the municipalities in order to also create opportunities for more housing.

We want to review the housing taxes to achieve increased mobility. We have fought with claws and teeth for the green deduction, which also aims at energy efficiency in the housing sector.

We want to increase the construction rates for housing in rural areas through, for example, changed rules for depreciation and increased credit guarantees.

In our proposals, there are therefore a lot of points for the government to work with and bring to the Riksdag. It truly makes me sad that when we, as the first party in the committee, submitted proposals that we should appoint a crisis commission for the Swedish real estate and housing market, this was rejected by the Tidö parties.

I really hope that the government pulls itself together and invites cross-bloc conversations on these important issues. Swedish housing construction needs long-term conditions. In that case, it doesn't matter that the Tidö parties have a narrow majority of a couple of members here in the chamber this mandate period. One must still be able to see that these issues require long-term perspective.

I would like to conclude, Madam Speaker, by moving for the approval of our reservation 2 in the report.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to hear a little bit about what the Centre Party considers regarding the government's long-term goals, or the points that I presented from the rostrum. I intend to repeat them, so we can discuss them:

simplify the rules for building

shorten the lead times in the planning and building process

increase the availability of developable land, especially in attractive locations

more should be able to take the step into the market for owned housing

utilize the stock more efficiently

provide long-term and predictable conditions to increase the willingness to invest in.

My question relates to the fact that 50 percent of Alireza Akhondis's speech essentially dealt with the current situation, while the proposals delivered from the rostrum are long-term. In other words, the Center Party is making the same reflection as the government, namely that it is the long-term rules of the game that we must address in order to be able to build more in Sweden over longer periods. We should not be dependent on booms or recessions all the time, but there should be a more even distribution of housing construction.

My questions are two. Which of the six areas is it that the Center Party is not standing on? If the government were to deliver within these six areas, will you in the Center Party be satisfied then? My second question is: If a government bill is submitted regarding free rent setting for new production housing, will the Center Party then vote yes to it?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall first answer the questions very concretely.

If a proposition is presented on freer rent setting in new production, we will vote yes. It is something that we have pushed for for a long time and which we still stand for.

The answer to question number two is that if the government comes with these proposals, we will probably vote yes, somewhat depending on how the proposals are designed. They are very good, and we are very happy about that. Are we satisfied? No, we are not, because the Swedish housing market requires more measures to be able to address the enormous construction debt that is built into the system.

Now that I have answered Larry Söder's questions, I want to say this: Larry Söder, it is you who sit in power. You have sat there for over three terms. After three terms, one can still expect that the government has had time to investigate what it wants to investigate and return to the Riksdag with proposals on what it wants to have changed.

Against this background, I would like to pose a counter-question to Larry Söder. When does Larry Söder believe all the fine proposals that he outlined will be placed on the Riksdag's table, so that we can actually press the green button and feel that we are participating and contributing to solving the crisis?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Pressing the button may seem like a small thing to other people, but for us Members of Parliament, it is important. It is about laws being enacted, laws that shall govern this country. That is what makes us actually change the country.

Many investigations are underway. Some are soon in the final stages, some have not been started but will be started.

As time goes on, the members will see more investigations become government bills in order to reach the goals in the six parts. I am convinced that in all these six areas, results will have been delivered before the 2026 election. At the same time, there are many processes that will not be finished when decisions are made on legislative proposals, as these are processes that must also be carried out by authorities.

A reform proposal like this will take time. It may not have been done during previous parliamentary terms because it takes a long time. But someone must start the process.

I believe we must agree that someone has to hold the baton. Alireza Akhondi has said on several occasions that there is no area within housing policy that has not been investigated. In that case, I can say that there is no area that has not been discussed. Why then has it not come to fruition in any way? Yes, it is because perhaps the goal has not been set and one has not wanted to take the time needed. That is what is happening right now that has occupied all the time in the world. But we must be able to keep both balls in the air, that is to say, to look at the crisis we have today and also be able to deliver with long-term perspective. The government shall try to do both, but it takes time. I agree with that.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Now it is not appropriate to ask a question when the member cannot answer, but I can make an appeal.

I hope that the government, before the mandate period is over, presents the proposals regarding changed coastal protection and, for example, issues that address homelessness and those types of issues that affect target groups that I know Larry Söder cares extra much about. It is a humble plea.

Then I want to add that I believe the reason we are where we are today is that there has been a lack of political leadership to address the whole.

The housing market is complex. It affects a number of policy areas and, in all respects, also the design of the tax system.

If one does not take a holistic approach, I judge that one will end up in deadlocks, which makes it much harder to move forward. Then it just becomes a polishing of the surface, to use a construction term. It was against this background that the Centerpartiet and I submitted a proposal for a larger crisis commission that shall look at the whole, so that we move forward instead of ending up in deadlocks.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

It is always darkest before it gets lighter. It is always so dark before it becomes light. Now it is dark. That is the reality that our construction developers are experiencing right now. After an incredibly tough period with high interest rates and high inflation, liquidity is failing, and bankruptcies and layoffs are a fact. Right now, it does not look bright for the construction plans that were planned to be launched during 2024. Everything is about overwintering, about making it through the darkness.

The family with children who had hoped for so long to be able to buy that terraced house or that villa now must continue to crowd together in a small area, because inflation has eroded the capital and the bank sees that the high interest rates are not manageable for them, despite both parents having steady employment.

The year 2024 is and will be a tough year for many. That is why this government has a full focus on completing the line that concerns beating down core inflation. As has been pointed out earlier in this rostrum, it is the only way forward, even if it is narrow and tough.

How do we make it brighter again? Besides core inflation, which is currently slowly falling, there are no shortcuts. A broad path with a general solution that wants to tempt us into simple solutions consists mostly of developers wishing for investment support. The National Audit Office is currently looking at the effects of subsidies and how such supports have functioned in the past, which will be very interesting to take part in moving forward.

Madam Speaker! Those who are fighting to keep the villa dream alive in the darkness that prevails right now know that the bank will meet them with a tough calculation. It is of course important that the finances add up, both for the bank's sake and so that one is not forced to get rid of their villa dream.

That is why it is very important that the macro review of the economy and the financial loan components that are currently being investigated and are ready in time for the autumn, hopefully in a more stable economic situation, results in a holistic review of both the amortization requirements and the mortgage ceiling. On the departments' tables are proposals regarding both starter loans and housing savings to be presented as a whole. That the Financial Supervisory Authority chooses to wait with the mortgage ceiling is precisely about the fact that we need to take this as a whole when the economy and inflation are more under control. If we also add the proposals on rent-to-buy, there are economic reforms that I am convinced will make it possible for the calculation to add up for those who currently, even if in a difficult situation, carry a villa dream.

All good things come in threes. Therefore, I want to mention three things for this dream to become a reality.

Firstly: The calculation! We must start with the economy, however boring it may be. For those who are in discussions with the bank, that is where one must start. Therefore, a macro review of the financial part is now taking place, which should be completed in time for the autumn. That is number one.

Secondly: All constructions begin with a cornerstone. As a farm boy, I know that one always builds the houses or the barn after that cornerstone which everything rests on and which aligns everything else. The foundation is built on land, and the land issue is the single largest part, both economically and when it comes to how you can influence a house construction today. Approximately one-third of the entire cost of the villa dream comes before you put the spade in the ground, and this affects the villa dream.

It is very difficult to build without land - try it and you will see! Therefore, it is important that the municipalities prioritize buildable land for small houses, which this stimulus shall promote and inspire, but it is also important that the municipalities and politics as a whole understand that seven out of ten today want to live in their own owned home, in a villa dream, in a small house somewhere. That is the desire, and this requires first and foremost buildable land.

From the speaker's chair today, the Initiative Build in Time has been mentioned. There are several good and politically anchored proposals there that the department is currently working on. We have also tasked the county administrative boards to support municipalities that want to create buildable land and see opportunities in this instead of opposing it.

One of the most interesting investigations currently on the department's table concerns national interests. There, I believe we agree on a broader rethink regarding how we can prioritize the land out in our country.

The third and final, but by no means the least important, is that you as a developer carrying a villa dream need three good friends to enable a house construction: the architect, the structural engineer, and the builder.

The architect has a handle on how the dream can land on paper and become something that one can see and touch. Hopefully, the villa dream will stand there for 100 years. The structural engineer knows the prerequisites for ground and durability. Finally, you have the builder – the one who stands there with the hammer in their hand. You need to work together with these three companions.

Note that I did not mention the municipality, the state, or politics anywhere. That was intentional, because it is politics' role to enable these three friends to work together. Therefore, Boverket is now working on regulatory simplifications within the project Möjligheternas byggregler, which are interesting to look at. It is important to deregulate the over-regulated housing sector, where neither builders nor officials can find their way but instead get lost.

We are to create the conditions for these three friends, and that is the most important mission of long-term politics.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight the matters that are close to my heart as a liberal.

We are for a diversity of housing forms, both owned and rented. When it comes to the rented part, there is an investigation, Free Rent Setting in New Production, which undoubtedly needs to go out for consultation so that the calculation will add up, so that people will dare to build again, and so that we will begin to apply what in most other countries is called one thing: a common rent.

For my part, I want to land on where we perhaps lack the most within housing policy, namely that we today are not managing to meet structural homelessness. This involves, among other things, families with children and women exposed to violence who do not have a roof over their heads. The "Bostad först" (Housing First) method is very good, but it does not meet the needs of precisely these people. We need to realize that we have actually never succeeded in meeting this structural homelessness, and now that group has increased in number. The general social housing policy has reached its end. It has not functioned since the Second World War, because it does not take the individual's needs into account. One is simply lumped together. Therefore, we need to address this.

Madam Speaker! Right now, the Liberals stand for the only political proposal. We call it housing for those in need. A social housing sector is needed here in the country, because social housing contracts are not enough and have never been enough. If the woman who is a victim of violence still manages to get a home, it is usually not in the safest part of the city. They move from one state of vulnerability to another.

A social housing unit based on need must not be located in a vulnerable area. It should be a security that spans several years, and it must be possible to live there with already existing subsidies. These homes shall exist in both the existing and the newly built housing stock. It shall be a roof over one's head—something to call one's home—if now the politics want to create those conditions, of course. Even this night, someone is sleeping somewhere else. Tonight, many have no home. For them, the dream of their own home is very far away. For them, it is still dark.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to stick to today's heading, Housing Policy.

That we are currently facing a combined housing and construction crisis is not news. We have debated this many times over the past year. That the government continues to sit on its hands is therefore becoming more and more alarming.

Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö, Uppsala, Linköping, Örebro and now also Norrbotten, Västerbotten, Blekinge and many more are alarming together about a completely insufficient construction pace. They simultaneously highlight the major challenges of being able to build housing at prices that allow housing seekers to afford to demand the housing.

When housing construction stalls, it can become more difficult to move to work or establish oneself on the housing market. In areas with a strong industry or defense development, it can also become difficult to attract labor when housing is lacking. Furthermore, at least those households that already have small economic margins risk finding it much harder to find a home that meets their needs or, in some cases, to find a permanent home at all when new homes are not built at a sufficient pace. Homelessness also risks increasing with an inadequate housing policy.

Boverket estimates that 67,300 new homes per year are needed until 2030. This year, we expect perhaps 20,000, which is far from the painted moderate vision. Building up a housing debt while the construction sector is cracking is not a particularly good way to build security, and regardless of which political side one stands on, there are many paths one could take to at least reduce the cyclical effects on the construction sector.

There is no single solution, but many different measures are needed to increase the number of housing units and build so that people can have their needs met, continue to work for the green transition, and avoid having skills within the construction sector disappear elsewhere.

Miljöpartiet has proposed continued investment support and also large targeted investment supports for areas with a strong and rapid green industrial development. We have raised the issue of mixed housing, different forms of tenure, start-up loans for first-time buyers, increased housing allowances, a green housing savings, loan guarantees, rental guarantees, support for building communities, a national housing foundation, support for the renovation of vacant houses, and so on.

Nevertheless, there are currently no crisis measures in place that increase the number of available homes. Housing construction has stalled, and people are being laid off. In the long run, the figures on how many homes need to be built per year will have to be adjusted upwards again, and the housing debt grows for every year that we fail to reach our construction goals.

I therefore wish to move today to approve Miljöpartiet's reservation 3 in the report, which aims for measures to be taken to quickly initiate housing construction that is both sustainable and long-term.

For this to happen, we, just like many other parties today, want the government to appoint a crisis commission with the task of quickly investigating, proposing, and implementing concrete measures to get housing construction started. Measures are needed, and they are needed now.

While waiting for construction to pick up again, there are other things that need to be done, and there we could take advantage of the competence that exists within the construction sector, which today is getting less and less work with building.

We stand today in the middle of a climate crisis that requires action, and the faster we get started with actions, the more social benefit we will receive - benefits that we can all share.

To increase the pace of both energy renovations and climate adaptation in the built environment, we want the state to step in and provide support for the measures that make a difference. By providing support today, we can save money in the long run for our communities while simultaneously taking advantage of the expertise on the construction side that otherwise risks moving elsewhere.

This week, decisions on energy renovations within the EU are being made, and Sweden must do its part. By reducing energy use in buildings, energy can be freed up for other purposes and energy prices can be kept down. We therefore propose that the state should support energy efficiency in all types of housing in order to quickly initiate a larger effort to lower both energy use and energy costs.

The construction sector accounts for a large part of Sweden's climate impact and is also the second largest producer of waste in Sweden, second only to the mining sector. When the cost of construction materials increases, as it does today, we need more innovative methods for building, and the question of increased circularity within the construction sector has begun to be raised as something that is not only a sustainability issue but also something that could contribute to a better economy in various construction projects.

In order to initiate a more circular management of construction materials, it is also necessary for politics to take initiative. We want to see a new national goal to increase the proportion of construction materials that are reused or recycled from demolition, renovation, and new construction. We also see that a holistic approach is needed, ranging from economic steering instruments and skills development in dismantling to an increased focus on the digitalization of the construction process and the certification of reused construction materials.

By focusing more on a more circular construction process, we can reduce climate emissions and waste and save both resources and money while new green jobs can be created - a win-win for most, then.

Madam Speaker! I finally want to raise the issue of climate adaptation in the built environment, an issue that is also addressed in the report. We are still waiting for the national climate adaptation strategy, which should have been ready last year but which we now hope is underway and will soon be presented. It is a hope we have.

This year, it is easy to forget the summer's heatwave and drought, but we cannot escape the problems with large amounts of water and risks of avalanches and landslides when the snow melts in different parts of the country. At the same time, the large variations in temperature are now causing damage to both roads and important infrastructure.

For the past few weeks, for example, we have been able to follow the flooding in Östergötland, where the water is now beginning to recede, which simultaneously increases the risks of landslides and rockslides. We would have therefore needed to have the strategy with measures in place already today or perhaps already last year.

The work of climate-adapting our surroundings must be strengthened. The municipalities are key players in the climate adaptation work, and all municipalities need to work with climate adaptation and the physical environment, both to protect people's lives and health and to counteract damage to important infrastructure.

In order to be able to do this, the state management and follow-up need to be improved. Better guidance and support from state agencies are needed, and the county administrative boards must set clearer requirements on the municipalities' climate adaptation work. The municipalities' work must also be followed up and evaluated at a national level. This work will be extensive and in some cases complicated, so it is important that all actors do their part. The state needs to do its part and join forces with regions and municipalities.

I have a hope that these issues will be addressed in the new climate adaptation strategy and that it is near now. If it is not and if the issues are not addressed, I hope to be able to talk more about these completely crucial issues going forward.

In our committee, we have large and completely society-deciding issues on the table. To push the problems ahead of us will result in even greater problems in the future. I therefore hope that we can together take responsibility and do everything we can by building sustainably and long-term and planning for climate-smart and climate-adapted societies that become good and accessible living environments for everyone and that we can do this now and not later, because all people need a safe and secure home.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Much of what the Green Party says is in agreement with what the other parties have said here today, that is to say that we have a construction crisis that we must, in one way or another, manage.

I do, however, believe that Miljöpartiet, like other parties, actually delivers most proposals regarding long-term perspectives. Perhaps one could imagine that the investment support is something that could be done now, directly.

The discussion I had with Vänsterpartiet concerned the cost increase, which was 12.2 percent during 2023, while wages increased by 3 percent, i.e., a difference of 9.2 percentage points. I would not be surprised if the difference becomes approximately as large in 2024 as well. This means that an investment grant will barely be able to reduce this difference so that one can afford to seek a home. I believe therefore that there are other things that must be done to get housing construction to increase again, and it concerns the long-term perspective.

I can agree with Miljöpartiet that reuse is something that one could work with, but also there the costs increase, at least in the current situation. In the long term, I believe the costs will be lower because the quantity increases so significantly, but right now the costs are increasing.

I also believe that timber construction is something that would help Sweden's nation in the long term, but there we have an EU that puts up barriers to us being able to use wood in the way we wish. The rest of Europe does not understand how we use wood in Sweden.

My question to Miljöpartiet is: Do you have other measures that you could develop which could help against the crisis right now, or is it only the investment support? Start loans and housing savings are also things that will take longer. And how does Miljöpartiet view the use of wood in residential construction in the future, if the EU stops or reduces it?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions.

I largely agree with what Larry Söder says, that we need both long-term measures and short-term measures.

The reason why we now move for approval of the proposal for a crisis commission is that a gathering of wise people is needed who can sit down together and come up with short-term measures right now for how we are to get the construction started.

It is actually what all opposition parties have insisted on in this debate, namely that we need a crisis commission now. A bouquet of measures is needed, and short-term measures need to be taken now.

When it comes to what we believe could help right now to increase the number of housing units, it is about investment support. We have proposed 3 billion kronor in investment support for the green industrial development for those municipalities where people are living in containers today, as Alireza Akhondi talks about.

It is a measure to get started with the construction of infrastructure needed for those who are to live there and to get started with housing construction in the regions where there is a glaring shortage of housing today.

Then we also believe that prices can be lowered if we provide incentives to get the circular economy started, because building materials are part of why it costs so much right now.

We also want, just like you, to look at how premises are converted into housing. But we also want to look at whether one can scan abandoned houses. For example, in the north, there is actually a large collection of houses that stand empty today. One could appoint groups that can work on how they are better distributed. We want to investigate how to do this better and provide support for it.

Lots of good ideas are needed. That is why we are not sitting here saying that we have solutions, but we need this crisis commission that can see what we can do right now.

In order to keep the construction sector under control, we also want to take measures in the existing stock, which we believe is necessary for the future.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! It would have been interesting to assign a mandate to you to see if these cost increases of 9.2 percent make any difference and what it is in billions that is added to the costs for the citizens. I believe that the 3 billion kronor that one wants to spend on investment support is just a drop in the ocean. Other measures would be needed in that case if one wanted to reduce that difference. Otherwise, we are where we are. Housing construction is too expensive and too uncertain right now. In that case, we must have long-term rules of the game.

I have respect for the fact that you want a dialogue and a commission. But I have never understood what you want it for. You debate your proposals every year in the chamber, and they are well known. But I have not heard any new proposals. The industry has been involved in the discussion with the Government Offices regarding what proposals they have, and they are well known.

Therefore, I do not know, honestly, what you think will be achieved by having a commission sitting and discussing around a table. I believe it is action that matters. We know what conditions we have. We know what measures exist. It is a matter of investigating what is possible and then getting to work.

I do not think the construction industry agrees with the opposition if they realize that a crisis commission that sits down to debate and discuss with each other and comes up with a proposal after a year. Then it is a lost year. If you ask the construction industry if they want a crisis commission, they say yes. But what does a crisis commission mean? Will there be any new and innovative proposals? No, I do not think so. We are well aware of what proposals exist and what problems exist. And I do not think the construction industry is served by us waiting a year. Therefore, we move for the rejection of all these proposals, because that is not what Sweden needs right now. Sweden needs action, and Sweden needs a government that can deliver long-term reforms before 2026.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Larry Söder for this. I think he puts his finger on exactly why a crisis commission was needed. We stand here year in and year out debating proposals that result in nothing.

We also see that the government, which will soon have governed for half of the mandate period, is not presenting any proposals that are sufficient. That is why we need to appoint a group that can quickly produce urgent solutions for how we should work to reduce this drain within the construction sector and try to keep people within our country who can continue to build. It is precisely this that we want, i.e., that we should not stand here and debate and debate without anything happening.

I believe that the long-term solution to get something done is that we actually bring in experts. As we have discussed many times before, the civil affairs committee is not a crisis commission. If it were, things would have already happened.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for her speech. I noted that she did not mention the social housing policy anywhere in her speech. In my speech, I mentioned that at the present time, only the Liberals have developed a social, political housing program. But I know that the Green Party during the previous parliamentary term exemplary highlighted the social issues, including Karolina Skog's investigation. We are now looking, among other things, at proposals on, for example, rent guarantees.

I wonder if there is any reason why Katarina Luhr chose not to bring up the social housing policy. Is it completely forgotten now within Miljöpartiet? I miss it and a bit more commitment to the issue.

We are presenting proposals for housing based on need - a social housing sector. I note that even the Christian Democrats point out that we need to have a more need-based social housing policy, that the housing should not be in socially vulnerable areas and that it should be present in both the existing stock and the newly built stock. This is needed for precisely the structural homelessness, for the women who are victims of violence and who today do not receive help, and for the families with children who are left without housing. Among others, Stadsmissionen here in Stockholm, Hela Människan in Jönköping, and Räddningsmissionen in Gothenburg are building up their own social housing sector now.

Would the Green Party not take a stand for such a housing policy?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jakob Olofsgård very much for highlighting an issue that is very close to my heart. This is a very important issue right now.

We have long worked to ensure that, for example, families with children are not evicted. Now we see a policy that goes in the opposite direction with proposals that families should be able to be evicted. We see that too little is being built. We need larger apartments specifically for families with children. We need measures for, for example, women living in destructive conditions. There are very many things to address here.

As the member highlighted in her question, Karolina Skog brought forward an investigation that is now perhaps being handled in the Government Offices. I know that statements have been made that state rental guarantees shall be issued to families with children, which I think is very good. But there are many things in that investigation that have not yet been highlighted, and we are still sitting and waiting. I am very positive about all the proposals in the investigation and that they are being moved forward, because I believe that it will make a difference. But I do not really know where it has stalled, because I do not think it is such a conspicuous proposal.

Regarding the proposal on affordable housing, or social housing, Jakob Olofsgård and I have debated it several times before. What is challenging with a proposal to build specifically for those with low incomes and that they receive a special track is that one easily gets stuck in a special track for apartments.

Jakob Olofsgård pointed out in his speech that there are too few social apartments today. But what one sees when social housing is built in other countries is that there is often too little social housing for the group one is building for, and that people do not enter the other housing market and end up in another housing queue there.

We have discussed the specific proposals and that you are turning to very broad groups.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Katarina Luhr for a half-answer. I give her the opportunity to supplement her answer in her closing statement.

Does Miljöpartiet have a social housing policy that follows Karolina Skog's investigation? She stated in her investigation that a new investigation and new proposals were needed to move forward for this group. Has Miljöpartiet completely forgotten about social housing policy now? Do you not care about those who live in structural homelessness? For example, Stadsmissionen clearly states that a social housing sector is needed. Does the member and Miljöpartiet think that or not?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! What I had intended to say in my previous reply is that we, for example, believe that a distinction should be made between those who live in social vulnerability and homelessness and those who live in structural homelessness. There is, in fact, a group of people among those who are vulnerable – those who perhaps suffer from substance abuse or suffer from mental illness – who may need apartments with extra support. They may have difficulty managing to have their own housing.

That is why we have submitted a proposal that the state should start its own housing foundation. It is somewhat similar to the proposal from you, Jakob Olofsgård, but it shall be aimed at the slightly smaller group that lives in social homelessness and needs greater help. It is a proposal that I would gladly like to see people move forward with and discuss a bit more.

Housing policy

When it comes to structural homelessness, it is actually about being able to build more apartments at a price that makes it possible for people to afford to demand them. Here, it may be necessary to work from both sides; we have worked with an investment support, and we have also proposed increased housing allowances as well as an indexing of the housing allowances. It is about being able to better match people's incomes against what is being built.

When it comes to the fact that we do not have any housing policy after Karolina Skog's investigation, I can only say that we want to see the measures in Karolina Skog's investigation be implemented. One cannot simply skip an investigation and start working on the next one before the government has had the measures that are needed put in place.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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