Housing policy

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating in the chamber CU18 Housing Policy, which is a so-called collective report where motions from the general motion period are answered. The report concerns, above all, the direction of Swedish housing policy. The Committee on Civil Affairs has dealt with motions on, among other things, housing supply, construction, the state's role, social housing policy, and various forms of support, political advice, commissions, and other political measures.

The committee majority's proposal is clear: the Riksdag should reject the motions.

It is a wise line. Sweden does not need any more political additions to an already far too complicated area. Sweden does not need more systems on top of the systems. Sweden does not need more political councils, more commissions, more forms of support or more public constructions that make the regulatory framework heavier, more expensive and harder to oversee. Sweden needs, on the contrary, a simpler, more cost-effective and more accessible regulatory framework.

In the report, the dividing line becomes clear. The committee majority's position is to say no to the motion path when the proposals head in the direction of more steering, more administration, and more state superstructure. In the reservations, we simultaneously see that the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Centre Party, and the Green Party want to go in a different direction. There, different variants of more state involvement, more support, new political councils, new commissions, and new political tools are presented. It is therefore not just a report on individual housing policy proposals. It is also a report on two completely different perspectives regarding housing policy.

One perspective is the opposition's: When something does not work, we add something – perhaps a new form of support, a new commission, a new political council, or a new state model.

The second perspective is that of the committee majority and the Tidö parties: When something does not work, we remove the obstacles. Then we simplify the rules. Then we reduce the complications. And then we lower the costs. We make the system easier to understand and easier to live with.

It is that dividing line that is so important. And that is why, Madam Speaker, this is not just a rejection of motions. It is also a position for a simpler Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The report is also quite revealing. The committee proposes that the Riksdag reject all motions, primarily with reference to ongoing work or announced measures.

At the same time, there are as many as 33 reservations from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet. That says something important: the opposition wants to go in different directions, but almost always against more politics, more governance, and more administration.

Madam Speaker! When one listens to the opposition, the overall picture is almost comical. The Social Democrats want commissions, support, and new justice systems. The Left Party wants state-owned construction companies. The Centre Party wants a structure commission and modern social housing policy. The Green Party wants political councils, construction credits, and green support.

It is four parties, four different temperaments and four different ideologies. But all four land on the same conclusion: More political additions were needed to the already wrecked system. It is quite telling. Vänsterpartiet wants the state to own more. Centerpartiet would rather sound like the state should do less. Miljöpartiet wants to add more conditions and steering signals and thereby increase the bureaucracy further. Socialdemokraterna want to bring together industry, parties and politics in a new housing commission.

In other parts of the report, the Social Democrats push for investment support, construction subsidies, loan guarantees, and various new systems for what they describe as a fair housing policy.

It is difficult to see a common government program between these parties. It is actually so incredible that the Left today presents an agreement with the Center Party on a common responsibility for Sweden as an April Fool's joke, because it is so incredible that no one can even imagine it. But it is easy to see a common threat: more bureaucracy.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties have instead done something that the opposition often speaks about but rarely delivers. We have simplified for real. On December 1, 2025, a new regulatory framework for building permits came into force. The Government described it as the largest simplification of building permit rules in over 15 years. The new rules mean, among other things, that the special requirement for notification for so-called attefallsåtgärder was removed and that the requirement for building permits for facade changes on one- and two-family houses was removed. It makes it easier for property owners to, for example, repaint, change facade material, and install solar cells or skylights.

We have also improved the possibilities to finance a home. We have removed the tax on ISK for those who are about to start saving. Today, April 1, 2026, the possibility to borrow for a home is also simplified, and the amortization requirement is adjusted down. We have also taken important steps to enable Sverigehuset and thereby more villas and small houses.

It is reforms that people will notice in their everyday lives. Building permits should not be required to install a skylight. Unnecessary reviews should not be required to repaint the house. There should not be specific reporting requirements just because the municipality has become accustomed to requesting paperwork. The public sector should not stand in the way of common sense.

The rules for walls and fences have been made clearer. Unnecessary requirements for building permits have disappeared even for that and a long series of other measures, such as building screen roofs, patios, smaller extensions and so on.

Even the building permits that were previously required to furnish an extra residence in an attic or basement are now a thing of the past. And in the countryside, new, great opportunities have been created where economic buildings can be converted without costly bureaucracy. It is the difference between governing more and disturbing less.

The Tidö parties have not said: Let us appoint a new commission on skylights. We have said: Remove the complications.

We have not said: Let us create a council for the coloring of facades. We have said: We are removing the complications.

We have not said: Let us build a public system around every small change. We have said: Give people more freedom to decide over their own property.

Madam Speaker! It is also here that the real dividing line lies. The opposition sees the problems and wants to build new systems. We see the problems and want to tear down the obstacles.

The opposition has for decades contributed to building up many of the complicated and expensive arrangements in Sweden, which we now must clean up. This concerns the view that every problem should be met with new governance, new support, a new process, or a new public construction. The Tidö parties have instead implemented concrete simplifications in the regulations to make the systems simpler, more efficient, and more purposeful.

That is why the opposition's indignation rings a bit hollow. First, they built up a lot of complications. Then they discovered that it became complicated. Now they want to solve it with even more of the same thinking. It is not a new path. It is a detour back.

Madam Speaker! The election this autumn actually stands between two models. It becomes extra clear in this report. One model is the opposition's. It is about more bureaucracy, more fees, more steering, more support, greater tax needs, and a more complicated system. The other model is the one we in the Tidö parties stand for. It is about simplification, low fees, cost-effectiveness, clear rules, less administration, and a much simpler system.

Madam Speaker! With that, I move for the proposal in the report to be approved and for all reservations to be rejected.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Eskilandersson, for the speech! I agree that there are two clear alternatives standing against each other.

This parliamentary term has meant a standstill for housing construction. We are facing four lost years when it comes to the housing that people actually need.

This is not just an isolated housing issue. When people cannot move to where the jobs are, the mobility in the labor market also deteriorates. Then growth is also slowed down, just as we see in Sweden.

The government itself notes in its results report that the measures taken are not sufficient to achieve a well-functioning housing market. The Sweden Democrats are, as is well known, part of the government basis that drives that policy. You therefore also bear responsibility for the results.

My question is: Does Mikael Eskilandersson share the government's assessment that the measures are not sufficient? If he does: Why do the Sverigedemokraterna accept a policy that fails to meet the housing supply and which also worsens mobility in the labor market and makes it more difficult for people to get the housing they need?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the question!

To begin with, we must remember that Sweden is both elongated and large and has 290 different municipalities. In the 290 different municipalities, it looks different for natural reasons.

I can see what happened during previous parliamentary terms when many apartments were built. In many places, apartments were built with subsidized money for a market that did not exist.

My own home municipality is such an example. There are many vacant apartments there today that no one actually demands and which have been built solely because there were large subsidies for these apartments.

It looks the same in the neighboring municipalities. In Helsingborg, there are hundreds of apartments that are vacant today. The same applies in Hässleholm or in other medium-sized towns around Sweden.

To then continue to think that it is self-evident that one should pump in subsidies to build even more rental apartments that are already not in demand would, for me, be very out of touch with reality. Instead, one needs to go in and see what is needed and where it is needed.

We must also remember that it is primarily a municipal responsibility to ensure that there are housing in the own municipality. Which municipalities are it then that have problems, and which are it that govern in those municipalities? It is quite easy to see.

The municipalities that have the greatest problems are those that are ruled by Social Democrats. It is they who should take responsibility and ensure that there are plots available for construction.

At the same time, the government has put forward support and various measures to facilitate the production of more plots, more construction, and more opportunities for construction.

But in some places, it is actually the municipalities that have problems with housing that must ensure they solve them and do not sit and hinder construction.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Here we see a clear capitulation. There are no ambitions from the Sweden Democrats' side to solve the problems with the housing supply in Sweden. They let the municipalities solve them.

The government notes that the current policy is not sufficient to achieve a well-functioning housing market. My question was quite simple: Does the member share the government's assessment that the policy pursued by the Sweden Democrats is insufficient to solve the problems in the housing market?

I received no answer to that question. Instead, the member points to the municipalities. The Sweden Democrats and the government have no ambitions whatsoever to solve the housing shortage. Is that how I should interpret the member's answer?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the follow-up and somewhat strange interpretation of my answer!

I want to assert that I have been very clear that I share the government's view that in many municipalities, the measures needed are lacking. I also want to be clear that it is fundamentally a municipal commitment.

I can see that the municipal commitment exists in municipalities governed by the Sweden Democrats. We do not have a shortage of apartments or housing in either Örkelljunga, Bjuv, or any other municipality that is practically governed by the Sweden Democrats. There are, however, concerns in municipalities governed by the Social Democrats. That is due to a lack of commitment from the municipal politicians.

One can still be clear that the municipal responsibility to solve the housing situation in each respective municipality is important. It is the municipal politicians who have the opportunity to provide plots and plan their municipality so that there are opportunities to build.

Much of the construction in my home municipality involves building villas of the type Sverigehus and similar. There, the big problem is that it often takes a long time because there is an established system that is complicated and troublesome.

The Social Democrats have spent at least 50, if not 100 years, building up the complicated system for construction that we have today. It should be possible to make it simpler and faster and thus better meet the demand for housing.

My basic principle is that the person requesting a home should primarily pay for the home themselves. It should not be the tax collective that pays for new homes for people out in the countryside or, for that matter, in the cities.

Each person pays for their housing first. Then we can direct support to those people who cannot afford to demand a housing. But that is a completely different issue than the one we are discussing here today.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe that most who are listening to this debate know what it is really about. It is not about paragraphs and not about individual rule changes. It is about something much more fundamental. It is about whether one can live one's life in safety and whether one has a home.

Madam Speaker! It is also about responsibility, because the situation we see today is not the result of a force of nature. The housing shortage is a result of political decisions and of decisions that have not been made. The Government itself states that the measures are not sufficient to achieve a functioning housing market, yet one continues on the same path.

Madam Speaker! There is a point where politics ceases to be abstract and becomes concrete. It is when people sit at their kitchen table and do the math. Will we be able to afford to stay? Will the children be able to have their own room? Will we be able to move when life changes? When those questions no longer have obvious answers, something has broken. That is where we find ourselves today.

Madam Speaker! For a long time, we built a society in Sweden where the home was precisely that—a home, a place for security and a foundation to stand on. It was a prerequisite for working, starting a family, and planning one's life. But step by step, politics has retreated. Today, responsibility is increasingly left to the market, even though we know that the housing market does not function like other markets.

The results are clear. It is young people who cannot move out from home and families with children who are stuck in housing that is too small. People work and do the right thing but still cannot make their housing economy work. This is not a temporary slump; it is a systemic error.

Madam Speaker! Housing is not just any commodity, and the housing market cannot be treated like just any market. When the housing market does not function, then society does not function either. It does not stop at people's everyday lives. It also hits the Swedish economy directly.

When people cannot move to where the jobs are, then growth stops. When companies cannot recruit, then the investments are missing. When the labor market locks up, then all of Sweden loses. Housing is a prerequisite for work, and work is the foundation for our prosperity.

Madam Speaker! Against that background, it is remarkable how passive the government's policy is. One notes the problems, but one does not act to the extent that is required. One leaves the responsibility to the market and to the individual households. That is why we see the development that we see.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats see this differently. We start from a simple insight: A society must function, and for that, the housing market must also function. This means that people must be able to demand a home, that construction must occur at the pace that is needed, and that there must be homes that people can actually afford to live in. The right home in the right place at the right cost – that is what a functioning housing supply is about.

We mean therefore that the state must take a greater responsibility and not withdraw, but step forward. We need to bring together the politics, the municipalities, the construction industry and the financing and work together to increase construction in Sweden. This is, among other things, about rental apartments that ordinary people can afford to live in.

Madam Speaker! We know that the housing shortage will not be built away by itself. An active housing policy is required, investments are required, and long-term rules of the game are required.

I therefore move for approval of our reservation 14.

We need to improve the financing of housing construction, and it is about three things.

Firstly: to create stable and long-term conditions so that it is possible to build even when the market hesitates.

Secondly: to lower the thresholds where the needs are greatest.

For the third: to ensure that the calculations actually add up so that more projects are realized.

Today, construction is not being stopped due to a lack of need; it is being stopped because the projects are not viable.

Madam Speaker! Building new to meet the needs is also the most important thing to get mobility in the housing market started. Today, people stay put – not because they want to, but because they have no alternative. It limits people's life choices, it hinders the labor market, and it reduces people's freedom.

Madam Speaker! Housing policy is not just about building new. Therefore, we must also safeguard and develop the rental housing. We must ensure that the rental market functions over time, that there is a reasonable balance between property owners and tenants, and that people feel security in their housing, because a home should be just a home.

Madam Speaker! All of this is connected. Housing, work, and growth are not three separate policy areas; they are one and the same reality. Therefore, the policy must also hold together.

At its core, it is about what kind of society we want. Do we want a society where the individual is increasingly left alone to solve their housing needs, where politics steps back and where the security in the collective becomes weaker? Or do we want a society that is built on a shared responsibility – a society where people have control over their everyday lives, where work pays off, and where there is a home for everyone?

Madam Speaker! We already see what the path the government has taken means for ordinary people. If we continue on it, there will be fewer housing units available to demand. There will be longer queues, and it will become harder to move when life changes. It means that young people stay at home longer, that families with children are forced to live in cramped conditions, and that people turn down jobs because they cannot find anywhere to live. It will become a society that keeps people apart instead of holding them together.

We Social Democrats do not accept this development. We choose a society that works – a society where people can work, build their lives, and feel security. It is a society where this security begins with something as simple but also as crucial as a home.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Kallifatides and Leif Nysmed (both S) concurred.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Hard-working families shall have the means to live in their own house. So simply can one formulate the Moderate election promise ahead of the autumn election.

The dream of a house, where the children jump on the trampoline while the parents cook dinner, is alive for many Swedes. This dream should become a reality for more. Seven out of ten Swedes want to live in their own house, but only five out of ten do. This means that approximately every fifth Swede does not live as they would have most preferred.

The reason is usually purely economic; house prices have increased sharply in recent decades. This is partly due to the fact that villas and terraced houses have not been built at a rate corresponding to the population growth.

Madam Speaker! It is not just about people with weak finances. Also, professional groups with relatively good salaries are today finding it difficult to make the housing economy work. The think tank Arena Idé recently launched a nursing index, where it was calculated which homes one can afford to buy for a nurse's salary. 25 years ago, a single-living nurse had the opportunity to take out a loan to buy over 85 percent of the sold homes in Sweden. In 2024, that figure had fallen to 57 percent.

Mäklarsamfundet has produced a matching index for detached houses where the households' ability to pay is compared with the price of an average villa. The result is depressing. In Stockholm County, only 6 percent of working-class households can demand an average detached house.

Since the 2022 election, an average family with children has received 5,000 kronor more in their wallet per month. This is because the Moderate-led government has prioritized letting hard-working Swedes keep more of their wages. More money in the wallet is perhaps also the most effective political tool to enable more housing dreams.

Madam Speaker! It is not the only thing we on the government side have done. We have also reformed the mortgage rules – rules that actually begin to apply today. The ceiling for mortgages is raised from 85 percent to 90 percent, and the so-called reinforced amortization requirement, which meant that one amortized at most 3 percent per year, is removed. This primarily benefits young families with children who have not yet started their housing career and where the economy is good but the expenses are currently high.

In order for more people to be able to own their home, we have also introduced a tax exemption on investment savings accounts on the first 300,000 kronor. This is a saving that we know often goes towards precisely buying a home.

Soon, the Riksdag will also address the issue of introducing a law on rent-to-buy. Rent-to-buy means that you rent your home while saving up for a down payment and testing whether you really want to live in the home. When you feel ready, you have the opportunity to buy it.

Step by step, we make it possible for more hard-working Swedes to own the home they dream of.

Madam Speaker! Against this election promise stands the massive red-green tax shock that awaits after the election if misfortune prevails and Magdalena Andersson is able to form a government. It is a tax shock that, above all, will hit the opportunities for more people to live in their own house.

The Social Democrats proposed in this year's budget that a mortgage tax of a total of 12.6 billion kronor should be introduced.

It is 12.6 billion kronor that households will have to pay through increased mortgage interest rates because the banks are required to pay tax on their interest margins, margins which will therefore unequivocally increase.

The Bolåne tax is comparable to the property tax that Social Democrats have previously wanted to introduce, but it is fundamentally even more unfair than a property tax. That is because, Madam Speaker, the one who is most heavily indebted also becomes the one who pays the most in tax.

For a family that has a loan of 3 million kronor, which is not an unreasonable amount in large parts of Sweden, the mortgage tax becomes over 600 kronor per month. If one has a mortgage of 5 million kronor – unfortunately not uncommon for a family with children who have just bought a house in Stockholm or in my home municipality Gothenburg – the mortgage tax becomes over 1,000 kronor per month.

Madam Speaker! The irony in this context is that a lawyer or a corporate CEO who bought a house several decades ago and thus has hardly any loans, hardly even needs to pay any Social Democratic mortgage tax. It is in every way a highly unjust tax.

On top of the Social Democrats' mortgage tax, the Left Party demands a reintroduced property tax. In this year's budget proposal, the Left Party has not been as clear as in previous years regarding how this tax should be designed, but in previous proposals, the tax hit hard even on average villa prices in our metropolitan areas. It is probably only the Left Party that considers a police officer and a nurse who have bought a house in, for example, Partille to be upper class.

Even the rotavdrag is in the danger zone with a red-green government, Madam Speaker. Several parties say in different contexts that they want to restrict and limit the rotavdrag. Instead of it being up to the villa owner or the housing cooperative member to decide what are necessary renovations, it is wanted that the rotavdrag should continue to only apply to so-called "green" renovations. This means, for example, that a necessary bathroom renovation or building out a room for the children would no longer be covered by rotavdrag. For those with high incomes, it may not be a problem, but for a family with children and small margins, it could ruin all possibilities of staying in their home.

Madam Speaker! A massive tax shock on housing is to be expected if the red-green parties with the Socialdemokrater at the forefront were to form a government after the election. With the Moderaterna in government, Swedes will become wealthier, and more housing dreams will come true. With a red-green government, the villa dream risks becoming a class issue. Instead of more people being able to afford to live in a house where the children jump on the trampoline while the parents cook dinner, there is a great risk that fewer will be able to fulfill that dream.

Madam Speaker! That more people should be able to live in their own house is one leg of the Moderates' policy. The other leg is about facilitating construction so that we get more houses that people can live in. The Moderate-led government has, during this mandate period, implemented an offensive policy to reduce red tape, shorten lead times, and increase buildable land. With over 40 regulatory simplifications, we have implemented the largest reform of building permit rules in decades. We will soon make it easier to change the usage areas of buildings, and we have created opportunities to more easily build more and cheaper student apartments.

Within the framework of the Environmental Permit Investigation, the government has commissioned an investigation into how lead times for appeals can be shortened. That investigation is now out for consultation. We have taken the first steps to reform the shore protection, and a new shore protection investigation will present its proposals regarding a larger measure by the summer.

In addition, the government has appointed a homeownership commissioner. His task is to systematically map out obstacles and opportunities to build more small houses, establish new garden cities, and get a new homeownership movement started in Sweden. The government has also tasked Boverket with investigating and producing proposals for type-approved houses, so-called Sverigehus, in order to further reduce red tape, shorten lead times, and lower costs for those who want to build their own house. These proposals will be available by the summer.

Madam Speaker! The election this autumn will, in many and many ways, be about everyday economy. It will be about whether hard-working people should be allowed to have more left in their wallets. It will be about whether effort will pay off. It will also be about whether more children will be able to jump on a trampoline after school.

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)

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates have a proposal for something they call security rents. According to David Josefsson himself, the proposal means that the landlord simply gets to consider what people are prepared to pay for rent. Then, as a tenant, you get to say if you think it is a reasonable rent, and if you do not think so, you go to another landlord who offers a different rent.

The proposal from the Moderaterna shall begin to apply at the same moment a tenant moves out. This means that security rents would spread rapidly like wildfire through the entire rental housing stock in just a few years. This would naturally be a dream for the property owners in Stockholm's inner city, where rents have been kept down for a long time as a consequence of the Swedish model for rent setting that we have had for decades. In practice, it would mean that the property owners could set the prices exactly as they wish, because it is up to the tenants to accept whether they consider it a reasonable rent or not.

It is difficult to call what the Moderaterna now want to introduce in Sweden anything other than market rents. The choice of words from the Moderaterna is purely semantic in this context. The meaning is the same.

Madam Speaker! I must admit that I am somewhat confused. In an exchange in the party leader debate in January, the Prime Minister, who is also a Moderate, said as follows: ”Mr. Speaker! A lie does not become truer because it is repeated time and again. I believe it is the fourth time we have had this exchange. The Moderates have no such proposals to introduce what you call market rents with free rent setting in any way so that people are thrown out of their homes. The answer is no.”

What the Prime Minister says cannot, of course, be true if what David Josefsson says is also true. One of them is lying. Who is it, David Josefsson?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, for your question!

I can only quote the Prime Minister and say that a lie, therefore, does not become true just because one repeats it. Samuel Gonzalez Westling is new to the housing debate, but we have had this discussion with Malcolm Momodou Jallow previously.

The Moderates do not want to introduce market rents, then. It is a lie. I understand that the Left Party says it in the debate, Madam Speaker, because one believes that one will win voters on that. But I actually think that housing policy is more important than trying to lie and attribute things to parties that we do not think.

We can begin by stating that the Swedish model with negotiated rent and usage rent is not working – even the Left Party (V) admits this. Then one can reflect on this: All countries in the Western world have some form of rent regulation. Swedish rent regulation, however, stands out by being extremely dysfunctional, and those who are punished and suffer most from this are people who are not already in the housing market. The well-established manage. They can, after all, buy a home, or they know someone who owns a rental building and can thus secure an apartment. But ordinary people cannot do that.

That is why we Moderates say that we should have a strong and strict rent regulation, but we may need to have a discussion about what the Swedish rent regulation looks like and if it can look different. Then one can look around in the rest of the Nordic region, where there is another type of rent regulation which means that the landlord and the tenant agree on the rent level upon moving in. Then there is a strict regulation regarding security of tenure, how the rent develops, and the basis for that. That is how it works in Denmark, Norway, Germany, and Finland, and so we think it should also work in Sweden.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! Landlords simply have to consider what we humans are prepared to pay in rent. Then, as a tenant, one has to decide whether the rent is reasonable or not. That is what David Josefsson himself said just now. Is that not market rent? Call it what you want!

This is not a game. This is about the very most fundamental thing people have, namely a home to go to and a place where children grow up so that they can later take over when we are gone. Housing is absolutely crucial for people's lives to be secure. The Moderates seem to think that acquiring a home is comparable to buying a grilled sausage or a kebab roll and that it is that choice one stands between. Just those things can one actually choose between or even refrain from if one wants. But a home of one's own is something completely different.

The Moderates are playing with people's entire lives when they propose this, and the Christian Democrats and the Liberals have already said that they are positive towards their proposal to introduce market rents. It is almost so that one wonders if there is some kind of entrance exam to be a member of the Moderates, where indifference towards people's suffering is a merit. The Prime Minister himself has a history of having appropriated a residence that was specifically intended for the homeless.

The Moderaternas introduction of market rents – or whatever they want to call it – would create total chaos on the Swedish housing market. Rents would be raised for millions of people who are already incredibly hard-pressed by the crises of recent years. All of this is to benefit the Moderaternas friends in the real estate companies.

Madam Speaker! Let it be completely clear that in this election, it is about choosing a side. Either one chooses the property owners or one chooses the tenants. Vänsterpartiet stands on the tenants' side.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Samuel Gonzalez Westling for the contribution!

It is still fascinating that Member Gonzalez Westling does not state what Vänsterpartiet actually wants to do with the rent regulation.

One can begin by stating that those who have been on the rental market or are in a housing queue know that the Swedish rent regulation does not work. The member said that this is not a game, and that is true. These are people who get stuck in a rental queue or housing queue for tens of years and who have to turn down work, education, and starting a family because the Swedish system does not work. Then one can either say that one wants to change it or one can say that one does not want to. The alternatives are not either the Swedish regulation or a market economy; the discussion must instead be about how we regulate this in the best way.

The Moderates do not want market rents, even if the Left Party insists on that lie. But as they say, one can also observe that the member does not state what the Left Party themselves want – perhaps because they change their stance from one day to the next.

A few weeks ago, the leader of the Left Party went out together with the then housing policy spokesperson and said that they wanted to throw the entire Swedish rent regulation overboard. It was a requirement to not only support but actually sit in a government to then implement it. It was also said that the Swedish model does not work.

Today I read in the newspaper that the then housing policy spokesperson has been kicked out of his party with a bang and says that he has been subjected to racism and no longer wants to be part of Vänsterpartiet. Could it be that Vänsterpartiet has changed sides once again this mandate period? That question remains in the air.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! There will be a bit of a repetition here.

"Trygghetshyra" is a new name for a variant of market rent, which the Moderaterna have proposed. It is the same old bird, just made up in a different way. Instead of today's model, where rents are negotiated collectively between tenants and property owners, decisions on rent levels should be based on what the person who is prepared to pay the most is willing to pay. It risks leading to sharply increased rents, especially in areas with a large housing shortage. We think it sounds like a really bad idea.

In a system with so-called security rent, the rent is set based on market conditions when the housing becomes vacant. The rent shall then be increased automatically every year, regardless of how the property is managed or how costs develop. This means that collective bargaining is removed and that the tenants lose their collective influence. It also sounds like a very bad idea.

This is a systemic shift, regardless of what one chooses to call it. It is about market rents, regardless of what you call it. For ordinary people, the Moderaternas policy means higher rents, higher debts, and greater uncertainty. What in your proposal will hold back rent increases in growing labor market regions, David Josefsson?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the question – even if it was, as said, a reprise of what the Left Party stated earlier!

A lie does not become truer just because one repeats it. The Moderates therefore do not want market rents, but I believe that we all here, deep down, can admit that the Swedish rent regulation works very poorly.

Madam Speaker! Those who are hit hardest by the fact that the Swedish rent regulation is not working are people who have difficulty entering the housing market. They are people who have to turn down education, jobs, and starting a family because they cannot find a rental apartment. Those who have resources can buy an apartment or know someone who owns a rental building and can enter the market in that way. But ordinary Swedes are very poorly off.

I think that one should have a serious and constructive discussion. Can something be done about this? Can a deregulation be done or not? I can state that Joakim Järrebring himself, when he became the housing policy spokesperson, said that he sees the problems and is prepared to discuss them. Then the Hyresgästföreningen from Norrlandsgatan came and said that the Social Democrats were not allowed to say that, because if they did, they would criticize them. And then they backed down.

I think we should have a constructive discussion. How do we regulate rents in the best way in Sweden? In our neighboring countries Denmark, Finland, Germany and Norway, there are not the long housing queues and the housing shortage that we have. They do not have particularly high rents either. It is not particularly different compared to in Sweden. But we have a dysfunctional system.

My counter-question to Joakim Järrebring is why you are not prepared to make changes.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I actually only have two questions.

In his answer, the member states that what I say is a lie. I would like the member to explain what was wrong in my description of the system with security rent.

I never received an answer to my first question: What in your system is supposed to protect people from sharply increased rents in growing labor market areas?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the questions! It is a lie to claim that the Moderaterna want market rent – that is, that rents would be completely unregulated and that a landlord can throw out a tenant from one day to the next or unregulated increase the rent however they wish.

I do not believe that Member Järrebring claims that one has market rents in social-democratic Denmark or that one has unregulated rents in Germany or Norway. That was also what I tried to answer regarding the member's second question. As said, no one is proposing unregulated rents or that rent increases should not be regulated.

We propose that rents should be regulated in the same strict manner as, for example, in our neighboring countries. This means that rent increases are regulated through some form of index that ensures that rents are not increased more than the corresponding cost increases that the property owner has.

As a member of the Left Party said: This is not a game. It is people's homes we are talking about. They deserve a more serious and better debate than that one says we have either the Swedish system, even though it does not work and even though people are harmed, or market rents that are completely unregulated.

I think we should have a constructive and good discussion and actually consider how we can regulate rents as well as possible. Then it is not about major systemic shifts. It is enough to look at some of our neighboring countries and note that they regulate in a much better way than we do in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Josefsson, for the speech!

I will not repeat the question regarding security rent and market rent, as I have just heard the exchange. I agree with the stance on the issue that the Green Party's coalition partners have.

I want to maintain that housing policy is a class issue. I think it is absurd that the member accuses the red-green side of making housing policy a class issue.

The latest reforms that have been made mean that the mortgage ceiling is being raised and the amortization requirement is being lowered. Most recently today, one could read in the news feed that this causes prices on the housing market to rise. Those who are young have to hurry to manage to buy a home before the prices rush away. Here, one could have had starter loans for first-time buyers instead of introducing this reform to everyone.

This raises prices, and then the gaps increase. It makes it harder for young people to get in compared to if one had had a start loan.

There is also a government bill that we will soon be debating. The proposals in it are like introducing market rents by the back door. They are presenting proposals for an adjusted rent and for a reduced security of tenure. We view this with great concern, and we will have to debate this again here in the chamber.

I actually wonder if it is an April Fool's joke that the red-green side would be responsible for increased class divisions in housing construction and your side for reduced ones.

Is Member Josefsson prepared to ensure that market rents are not included in the bill that we will soon be processing in the committee?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Amanda Palmstierna, for your questions!

I was quite clear in my speech. Housing will become a class issue if one introduces a Social Democratic housing tax and a Left Party property tax, and if one introduces restrictions and focusing of the rotavdrag. In that case, it will be those who have money who will be able to afford it. Those who have small margins will have it tougher, Madam Speaker. I think that is something one should be open about.

Discussions are ongoing regarding the reformed mortgage rules that are now beginning to take effect. However, this was not a matter in the Committee on Civil Affairs but in the Committee on Finance. I note that all parties in the Riksdag were in favor of making these reforms, even though there was a follow-up motion from the Social Democrats, which the others agreed to, regarding making an evaluation.

Will prices go up because the mortgage ceiling is raised or not? The collective assessment is that one can see a short-term effect, but in the long run, one actually sees no effect. What one sees is that there is no problem with a 15 percent down payment for those who have money. For families who do not have such large margins, it is easier to enter the market if the mortgage ceiling is changed to 10 percent. There is a clear class dimension in that.

I do not know exactly which bill or which part of a bill is referred to, but in the bill A more flexible rental market, it is obvious to the reader that it is not market rents that we are proposing. We will return to the chamber to discuss it. It contains necessary reforms to achieve a better functioning housing market. I hope that we get broad support also from the red-greens and that they can see the problems.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it was precisely the bill A more flexible rental market that I meant.

I think it is symptomatic. One wants to ensure that it can become both an adjusted rent, which can be much higher compared to the system we have today, and a weakened security of tenure. One shall, therefore, not have the right to stay in one's housing, in one's secure home, in the same way.

It would mean an incredible deterioration of the model we have today. It means a great risk to move forward with these proposals as they could really lead to market rents. In the same way, security rents are a way of putting lipstick on the pig to introduce market rents. But let us leave that aside for now.

I want to raise another issue. I believe we have now heard in all housing debates that seven out of ten want to live in small houses. It seems to be the Moderaternas election promise and most important housing policy. Member Josefsson also mentioned Stockholm County.

Therefore, I want to mention that Region Stockholm, which now has a housing office, has conducted a survey. They have looked at those who want a villa in Stockholm County. Are you prepared to live in some other type of housing form if you are given green qualities? Then 75 percent say "Yes, I would like to live so that I have an outdoor area or a balcony with green qualities." It does not have to be exactly a villa, but one wants green qualities.

Through that, one can save on land and reduce transport. It becomes better for both the climate and biodiversity and for social interaction.

The garden city is a very good urban planning idea, but not if it is hijacked for the purpose of only building villas. Therefore, I would like to ask a question: Is Member Josefsson prepared to push for a garden city that truly is a garden city, where one mixes forms of tenure and people, and does not just hijack it to build carpets of villas?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Amanda Palmstierna, for both the answer and the follow-up questions!

Let me say something briefly about the bill, since we will have a debate on it later this autumn. A more flexible rental market involves three parts.

The first is to enable private rental. Very many Swedes live large, and one way to increase density and create new homes is to develop specific legislation, called the private rental law. I think that is an important reform.

The second concerns block rental. It is a way to create opportunities for, for example, companies to rent housing for their employees. It is not a major thing on the housing market, but it is important to, among other things, enable companies to quickly find housing in expanding locations.

The third one is about the fact that the person who owns a condominium should not have to sell it if one is going to be away for a few years. It should be easier to rent it out for a few more years.

This does not mean that we are introducing market rent, but these are important reforms for a better functioning housing market.

If Member Palmstierna had familiarized herself with the government's work on garden cities and own homes, she would have known the answer. We are very clear that garden cities refer to mixed development, different housing forms, and density. That was the basic idea of the own homes movement even when it was formed at the beginning of the last century. That is also the basic idea now.

I would truly welcome it if Amanda Palmstierna took a closer look at the government's work and perhaps met with the housing commissioner. Then she would understand that this is a way to create better living environments for more people so that more can live as they wish, regardless of whether it is in their own house or in an apartment.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! The home should be a safe place, a place where life is allowed to be exactly as it is – messy, loving, and human. It should be a place where children laugh and cry and everyday life rolls on. It should be a place where people can land after a long, exhausting day and unwind. Even if life sometimes contains setbacks, one should feel that there is at least one place in this world where one can be oneself and can feel a sense of calm.

For more and more people, however, the home has been transformed from something that stands for security into a point of economic stress – from a place of rest to a place of anxiety. At the kitchen tables, parents no longer sit to plan for the future but to calculate. How will the money last this month? Will we be able to stay here in a year? Where else will we live then?

In a few years, rents have skyrocketed; on average, they have increased by 15 percent. At the same time, wages have increased at a snail's pace after households took an unreasonably large responsibility in connection with the inflation crisis. It was an inflation that in no way was wage-driven. At the same time as this has happened, incomes have been eaten up by rising prices on both food and electricity.

The government is now beating its chest and saying that they have indeed fought inflation through their tax cuts, which have primarily gone to themselves and their friends, especially the billionaires. But for an ordinary mail carrier or nursing assistant, the tax cuts have been minimal. The Prime Minister himself receives twice as much per month as they receive in an entire year. A tax cut of just over 200 kronor per month is a meager consolation when electricity bills now amount to thousands of kronor. And that is without even starting to talk about food.

The consequences of this policy are brutal. The evictions are today more than they have been in over two decades. Children are forced to leave their homes. Families become rootless. For the government parties, it may just be statistics, figures on a piece of paper. But it is real people we are talking about – people whose lives are being shattered.

Madam Speaker! Societies are tested in times of crisis. It is then that we see who truly bears the costs. Historically, this has been a shared responsibility. Households have had to endure a period where it has not worked to live exactly as they are used to. But the companies and their owners have also had to live with the fact that profits have no longer been as high as before.

What is happening today is something completely different. Today, it is the households that have to bear the entire burden, and most of all, it is the tenants. One could almost believe that the cost crisis was solely their responsibility – that they themselves should be responsible for it. The profits continue to roll in at the other end of the economy. The scales have been locked; they can only tip in one direction.

For the tenants, it is worse anyway because the system for regulating their rents no longer functions as intended. In 2022, the system with an arbitrator was introduced, an emergency brake that was to be used in exceptional cases when negotiations between Hyresgästföreningen and Fastighetsägarna had reached a deadlock. But today, the standard situation is instead that the emergency brake is always on. The number of cases that have gone to the arbitrator has exploded. The landlords systematically run negotiations into the ditch by putting forward unreasonable demands for rent increases, not because they want to reach an agreement but because they want to avoid it. When the negotiations end up with the arbitrator, the rent increases are often established to the landlords' advantage. The game is rigged in favor of one side, and the loser is always the same: the tenant.

Madam Speaker! It is also appropriate to speak plainly about the risks in the system: real estate companies that build their businesses on large loans and quick profits. When interest rates rise, it hits hard, but the cost is not borne by the companies themselves but by the tenants. The tenants have to pay for others' business decisions, which they have not been involved in making. They also do not get to share in the profits when the wind finally turns. It is therefore completely obvious that we need change.

First and foremost, the rules for rental negotiations must be reviewed. The parties' model must be protected; that is completely obvious. But it must not be something that only works in theory, it must also work in practice. Abuse must be stopped. Therefore, we want an investigation to be appointed that reviews how the system can be reformed so that tenants receive stronger protection against unreasonable rent increases.

At the same time, the parties themselves shall be given the opportunity to arrive at new and better rules of the game. If they succeed in that, it is great. But if they do not, we from the political side must be prepared to act.

Secondly, we must act immediately so that the situation does not completely spiral out of control. The tenants must get a break; this is no longer sustainable. Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes that rents be frozen while negotiations and investigations are ongoing. It is not about making a permanent change to the system, nor is it about politics interfering in the actual rent setting. It is now time to give households a breather in an economic crisis. We stop the skyrocketing rent increases until we have a system that actually works. We pause so that people get the opportunity to breathe while we fix what is broken. What is that if not the task of politics?

There are, of course, landlords who have sound finances and reasonable needs. Therefore, it is natural that during the general pause, there should be an opportunity to make exceptions. The main principle must, however, be clear and distinct: It is not possible to tighten the screws when households are already at the breaking point.

But there are those who want to go in the opposite direction and let the market decide entirely. The Center Party tried during the previous parliamentary term until we in the Vänsterpartiet stopped them. Now the Moderaterna themselves have put forward a proposal to introduce market rents, which is more far-reaching than the Center Party could even have dreamed of.

The Center Party realized what kind of forces they wanted to let in. Their proposal was modest in context: market rents only in new production. We would have seen the full effects of that policy in about 100 years. The Moderates' proposal, which is supported by both Christian Democrats and Liberals, means that there will be market rents now, all at once, for all apartments. If the Moderates' proposal is implemented, it would be like opening the dam gates and holding your thumbs to keep the water at a reasonable level. But it would be a complete catastrophe. This is what awaits if this government continues to receive confidence. It will hit hard against millions of tenants, who are already today beaten down by the government's policy.

Madam Speaker! Ultimately, this is about more than just how much money is left in the wallet. It is about security, dignity, and the possibility of living a life without constantly having to worry about losing one's home, the fixed point in life. And in the end, one must ask: Do we want the home to be a secure foundation to stand on or an economic seesaw, where at any moment one can expect to drown?

We in Vänsterpartiet are clear and precise in our message. We stop the skyrocketing rents. We will fix the system, which is the underlying cause. We will restore the balance – the burden must be distributed fairly. Sometimes one must choose a side. We choose the tenants, and we choose security. We choose the right to a home.

I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats entered this mandate period with a clear line regarding what we wanted to try to achieve. It was about reforms to address the structural problems that we saw in the housing market. That is the focus that we have had.

One of the structural problems we saw was long processing times at both the central level, in the form of Lantmäteriet, and at the municipal level and all appeals. There, we have worked with the simplification of building permits and of the Planning and Building Act. There are new rules from 1 December 2025.

There are many more measures that can be taken without a building permit to reduce the pressure on officials and increase freedom for property owners. This should also give the municipalities greater opportunities to work with other plans because these building permit exemptions mean that the number of building permits in the municipalities is 40 percent lower, as stated in the bill.

For Lantmäteriet's part, a lot has happened that we can discuss. But one thing is clear, and that is that the case volume has decreased and thus also the processing times.

We are also working on trying to review appeals, and most preferably appeals from authorities that appeal authorities when it concerns national interests. The Government is reviewing the number of national interests and also to what extent they should exist. It cannot be possible that a residential area is appealed by an authority that appeals an authority.

One of the parts we were clear about was that more people should be able to own their home. The Small House Commission's work, just as we have heard it said before in the rostrum, is central when it comes to raising the issue: Why do municipalities not build small houses when the majority want to live in small houses? It is also central that we have introduced a planning bonus that is given to municipalities that plan for more small houses.

The relaxations regarding the shore protection that we have made are also a part of this. We are working so that it will be possible to build small houses in attractive areas. The Va-law, which in fact all parties changed together, also makes it possible to build housing slightly outside the city center.

Today, just as we have heard, the new rules for the mortgage ceiling begin to apply. The removal of the strict amortization requirement, I believe, will contribute to us being able to build more houses in the future, as demand is increasing.

For those who build rental apartments, it was important that the presumption rent was restored to the form we desired, and that has now been done. We have also ensured that mandatory rental guarantees for families with children under certain conditions are part of the budget bill for 2026. We Christian Democrats have also worked with Bostad Först. Unfortunately, not all municipalities have done so to the extent that would be desired. Stadsmissionen has shown this in its review. We need to work more on that part. Therefore, it is important to see that the government has continued with the grant to the municipalities when it comes to working with Bostad Först.

The government's work for the most vulnerable in our society was shown in SCB's latest report. The number of families with children who are in economic distress has decreased over the last ten years. It is obviously not a government that has done this. It is actually two governments that have helped each other to get this in place. At the same time, we now see that fewer families with children end up in the Enforcement Authority's registers, which in the second part is good for the social context. We obviously want it to go down faster, but the work is actually heading in the right direction.

We have also presented proposals regarding housing cooperative registers and increased opportunities for rental both within the rental market and regarding private individuals. This would mean that more apartments can be used all the time and thus that no square meters stand empty.

The most tangible changes between 2023 and 2026 concern reduced regulations for construction and incentives to increase ownership and building. This obviously differs from previous periods' focus on investment support and public initiatives.

Are we satisfied? No, we are proud but not satisfied. We believe that we can do more, but for that, at least one more mandate period is needed.

Mobility in the housing market and skyrocketing costs for residents are two areas that we actually must continue to work on. When it comes to achieving increased mobility in the housing market, a reduction in capital gains tax is an effective tool. In a report from Länsförsäkringar Fastighetsförmedling, it is noted that seven out of ten retirees own their home and that every third person in the age group 60–79 wants to live in a smaller home than they do today. The primary reasons given for choosing not to move are the difficulty of finding a home that suits one's needs as well as an all-too-burdensome capital gains tax. With the current capital gains tax, functioning move chains are hindered. It is therefore a matter of finding a home that is adapted to one's situation and moving there. That move chain can actually mean that a family with children can move into the villa that someone else is moving out of.

We Christian Democrats thus want to phase out and abolish the capital gains tax to increase mobility and so that people actually live in the right type of housing.

Swedish households pay over 70 billion every year today for water, sewage, waste, electricity, and heating in multi-family dwellings. The differences between municipalities are enormous. In Luleå, these fees cost around 1,961 kronor per month for an apartment. In Vaxholm, the cost is 3,633 kronor for the same type of apartment. That is a difference of 1,672 kronor every month for exactly the same housing. For a family with children, it can be a part of a food package. For a pensioner, it can be the entire margin.

These are costs that you cannot opt out of or find cheaper alternatives to. You cannot change the supplier of sewage pipes or refuse waste collection. The municipality has a monopoly on open service and you pay the bill.

The cost-price principle shall protect citizens from high and unreasonable costs. Municipalities may not charge more than what the activity costs. But when activities lack competition and at the same time full cost coverage is guaranteed, the drive to improve efficiency actually disappears.

The Swedish National Audit Office has noted exactly this: Without external pressure, the fees risk growing. At the same time, previous governments have for a long time accepted that municipal fees increase faster than inflation without setting clear frameworks or requirements.

Building permit and planning fees have risen sharply since 2016. In some cases, there is actually a difference of up to 100,000 kronor between municipalities for the same type of building permit case. It is a very large difference and a large sum. The consequence is that fewer can build the houses they dream of, as well as a slowed housing construction.

We Christian Democrats believe that a productivity deduction should be introduced for activities financed by municipal fees. The same efficiency requirements that the state lives with – 1–2 percent per year – should also apply to municipal fees. We also want a national, recommended building permit standard with clear fee ranges to be introduced to reduce arbitrariness and extreme differences. The point of that is also to talk about what should be included in the fee itself, so that the municipalities cannot decide for themselves what should be included in it. We also believe that there should be tightened transparency requirements in the Local Government Act. The person who pays a fee should be able to see exactly what it refers to and how it has been calculated. That is not the case today.

I did a test in my own municipality. I actually sent an inquiry about what the cost for a building permit consisted of. I received 25 pages, which I as a citizen am expected to be able to read and understand. I am expected to be able to calculate what the fee consists of. As a customer, I expect to receive on paper what the fee consists of. It should be done in a simple and concrete way for citizens. How else is one supposed to know what one is paying for?

As you understand, we are not finished. We need one more mandate period to be able to rectify this. During the next mandate period, it is about ensuring that people do not have to pay a fee that is higher than the cost price. I think it is strange that we, as national representatives, have not previously put pressure on municipalities. They get to calculate exactly as they wish – however they want. I mean that this is a disguised tax in many places.

Then one must know that many municipalities are doing right and proper. It is perhaps those that rank low. Those that rank high might be doing the opposite. This is not a regulator to balance the budget in order to be able to make small investments. It is the cost price that applies for the fees.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Larry Söder, for the speech! We could have discussed many, many things, but then we might have needed our own seminar to be able to delve into everything.

I thought I would start by saying that we are broadly in agreement on many of the regulatory simplifications that are now being implemented. Much of it even comes from investigations that we have commissioned and that you have moved forward with. That is not where the difference in housing policy lies, but rather it is about whether there are political ambitions to achieve a functioning housing supply.

As I have said here earlier today, the government notes that the political measures that have been implemented so far are not sufficient to achieve a functioning housing market. My first question is: Why is the government not conducting a functioning housing policy?

Then I can do nothing else but react to the proposal regarding the capital gains. It would be interesting to hear how KD has planned to finance the nearly 20 billion kronor that, according to your own proposal, it would cost the state treasury to abolish the capital gains tax. We have, after all, heard the Finance Minister be clear that the money for the next mandate period is exhausted. In that case, one needs to finance this tax change. What does the Christian Democrats' proposal look like in that regard?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is about everything that different parties in a constellation want. Fortunately, we are a common constellation with four parties running for election to jointly form a government. I believe that one can resolve this in a budget issue.

I do not have the impression that our proposal costs 20 billion – 11.8 billion is the cost that the Riksdag's investigation service, RUT, has produced for us, and we should probably know best what our proposal looks like.

It is also the case that a government taking over a dysfunctional housing market cannot manage everything during a single mandate period – we know that. We agree that many of the issues are problematic, and we can move forward with those, but there are also other parts that we do not agree on between the opposition and the majority.

What I am talking about are approximately the parts that I believe the Social Democrats will have problems with, that is to say that we must put pressure on the municipalities. Who sits in the municipalities? Well, it is often the larger parties that govern in the municipalities, which means that one might not want to put pressure on those municipalities. I mean that it actually would be quite good if we could agree to ensure that during the next mandate period, the costs for the individual are reduced.

We must surely agree that the housing cost for people is high today? It is not only that building new homes results in high costs, but it also applies when one lives in a home. What is it that one pays when one lives? Yes, it is obviously the rent, but it is also the fees that exist around it. This, however, we as politicians have abdicated from discussing. We have left it entirely to the municipal politicians.

I mean that this must be the next big issue in the coming parliamentary term. How do we solve this both for people living in central parts of large cities and for those in the countryside? Are the Social Democrats prepared to take action to solve this issue, where there are large differences between different localities?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Regardless of whose RUT report was the most accurate, I received no answer on how the Christian Democrats intend to finance their removal of the capital gains tax.

I also intended to give Larry Söder the opportunity to be a bit clear regarding the party's position on the Moderates' security deposit. I have received different messages in different contexts about how the Christian Democrats view that proposal. We heard initially, quite quickly after the Moderates had made the decision at their annual meeting, that both the Liberals and the Christian Democrats thought it was a good proposal and joined it. However, when we have had debates around it together, I do not quite think that Larry Söder has conceded that one wants to introduce this type of market pricing on rents.

Larry Söder is welcome to clarify this so that it becomes clear: Do the Christian Democrats want to introduce the market-based rent that the security rent actually constitutes?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can state that the Social Democrats do not want to put pressure on the municipalities when it comes to municipal fees, because I received no answer at all regarding that. That question was bypassed and something that you think is more interesting to discuss was discussed instead. I hope to get answers to the questions in the next exchange of remarks we have, that is: Do you want to put pressure on the municipalities when it comes to fees, or do you think it should be high chaparral in the different municipalities when it comes to which fees one is allowed to charge?

When it comes to rental apartments, one thing can be stated: virtually no rental apartments are being built in Sweden unless the state adds money for it. Why is that? Yes, because the bottom line does not work for those who are to build the rental apartments. They cannot generate the income needed for the cost that lies there. Regardless of what one thinks, it means that we are not getting more rental apartments in Sweden, which would be needed in certain places in Sweden.

I mean that this is a problem that we have, and we must solve it in one way or another. Our proposal has been that one should actually ensure free rent setting in new production, which I think would be appropriate. It is our proposal as Kristdemokrater. Then, in a government constellation, one can discuss different solutions and which way is best, but I speak as a Kristdemokrat, and I think that free rent setting in new production should be what one should solve – not new subsidies to the property owners. So we have done in two parliamentary terms, and we have checked, and it did not work.

The only thing it has led to is that we have rental apartments located in the wrong places. It is better for the market to handle where the rental apartments should be and ensure that they can collect the fees needed for them to be able to build rental apartments.

I have, however, realized that the Social Democrats are not interested in building rental apartments, but are more interested in controlling what should be built.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Housing policy is fundamentally a question of freedom. It is about the freedom to be able to move for a job, the freedom to start studying, the freedom to move for love or to leave a relationship that has broken down, as well as the freedom to live larger when life grows and smaller when the children move out.

When people cannot find a home that fits their everyday lives, we do not just lock the door to a home, we also lock the door to life opportunities. Precisely this has characterized Swedish housing policy for far too long: too little freedom, too little mobility, too little construction of what is in demand and instead too much hassle and too long queues.

We want something else. We want a housing market that works for people and a housing market where more people can own their home, where it is faster to build and where the rules are easy to understand. We know that a housing policy that makes people dependent on waiting time, contacts, parents' money or temporary emergency solutions is not favorable either for the ordinary person or for society as a whole.

Madam Speaker! For us Liberals, much begins with the own home. The own home is not just a form of housing, but it implies responsibility and freedom. That is why it is so important that this government has not only spoken about more small houses but also started to act to produce them. We have previously appointed an own-home commissioner with a mandate to work for increased small house construction, we have a new own-home movement and we are establishing new garden cities. It is a clear shift from talking about this housing shortage to actually starting to build policy so that more people can live in a terraced house or a villa.

It does not stop there. The government has also decided on planning incentives to municipalities for detailed plans that enable small house construction. This entered into force in 2024 and was increased almost exactly one year ago from 15,000 to 25,000 kronor per house. It is concrete policy to produce more planned land for small houses, which is often lacking when people want to build, move, and settle down.

The government has also moved forward with producing type-approved small houses by commissioning Boverket to develop proposals on how this shall be implemented and, furthermore, to investigate the conditions under which such small houses in certain cases can be exempted from building permits. It is exactly that kind of reform power that is needed – with less arbitrariness, more standardization that facilitates things for people, shorter processes, and lower costs.

Madam Speaker! If we are serious about building more housing, we must also be serious about shortening lead times. It is not enough to just say that more should be built, one must also remove the bottlenecks and the obstacles.

That is why it is important that the government has pushed forward a new building permit regulatory framework and simultaneously had new building rules put in place. This means, among other things, that more measures become permit-exempt, that the permit requirement becomes more area-differentiated, that larger extensions are enabled without a building permit, and that facade changes on one- or two-family houses no longer require a building permit. These are not minor technical adjustments, but rather a clear shift towards greater freedom for property owners.

That is also why the government has proceeded with relaxations in the building requirements for student housing. When up to 80 percent of the housing in a project can be exempted from the accessibility requirements but can still be visited, it frees up space, reduces costs, and makes it possible to produce more student housing where the pressure is greatest.

A clear example is the student housing Nya Holtermanska in central Gothenburg. With its 386 student apartments, it is one of the first major projects covered by the new regulatory framework. Instead of locking the lowest floors for external storage, they can now be used for housing, cafes, and other functions that create life and movement in the buildings.

It is exactly that way we must work with the housing policy in this country: with less rigid red tape, which allows for innovation and in the long run creates a living environment that becomes both more attractive and more vibrant.

Madam Speaker! Creating a functioning housing market is not just about building new, it is also about using the existing stock better. We cannot afford to talk about a housing shortage and at the same time stick to an order that makes it unnecessarily difficult to renovate, change the use of, and produce more housing in what is already in place.

That is exactly why the government has tasked Boverket with proposing relaxations in the building requirements during modification and conversion, and that is why proposals for simplified rules for the modification of buildings have been presented. It is also why municipalities can receive special support for detailed plans that make it possible to convert premises into housing.

For us liberals, it is crucial that the housing market does not only work for those who are already in it. A functioning housing market must also work for those who lack capital, for the family with children who need larger [homes], for those who are facing their first purchase, and for those who want to move from renting to owning.

That is why the government has presented a proposal on rent-to-buy of housing, which we will debate later this autumn. It makes it possible to combine housing with a gradual entry into ownership. Just today, the mortgage ceiling is also being raised, and the tightened amortization requirement is being removed, in order to lower the thresholds without compromising on responsibility. All of this aims for one and the same thing, namely that owning one's own home shall become a reality for significantly more people.

A home is not just four walls, however, a home must also be located in an area where people feel safe. Therefore, the government has introduced stricter rules for safer residential areas. It has previously been made possible in more cases to evict tenants who have committed crimes in the apartment or in the surrounding area, and a proposal will soon be presented to make it easier to evict condominium owners who commit crimes. It shall also become easier to deny a person with a criminal record membership in a condominium association.

This is completely correct policy. Those who make life unsafe for their neighbors should not be protected by the system. Those who are subjected to threats or live in a residential area that criminals have taken hostage should, on the other hand, be protected from it.

Madam Speaker! For us Liberals, it is obvious that those who are furthest from the housing market should not be met with yet another closed door. Therefore, we want to introduce housing by need, which is a model where social housing is provided based on need. It would complement the regular housing market. Those who risk homelessness, live in extreme overcrowding, have certain medical needs, or need protection from violence should not be left to a system that has already failed.

The model should not become a parallel system; instead, the housing should be mixed into ordinary, functioning residential areas and be able to be embedded in new projects. Vulnerability is not best combated by concentrating it in one place; it is best combated by ensuring that people are given a way into society. It begins with a door of their own to close behind them.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and wish everyone a happy Easter.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Members of the House! We are in the middle of a climate crisis. Many young people are deeply concerned about the climate changes we see today, and it is the young who will live the longest with the consequences. It is about consequences that we see already today in the form of heatwaves, floods, and food that becomes more expensive because of the climate – coffee, for example. There will also be even more consequences.

It is important that we see the crisis in broad daylight and do not leave the young people alone with a sense of anxiety. It is also important that we have a plan forward for how we are to reduce climate emissions.

One-fifth of Sweden's climate emissions come from the construction and real estate sector. These are the domestic emissions, and then there are also very many emissions from imported goods, that is, consumption emissions. The construction and real estate sector, in other words, plays a key role in the climate transition.

The industry is also pushing – read Fossilfritt Sveriges roadmaps! There are many proposals there for us politicians to take forward. Also read debate articles from major construction companies! Construction actors have released joint debate articles and urged the Tidöregeringen to introduce sharp limit values for reduced climate emissions, i.e., sharp climate requirements. In Denmark, there is a collaboration called Reduction Roadmap, which is an agreement on binding targets for climate emissions from the construction sector. In Denmark, the construction industry has been involved in and pushed the decision-making, and it is something we should follow in Sweden.

Sweden also has good conditions: The construction and real estate sector has the technology and expertise to carry out the climate transition, and there are already pilot projects today where construction has been carried out with low climate emissions and without significant extra costs. We therefore already know how to build with a halved climate footprint.

Sweden has, as said, good conditions to succeed in reducing emissions from the construction industry and its material use. One of our major base industries, the forest, is a key. We naturally need to have sustainable forestry, but the choice of a wooden frame instead of a frame of concrete and steel lowers a building's carbon footprint by 30–50 percent. Wood products that have a long life in buildings also have great climate potential, and there is also great potential in reusing frames, large building parts, and other building products that otherwise drive up climate emissions. A system for circular management of building materials needs to be built up.

Why is nothing happening then? The industry is pushing forward, and there are pilot projects that show that this is not fantasies but something that has actually already been realized on a smaller scale. Why is nothing happening? The short answer is that there are no direct economic incentives for or regulations that drive this. In other words, a political will is needed.

What is the Tidö government doing in this case? Well, it is sitting on its hands. Limit values for climate emissions, that is, climate requirements, have been pushed back several times. The first thing we heard was that Boverket would introduce limit values at the earliest in 2025 and at the latest in 2027. The latest announcement from the government is 2030. Boverket is to submit proposals to the government regarding an expanded climate declaration for new buildings to apply in 2028 and regarding limit values for buildings' climate impact to apply at the latest in 2030. But do you know what? It is far too late.

Allowing this to enter into force in 2030 means four lost years, especially when the technology and the technical conditions already exist today. Boverket has held hearings and presented three different proposals. There has been a lot of dialogue, which is good. The most ambitious proposal needs to be taken forward and sharpened, and it needs to be done now – not in four years.

With the right climate requirements, Sweden can fulfill its climate promise and lead the export of sustainable construction technology. Ambitious climate requirements are not only a necessity for Sweden to keep its promise in the Paris Agreement. They also stimulate technological development for an enormous market where Sweden has good conditions to become a winner. But as said, a political will is needed. Long-term rules of the game are needed that make it a competitive advantage to transition here and now instead of postponing the transition to the future.

We in Miljöpartiet want to see national climate requirements for reduced climate emissions for buildings in line with the Paris Agreement. They are needed now, not in four years.

So climate emissions can be reduced. So we give the industry the right conditions to transition. So the competitiveness of the construction and real estate sector can be strengthened. So we can also create jobs in Sweden.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 33 under point 18.

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

Anne-Li Sjölund (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden today has a housing market that does not function as it should. This is noticeable in people's everyday lives. The young people who do not get their first contract know it. Families with children who are stuck in overcrowded housing know it. Employers who cannot find the right competence because people cannot move to where the jobs are also know it.

A housing market should make it possible to take the next step in life – to move out of the family home, to change housing when the family grows, or to say yes to a job regardless of where in the country it is located. Today, it is like a gear that has stopped – every part affects the next, and nothing moves forward. The one who cannot move on leaves no room for the next, and the one who never gets in never gets the chance to start.

Centerpartiet wants the system to start working again. We want to simplify the regulations and shorten the lead times so that more housing is built across the country, not just where the pressure is already highest. We want to create better conditions for investments so that more people dare to build. We want a rental market that works, where it is possible both to get a home and to move when life changes.

When we build more, we must also build smarter. We have the opportunity to combine housing construction with the climate transition. By simplifying for climate-smart construction in wood and energy-efficient solutions, we can both build away the housing shortage and reduce the climate impact. It is not about choosing between growth and sustainability, but about achieving both.

Madam Speaker! Mobility is crucial not only for the individual but for all of Sweden. When people can move to where the jobs are, both companies and local development are strengthened. When more housing is built across the country, the pressure is reduced where it is currently highest. When people are given the opportunity to shape their lives, trust and faith in the future grow.

We also need to shorten the times that today hinder construction. The processes must be both legally secure and efficient. Today, the planning processes are like a hurdle race with appeals, detailed plans, and bureaucratic red tape. It is like running forward but constantly getting caught in new tripping wires.

Today, it often takes many years to go from idea to finished housing. Therefore, we need to make the system more predictable and less time-consuming, not by compromising on quality, but by removing unnecessary obstacles.

Housing does not just provide a roof over one's head, but it is the key to so much more. The housing issue is not just about housing. It is about work, growth, and people's freedom to shape their lives. It is about security and about the opportunity to live and reside in the entire country.

We in the Center Party want to contribute to a housing market where more people can get in, more can move forward, and more can find a home that suits their lives. Fundamentally, it is about getting the wheels turning again so that the housing market becomes a way forward and not a stop.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 3. I would also, as a previous speaker, wish a happy Easter.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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