Extra supplementary budget for 2025 - Temporary increased subsidy rate for the rot deduction

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall try to put the words a bit; in times of populism and simple answers, one sometimes needs to put things in context. Today we are going to handle a part of what the government and the coalition parties are doing this spring. This very extra supplementary budget aims to strengthen the deduction for renovation, and I will return to the question.

The Social Democrats and the rest of the opposition will, in the usual order, try to say that the government is doing nothing or at least too little and too late. In that case, it is still good to talk about the whole, and that is what I intend to do, Mr. Speaker.

Let me begin with what the government has done during the mandate period. We promised the voters before the election that we would tackle the high fuel prices. I can state that when I fueled the car this week, that refueling for my diesel car – 55 liters – was 715 kronor cheaper than when we took over government power. It was 13 kronor per liter. For someone who has a gasoline car, it is almost 500 kronor cheaper to fuel, namely 9 kronor per liter. This makes a real difference, and we have delivered on our election promises. We have lowered the tax and removed the reduction obligation.

Electricity is another issue that is pressing households. When we took over government power, the previous government and its coalition partners had shut down fully functioning nuclear power and caused high and volatile electricity prices. I live in Norrland, used to electricity costing nothing. For an ordinary house, the bill in December that year was over 10,000 kronor. In southern Sweden, the bill was significantly higher than that.

This government has implemented over 50 measures to trim and squeeze the electricity system. That made my electricity bill now in December 2,500 kronor, which is a quarter of the price when we took over government power. In southern Sweden, electricity prices are still higher, but there has been approximately the same reduction.

In the long term, we need more nuclear power, and therefore we intend to rebuild nuclear power to get order and clarity in that area as well. Even here, during the mandate period, we have delivered what we promised the voters and ensured lower prices for Swedish households.

If we talk about wages, Mr. Speaker, I can state that with the tax cuts this government has made, an ordinary household with a nurse and a police officer has 23,000 kronor less in tax every year, that is to say approximately 2,000 kronor a month. This means a big difference for economically pressured households. If we count the job tax credits that the Moderaterna have been involved in implementing in various configurations, we are talking about almost 100,000 kronor every year in lower tax for such a family. It makes a very big difference that the Moderaterna, together with others, have lowered the tax for ordinary people. The Socialdemokraterna have voted against all these tax cuts.

The inflation was inherited by this government from the previous Social Democratic government. At that time, the inflation was 10 percent. This government, together with the Riksbank, the Swedish trade union movement and the labor market partners, has done a lot. We have now pushed back the inflation. For a family with a mortgage of 3 million kronor, it means approximately 5,000 kronor less in interest payments today.

Mr. Speaker! This government is doing very much to ensure that Swedish households will have lower costs. The opposition will try to say that the government is doing nothing for Swedish households. I say that it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

At the beginning of this inflation crisis, which we inherited from the Social Democratic government, our four coalition parties ensured that we inflation-proofed the people who have the lowest margins and who live on benefits and compensations. Swedish low-income earners had to step back.

When we now, this year, lower the tax for wage earners, the opposition says: Why do you only do things for the rich, that is to say, nurses, police officers and other people who work? Why do you only lower the tax for the rich? Again: It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

What we are doing is ensuring that wage earners who had to take a step back at the beginning of the inflation crisis also get slightly better margins now that inflation has been fought down. I have not met many households in the Swedish middle class who think they have come out unscathed during this time.

Mr. Speaker! This extra supplementary budget is part of a whole for this year and for this parliamentary term. We have a world around us that is, to say the least, troublesome. There is war in our vicinity, and international cooperation and trade are under great stress.

Sweden is a small, trade-dependent country on the edge of Europe. We have become rich by trading with other countries. When free trade is challenged, it is troublesome for Sweden. It affects us to a very great extent.

With this extra supplementary budget and the spring budget amendment that we have presented, we are stimulating the economy. An enhanced rotavdrag (deduction for renovation), which we are debating today, is a reform that is very well-adapted and has been used previously to ensure that the economy gets a bit more momentum. It supports the economy and the construction industry, which is an industry that slows down quickly when the economic cycle turns.

We need to ensure both that jobs are saved and that people can start renovations and construction projects that they may have postponed during the previous cost crisis. It is a good policy that, together with the other things we do, strengthens Swedish households and supports the Swedish economy.

Mr. Speaker! In the debate, one sometimes needs to put things into context when one hears people talking about simple solutions to complex problems. They can, instead of ensuring that we get a competitive economy, say: Let us just introduce tariffs, and everything will be sorted out. When such things are tested, when populists get the opportunity to implement such things, it shows time and again that the world was more complex and that it does not work.

That is why the government, and the coalition parties, the Tidö parties, have also presented a historic research and innovation budget. In the long run, we can only become a wealthier country if we become better. We must, therefore, become better in the global competition. It is in that way that Swedish companies get to sell their goods and services to other countries.

Simple solutions will certainly be delivered in this debate. In that case, I want you who are listening to consider whether it really is just redistributing existing wealth that will make Sweden richer. Sweden has a long tradition of becoming richer because we have become better. Therefore, the government is doing a great deal to strengthen Swedish competitiveness. It concerns everything from research, innovation, and education to a better tax system, which supports so that Sweden can manage in the global competition.

With that, this extra supplementary budget is also placed into a whole that is good for Sweden, which ensures that we save Swedish jobs and which ensures that we strengthen Swedish competitiveness in the long term.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! The government has succeeded in pushing Sweden's unemployment to the second highest in the entire EU. Almost 10 percent of those who want and can work are unemployed. Food prices are skyrocketing, and the government takes no measures other than having coffee with the food giants. Perhaps a few more measures from the government would have been needed to solve complex problems.

The situation for single low-income earners is getting worse and worse every year. A survey shows that 29 percent of all single parents with low income in February this year had difficulty eating enough to be full. This is a large increase from last year, and it was a high level even then. Half of all single parents with low income have, at one or more occasions, not been able to afford to buy nutritious food for themselves and their children.

The government's response to this is to remove the increased housing supplement and instead introduce a tax subsidy in the rotavdrag. This means that more children will go to bed hungry while more high-income earners receive tax subsidies. It is a tone-deaf crisis management by the government. This government needs to be reminded that a government is for the whole country, not just for its own voters.

Mr. Speaker! Unlike the previous speaker, I will speak more about the root deduction itself than about everything else.

In the bill, it is proposed that the subsidy rate for the repair deduction shall be temporarily increased from 30 percent to 50 percent. The Government justifies the proposal by stating that Sweden is in a recession and that the construction industry is particularly hard hit. I actually share the Government's view on the economic situation in general and the situation in the construction industry in particular. The weak economic development is clearly visible on the labor market.

The government has, since taking office, pursued a passive and ineffective fiscal policy. It is typical that when the government finally considers it time to take measures against unemployment, it does so in the form of an increased subsidy rate for the rotavdrag.

The proposal is criticized by a long line of referral bodies which, among other things, consider that the proposal has small effects on employment in relation to the cost. It would be more efficient with other measures, for example renovation of schools and sports halls. Completely different measures than high tax deductions are required to stimulate the construction industry, for example investment support to build affordable rental apartments.

The government's own agency for growth policy evaluations and analyses, Tillväxtanalys, writes in its referral response that it is a relatively expensive proposal with unclear effects. The agency argues that it would likely be more effective to stimulate the construction sector through renovation of publicly owned premises. These could in principle be the same types of renovations that give an individual the right to a rotavdrag and use the same type of labor. The difference is that it has a socio-economic motive.

The government's policy is that more people should want to build a new balcony with the help of a tax deduction, while the person living in a rental apartment often does not even get necessary maintenance performed. The government's policy is also that more high-income earners should be able to replace their functioning kitchens, while low-income earners do not even have the means to buy food to cook in their unrenovated kitchens.

Mr. Speaker! Last year, the Swedish National Audit Office reviewed how well the rot deduction lives up to the objectives set for the deduction. Important conclusions in the National Audit Office's report are that the self-financing rate for the deduction is very low and that it would be cost-effective to lower the ceiling for the rot deduction.

The National Audit Office's report also shows that it is significantly more common for households with high incomes to utilize the rot deduction than for households with lower incomes to do so. More than half of the total deduction amount is used by the 20 percent of households that have the highest incomes. An increase in the subsidy rate thus benefits those who already use the rot deduction to a large extent. Thus, an increase will benefit households with high incomes.

The government's own impact assessment shows that the proposal will primarily benefit the 10 percent of households with the highest incomes. It is primarily households in the metropolitan regions of Stockholm and Gothenburg that are benefited. The government's proposal is expensive and inefficient and involves a waste of limited resources.

The National Audit Office also notes in its report that the rot deduction in its current form does not create sufficiently large tax revenues through reduced undeclared work and increased labor supply to justify the state's costs for the rot deduction. The National Audit Office notes that while households have reduced their demand for undeclared services, the use of undeclared wages has increased within the construction industry. The development is particularly clear among small construction companies, which also perform the majority of rot services.

Since the Riksrevisionen's report was released, the government has presented two different proposals that strengthen the rotavdrag, one being the temporary increase of the ceiling last year, and the other being the temporary increase of the subsidy rate that we are debating now. The government has, however, presented zero proposals in light of Riksrevisionen's review and criticism.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal for an increased subsidy rate is justified by the desire to promote employment in the construction industry. I agree that the construction industry needs further support now that construction has slowed down so significantly. But it cannot happen through an expanded renovation deduction, which in practice constitutes subsidies to high-income earners. It is not private individuals' renovations that will keep the construction industry afloat, but rather that we get construction moving again and that regions and municipalities can carry out the necessary investments that they are currently postponing due to the starved budgets the government has imposed on them.

Vänsterpartiet has proposed strong state support to keep construction and employment going, a support that can be used both for subsidized employment and so that municipalities and regions can move forward their investments. That is how we save the construction industry, not through an expanded rotavdrag.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of the reservation and rejection of the committee report.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was not a fatal remark I intended, but I simply forgot to move for the adoption of the proposal in the report, which I hereby do.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am a bit disappointed. I had hoped that Edward Riedl would move for a rejection.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Members of the Swedish Parliament and any observers present! I would first like to account for the special statement that we have submitted in this matter. I want to begin by making it very clear for the record that we are critical of the government's decision to break out the proposal for an increased subsidy rate for rot from the spring budget and place it in an extra amendment budget. This is something that we discussed quite frequently during the previous parliamentary term, when, among other things, the committee's current chairman was extremely critical in connection with a number of extra amendment budgets that the government at that time submitted. I would like the committee's chairman to note that one is now acting in the manner that he himself was critical of.

This is, in fact, a procedure that should be used in connection with large and exceptional events, such as the pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It should not be used to advance the entry into force of budget reforms that one has forgotten or hastily realized that one must do because one's own policy looks very bad. We simply interpret the government's way of handling this issue as yet another confirmation of the government's lack of ability to handle the construction crisis and the declining growth.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, the government's spring budget, which was recently presented, shows with all desirable clarity that the government completely lacks a sense of crisis. In the uncertain and tense global situation, when many are worried about the economy, about jobs, about high food prices, and about whether they will be able to afford to pick up their medicine, the government wants the Swedish people to have patience – to wait and see what happens, as the Prime Minister says. They have simply sat on their hands.

A government can, however, make choices that improve and strengthen Sweden's position in a restless time. But when the SD government took office, one of the first decisions was to abolish the investment support for housing – an investment support that ensured 50,000 rental apartments and 10,500 student apartments were built between 2017 and 2024. After that support was removed, the SD government has, in practice, sat in the stands and watched as the construction sector completely collapsed. The number of started homes was halved between 2022 and 2023. Now, unfortunately, the forecasts indicate that the development continues with very low construction. Last year, on average, five construction companies went under every day. The negative development continues this year. From January to March this year, almost 600 companies in the construction sector have gone bankrupt. The total result of the SD government's time in power is almost 5,000 bankrupt construction companies, Mr. Speaker.

The crisis in the construction sector is naturally also reflected in the unemployment statistics. Among the 500,000 unemployed that we have in Sweden today, there are 10 percent of all Sweden's construction workers, approximately 20,000. They have been let go as the company went bankrupt. The government's passivity in the face of the situation in the construction sector is growth-inhibiting and risks, which perhaps is the most serious of all, to seriously damage the construction industry in the long term.

We Social Democrats have, unlike the SD government, come forward with many proposals to reverse the negative development in the construction industry. We have a comprehensive construction and renovation package aimed at both rental apartments and condominiums. We have initiatives for the new industrial towns and for student towns with credit guarantees, construction stimuli, and energy-efficient measures within the rotavdrag system. We have additional measures to ensure that more apprentices enter the construction market, so that we secure the construction industry's future. In addition to a certain employment effect, which we see with the rotavdrag, we could also, through our system for rotavdrag, create a much-needed climate adaptation of many homes.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats' budget motion for 2025 encompasses a total of more than 8 billion kronor to kickstart housing construction with measures that hit broad groups in society in both rental and owned housing and at different stages of life, while simultaneously contributing to the climate and promoting growth. These are simply offensive measures that would have been much-needed to stimulate the Swedish economy and growth. It is particularly urgent against the background of the restless global situation and the American administration's threatening and aggressive tariff policy, and against the background that the economic situation in Sweden is now deteriorating, unemployment is increasing, the recession is setting in, and the government is now forced to revise the growth forecasts downwards.

Mr. Speaker! We are therefore forced to conclude that the SD government completely lacks the ability and/or will – what do we know – to truly turn around the crisis in the construction sector. It should be said that the proposal we are now discussing has been received with varying judgments. These can be summarized by saying that it may perhaps be able to provide some more employment but will not solve the crisis in the construction sector, which is the fundamental problem. It is, however, the only measure that the government has managed to produce to solve the construction crisis, as they have not wanted to take a holistic approach to the current situation. That is the reason why we Social Democrats, despite our extensive criticism of the government's entire policy for the construction sector as a whole, nevertheless make the assessment that this small step is better than doing nothing at all. Therefore, we are prepared to vote in favor of this proposal, despite our extensive criticism of the government's lack of ability to solve the crisis in the construction sector.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that I agree with Member Ingela Nylund Watz that extra supplementary budgets should be used with great caution. I can go so far as to say that this is close to being a borderline case for what one breaks out in an extra supplementary budget. Let us agree that it should primarily be used when it concerns things that truly need to go fast and are large and pose a threat to society.

Mr. Speaker! On the other hand, it is a bit strange that the Social Democrats are presenting this. I tried to put it into a perspective of that we are doing quite a lot during the mandate period, and we have done quite a lot previously. It is quite strange when the Social Democrats try to employ a rhetoric – which is certainly wrong, Mr. Speaker – where one tries to say that the government is doing too little and that it is going too slowly.

We are breaking out a proposal so that we can quickly implement an important economic measure, which the Social Democrats will also vote for. When we lift it out in order to move it forward and quickly support the economy, it is criticized. It is also a bit strange, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that few of us in here – unless someone is clairvoyant, and in that case it would have been good if you had told us – when we prepared the budget in the autumn could have predicted both how the election in the USA would go and that this time it would become a real trade war. Had one predicted it, one would surely have done some things somewhat differently. We are now correcting that to support the economy through the supplementary budget and what we do with what we are bringing forward here. It shall again be put into context.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the construction crisis, I would like to ask Member Nylund Watz something. As far as I can judge, everyone says the same thing. What is most central is to bring down the interest rates, that is to say to bring down inflation so that the interest rates fall. Then construction will start. Does the Member make a different assessment than that?

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Member Riedl for acknowledging that it is on the edge of reasonable handling in a coherent budget process. This way of handling individual proposals makes it difficult for the opposition to see the overall picture of the government's policy. But it is good that the Member nonetheless acknowledges it.

I do not mean that the government could have predicted what the American administration would come up with. But it is not the case that the Swedish government has had a lack of opportunities to address the crisis in the construction sector. It is 5,000 companies in the construction sector that have gone bankrupt so far during the SD government's time in power.

The first thing that was done was to abolish the investment support for housing, which ensured the maintenance of construction in the industry, provided cheaper rental apartments, and created 50,000 new homes and 10,500 new student residences. It was among the first things that were done when they took office as government.

If one had not done that but instead had wanted to pursue an offensive construction policy to ensure that the construction industry, which is so important for growth in Sweden, would still function, the situation would have been somewhat different today. We might have had a somewhat better economic situation and a somewhat better position for Sweden's placement in the growth league in Europe, which is now at the bottom.

That the government has had bad luck because an American administration came along that created tariffs and made life difficult does not mean that the government can be held unaccountable for the policy it pursues. It is the government that has put the construction sector in a bind, and no one other than the government.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first begin by saying, and that is what I said, that this is not the best way to do it. That is why I insisted on speaking with the opposition. I spoke with Mikael Damberg and other opposition members in the Committee on Finance about how we did and how we intended to handle it so that even the opposition would have a reasonable opportunity to present good budget proposals. I think that is what one should do in a correct and reasonable way.

Again: This is being done to quickly support the economy. There is a good purpose behind this, and I note that the Social Democrats are voting in favor.

I also note that the Social Democrats do not include the investment support in their budget proposals. Perhaps it is so that even the Social Democrats now see it as others did. It was expensive and inefficient, and there were better things to do.

Again: If one really wants to ensure that construction gets moving in Sweden, the single most important measure is that which the government has done. It has fought inflation and brought down the interest rates. Everyone agrees that lower interest rates are what will, in the long run, make construction pick up again.

When it comes to growth, I have heard several Social Democrats claim that Sweden ranks lowest in Europe regarding the growth rate. It is quite messy right now. We will have to return and see exactly how the figures land, but at least the serious assessors I have seen, both at the European level and on a global level, forecast that Sweden will have one of the highest growth rates in Europe during this year. Exactly how it will turn out with the uncertainty we see now, we will have to return to. Let us summarize that when this year and next year are over. I believe the members will see that it looks significantly different.

Mr. Speaker! Again: I began the debate by saying that the government has done an incredible amount. It has become cheaper to refuel and cheaper with mortgage loans. There have been significantly lower taxes for ordinary wage earners. We have lowered the price of electricity bills. Is that good for households, member?

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for further comments from Member Riedl!

The government has done very much. We have a situation in Sweden where we have single parents with small children who cannot afford to put nutritious food on the table for their children. They cannot afford to let the children participate in any leisure activities. They cannot afford to do what we might think is normal for a family to do.

The government is now abolishing the extra supplement to the housing allowance on July 1. This means that precisely those who are doing the worst, who are most squeezed financially, will now receive up to 2,000 kronor less per month to move with. This government is certainly doing a lot. But it hits those who have it the hardest the most, and it benefits those who are quite well off, like ourselves – the member and I.

As I said in my previous post, the government could not predict exactly what Trump would do when he took office. No one could probably do that, but one could perhaps guess. The government should have been able to look at Trump's previous term and reflect on whether there was anything in what he said that might contribute to us getting an aggressive policy from a new administration? Yes, there was. There were clear signs, even if he did not push as hard then as he has chosen to do now.

The Speaker may actually apologize, but I do not think it is acceptable that, as representatives for the government, you claim it is becoming like this because one has bad luck with an American administration. It is your own responsibility since you have caused the construction sector in Sweden to go to its knees. 5,000 construction companies have gone bankrupt so far under the SD government, and 10 percent of all of Sweden's construction workers are now unemployed. We risk getting a situation where the construction sector's future is jeopardized because one risks losing so much competence. It is the government's responsibility.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One can reflect on one's own responsibility when one hands over a Sweden that has over 10 percent inflation and a diesel price of over 28.50 kronor and believes that it should not have any negative effects for housing construction and the construction market.

What I stood up in the speaker's chair to ask questions about concerns rot. We are moving forward with a proposal for an increased rot deduction of 50 percent. It can be used for what one actually needs, regardless of what it is that one considers oneself to need. It can be used to repair the roof, remove asbestos or remediate radon, if that should be what one needs.

I have understood it as that the Social Democrats, on the other hand, want a green rot deduction, if they are allowed to decide completely freely. It shall be a rot deduction of 50 percent, i.e., as large as the one we are now proposing. It shall, however, be limited so that only certain parts are included. But it is highly unclear where the limit is for the Social Democrats' green rot.

Ingela Nylund Watz speaks here about the fact that there should be climate-adapted measures. Leif Nysmed, who was present at the Radon Day for the Social Democrats, stated that the green tax deduction that the Social Democrats want to introduce should be able to be used for radon remediation.

If one tears up a floor and replaces it, it would thus be deductible – by 50 percent – if one does it because of radon, but not if one does it because the floor is old.

For me and perhaps for all other voters out in the country, the question arises: Where is the actual limit for the green tax deduction? Can it be used for radon, and one wonders if it can also be used for other things. Can it be used for asbestos removal and so on? I would very much like to know more about this.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Eskilandersson!

I can guarantee Member Eskilandersson that when we change government in connection with the next election, there will be a program for housing construction and support for the housing sector. There, it will also be reported how we, for cyclical purposes, want to use rot to increase energy efficiency. With all due respect, he will probably have to wait until the new government's regulatory letters in these matters are issued before he can receive a definitive answer.

Now we are debating the government's proposal for an increased rotavdrag, and we intend to vote yes to it. But there is something that concerns me when the member begins to talk about details in a future rotavdrag with a higher climate and energy profile than what the government has now presented. It is that the member completely forgets that this is a small, small measure in terms of the big, big problem with a crashed construction sector.

I will listen with anticipation to what the member will say in their speech. For we now have a situation on the Swedish labor market where 10 percent of the Swedish construction workers are unemployed. We risk serious consequences in the long run for the construction industry – when 5,000 companies have gone bankrupt and almost 20,000 construction workers are unemployed. There are no apprenticeship positions out on the construction sites – apprenticeship positions that allow us to maintain the competence in the construction industry.

There are many issues concerning the construction sector that should concern this government very much. But the Sweden Democrats cannot even tackle these issues. They are out talking in the construction sites about immigration. But when it comes to the situation of the unemployed in the construction industry, the Sweden Democrats and the government do nothing. You have caused the Swedish construction industry to crash.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It becomes almost comical when one has handed over a country with over 10 percent inflation and over 28 kronor per liter in diesel costs and says: It is you who took over and who received this in your lap that has caused the construction industry to crash.

If one has some insight into how the construction sector works, one should understand that the 10 percent inflation definitely did not favor the sale of houses or homes at all. To that, one can add this with driving up the diesel price to as much as over 28 kronor per liter. What does one actually think that excavators and other machines that function in construction work run on? One cannot overnight convert them to suddenly run on electricity. A large excavator perhaps drinks 15–18 liters of diesel per hour. If one has then raised the diesel price by over 10 kronor per liter, one can very quickly calculate that it becomes money. It becomes a lot of money if it is 8 hours a day – or perhaps 16 hours if it is two shifts – 365 days a year.

It is not strange that the calculations do not hold for the companies and that the companies are then forced into bankruptcy. The bankruptcies we see today are a direct result of the previous government's enormous failure in this area.

That one then stands and claims that this is because we did not continue with the subsidies makes it even stranger considering that the market itself says that it was lucky that the subsidies ended when they ended. Today, we are in fact left with empty apartments in almost all medium-sized municipalities or in large parts of Sweden. There are even empty apartments in Södertälje. It is not the case that we have a shortage of apartments everywhere, on the contrary. The subsidies have caused this.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think it would have been very exciting to sit in some small corner or be a fly on the wall when the Sweden Democrats and the government entered Rosenbad and began budget negotiations after the last election.

It is 10 percent inflation, and construction is starting to decline. What do we do then? Well, we remove the investment support.

When the industry perhaps most needed support, the government chose to draw the conclusion: No, that is when we should stop stimulating the construction industry.

I do not know if it was a wise conclusion. In any case, we see the result now.

No other proposals have been presented. If one did not like the investment support, one could have presented some other proposal that would have given momentum to the construction industry, but not even that has one done. The Sweden Democrats are responsible to all the nearly 20,000 construction workers who are now being forced away from their jobs and the 5,000 construction entrepreneurs who have been forced into bankruptcy. Why has one not had any policy to keep the construction industry going when everyone knows that precisely the construction industry is central to maintaining growth in a country, especially in a country like Sweden?

I think that the Sweden Democrats will probably have to go home and reflect a bit on whether it will hold up until the next election to be held accountable for why they have crashed the construction industry during this mandate period.

Mr. Speaker! To be honest, I do not think that the Sweden Democrat voters who have connections in the construction industry or who are affected by the Sweden Democrats' policy in the housing construction area are particularly impressed or feel like they want to jump for joy.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! In these days, these weeks and these months, there is much talk about the economy at Swedish kitchen tables. I note myself that everyone around me asks: What will the government do now? They are worried about their finances. They are worried about their jobs. They are worried that wages have been eroded so much. They actually do not dare to consume. It is also what we see indicators of and see in forecasts.

We already have half a million unemployed. It is one of the Western world's highest unemployment rates. It stands out, because unemployment is falling in the rest of the world. We already have bankruptcies at record levels. Above all, we have a recovery that has completely fizzled out. At the same time, we also have a return of high food prices, which hits many households that are having a very tough time in everyday life.

We have had a period where the new government has unfortunately raised the costs for companies and for hiring instead of lowering them. They have, for example, raised employer contributions, which unfortunately leads to unemployment rising.

To that comes the extreme uncertainty that the customs chaos has created – this was presented very eloquently by Member of Parliament Edward Riedl from Moderaterna. It is completely wild fluctuations up and down regarding intended customs rates, which creates stops in world trade, stops for investments and stops for hiring. We now see how many of our heaviest forecasters are writing down the growth dramatically. The recovery that did not come with this government will come even less now.

The Center Party's point is that in such a situation, a government must, despite everything, do much, much more than to encourage kitchen renovations. The concern is not that the government is making this reinforcement of the rotavdrag without it being the only thing one does. The problem is everything else that one does not do.

It is no great secret that we in the Center Party truly love the renovation deduction. We think it is an excellent way to avoid undeclared work and bring an entire industry into the security systems and get it to flourish and pay tax. But dear government: It is far too narrow! The employment effects are too small according to the government's own proposition, Mr. Speaker. We cannot turn the tide just by changing kitchen doors.

Centerpartiet believes that we need a real crisis package that lowers the costs of hiring, which lowers the employer contributions that the government has increased for all companies that have been affected by the crisis, not least all export companies that have to take the first shockwave of Trump's tariff chaos and all those small businesses across the board that account for four out of five jobs.

The construction industry is having an incredibly tough time and really needs its [support], but now there are many, many others who should also be spared costs in the form of taxes and employer contributions. For the small companies, we want to remove them completely for the first ten employees, and we also want them to be spared the rather job-hostile sick pay responsibility that pushes out precisely those who are most vulnerable on the labor market. We also want to lower the employer contributions up to the median wage for everyone, and for those with the lowest wages, we want to halve them. Then we get a crisis package here and now and, at the bottom, also a better long-term policy for jobs and entrepreneurship in the country. Furthermore, it dampens inflation in a situation where tariffs risk raising inflation, because if you lower the costs, you dampen inflation.

Then we in the Center Party specifically, since we are discussing it here now, think that we should do more on the rotavdrag initiative itself, because parallel to the economic crisis we also have a crisis in climate policy. By scrapping almost all climate policy, the government has ensured that for the first time in half a century we have significantly increased climate emissions due to political decisions. We are missing all climate goals.

I have just come from a discussion where it was noted that the emissions are 5 million tons more than the curve we had decided on. This ultimately means enormous costs for Sweden, apart from the fact that we are no longer the role model we once were in the world when our growth was strong and emissions plummeted. Now our growth is weak, and instead, emissions are soaring. We are not a role model for anyone.

We naturally expect the government to produce more green electricity and not block offshore and onshore wind power in different ways, but above all, we believe that one can also do their part to save electricity – that is the cheapest way to produce more electricity. For a normal villa, there are opportunities to save thousands of kronor a year, for example through a new heat exchanger, and the Swedish Energy Agency has calculated that, in total, one could save electricity equivalent to two entire nuclear reactors which would then be available for the Swedish electricity system.

I note that the Sweden Democrats are laughing, but they should probably read the reports instead. I do not know why there is such opposition to saving electricity. Is there something problematic about being able to save electricity by insulating and installing heat exchangers? To those listening to this and who are interested in the rotavdrag, I want to say that I believe Sweden's installers actually think it would be a fairly good measure both for households and their finances and for the jobs. Maybe we should laugh less and do more.

That is why the Centre Party proposes that we get more for the money. We already have a new green root deduction, a deduction for green technology, which can be used to install charging stations and solar cells and in that way improve the energy situation by saving energy both for oneself and for the country. We believe that with the same money, one can double the green root deduction, as it is called, from 50,000 to 100,000 kronor, something that, moreover, those who work in the industry have suggested several times. They think it is a very good proposal, and surveys also show that it goes to the countryside for the most part. It is often there that one can make these improvements, compared to this reinforcement which likely goes mostly to the larger cities. At the same time, one can do extra much for the money. The type of root deduction that the government proposes has positive effects for households, but the problem is that it unfortunately is not so enormously job-enhancing, which one believes that a reinforcement of the green root deduction could be.

Unfortunately, the budget procedure is such that we cannot present this as a counter-proposal. It is simply not possible, but that is what the government does, or rather does not do, in the budget in question. But we can still point out that this would have been much better.

Above all, the question is why we in the Center Party in opposition should be the true liberal party for growth, jobs, and businesses. Why does this government, which somewhere calls itself the right, only talk about waiting and seeing and having patience instead of saving the jobs and the growth?

This can no longer continue. New kitchen doors are not wrong, but with all due respect: They will not give back the 150,000 jobs that the Tidö government's policy has cost. We must face this crisis seriously and save the jobs and the growth.

We need to turn this around now, and we can do it green. We must act, and we must do it now.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are cleaning up after eight years of harmful housing policy. An increased tax deduction for renovations is another welcome change in the construction market, albeit a temporary one.

For a period of eight years, the most common news within housing policy was that the housing minister had been changed. The only tool one had in the toolbox at that time was high subsidies for apartments which, according to the National Audit Office, would have been built anyway in most cases. Subsidies were also given to apartments that should never have been built. According to the market, it was lucky that the subsidies ceased when they did, otherwise we would have even more empty apartments today. These subsidies were, moreover, not removed by the newly appointed Tidö government, but they disappeared when the previous, Social Democratic government failed to get support for its budget.

Continuing to pump tax money into subsidies to build apartments in places where there is currently a surplus of apartments is hardly a good housing policy. What we and the government are doing now, however, is what is actually needed. We simplify rules, we shorten the time for the construction process, we ensure that there is available land to build on, and we also make it easier for everyone who has a home and wants to keep it in good condition.

In this context, the rotavdrag is only a very small part that facilitates for everyone who wants to keep their existing home in good condition. It is, however, just as important that today's housing stock is maintained and developed to function also in the future.

However, it must be remembered that the rotavdrag is not primarily a housing policy measure. It is entirely correct to say that the rotavdrag does not lead to particularly many new homes, and that is not its purpose either. For new homes, there is other policy, such as Sverigehuset, support for small house plots, and shortened construction times.

The rotavdrag has come and gone since it was first introduced in 1993. The main purpose, then as now, with the tax reduction was to increase resource utilization within the construction sector and temporarily promote employment in a period of low economic activity in the Swedish economy. There have been various limitations over the years, but the main purpose has been the same: to promote employment in the construction sector and counteract the situation where construction workers who are temporarily laid off are lured into black market work.

The industry welcomes an increased percentage and hails the change, as it is already visible in the companies' order books. That is, at least, the picture I get when I speak with small business owners within the construction industry. The increased percentage limit in the rotavdrag makes a real difference. It is considered extra positive that one does not have to wait for the usual deduction before a new rule is introduced or a new reform begins to apply. Instead, one can already start booking the jobs and also begin them.

The concern that exists regarding the new, increased tax deduction for renovation is linked to what happens when it expires. Will there be a dip then? I have full understanding of that concern, while at the same time a temporary increase is better than a permanent one, at least if one wants to support the industry right now and through a difficult situation.

I think it is good if support creates minimal bureaucracy and is easy for people to understand. Rot is simple for the individual to understand, and the handling is simple. Green rot, which several parties advocate for, is however a bureaucratic nightmare with highly unclear boundaries. Given that the Social Democrats' own representatives do not seem to know where the limit for what is deductible lies, one can wonder how ordinary people are supposed to know what is deductible.

The Social Democrats often highlight the economically vulnerable person. Therefore, it is understandable that they join the government's rot deduction today. The government's rot provides support to those who want to carry out energy efficiency measures and additional insulation of the house. But the person who is economically vulnerable hardly has the luxury of being able to consider which energy efficiency measures might be relevant. A single, full-time working mother of two from Fagerhult in Skåne, who has a leaking roof and a foundation with moisture penetration, has completely different problems and is hardly helped by deductions for solar cells or expensive technical solutions. The mother from Fagerhult in Skåne, on the other hand, benefits greatly from the rot deduction when the roof is to be sealed and the foundation moisture-proofed.

The mother in Skåne's Fagerhult is by no means alone. The number of people who have low or very low income and who live in a villa or a condominium is a total of approximately 540,000 people in Sweden. Of these, approximately 100,000 are children. There are therefore many people in our country who own their home but have limited economic resources who could welcome an increased rot deduction.

Madam Speaker! People who need economic conditions to take basic measures so that the house does not collapse do not need complicated, bureaucratic, and arbitrary deductions for very specific measures that not even the parties' highest representatives can account for the regulations surrounding. We clean up and improve in a society that has been allowed to decay for far too long. I therefore wish to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Madam President! Thank you, Mikael Eskilandersson, for the speech!

I have two questions for the Sweden Democrats in this debate. Mikael Eskilandersson said that the government is cleaning up housing policy and that there will now be order in the construction and housing market with regulatory simplifications, shorter construction processes, and some additional measures that have not yet yielded results.

The investment support has been abolished, but no proposals have been put forward that should instead actively stimulate residential construction. Work has been done on a type of administrative changes, which can probably be good. But my first question is when the crisis in the construction industry will pass with the proposals that the Sverigedemokraterna have contributed to the government working with. Will it be a completely lost mandate period with a crashed construction industry that sees no recovery? When will the turning point come, Mikael Eskilandersson?

My second question concerns the 5,000 construction companies that have gone bankrupt during the parliamentary term when SD has been part of the government and the approximately 20,000 construction workers – one could express it as 10 percent of all Sweden's construction workers – who are now becoming unemployed. What do the Sweden Democrats want to say to those who see their friends becoming unemployed or who themselves are affected by unemployment? What message do the Sweden Democrats have for them in this difficult situation?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam President! To begin with, it is a truth with some modification if one claims that it would be a completely crashed construction industry. Construction is still being carried out in Sweden, and a good deal is still being built when it comes to civil engineering. We have invested a lot in improving for trains and put more money into improving infrastructure. It is even to the extent that it would not even help if we injected more money now, because one simply would not be able to manage more expansion.

The construction industry is admittedly doing poorly, but many people have moved over to the civil engineering side, which is good. That does limit the damage. At the same time, we must remember that the situation arose because we had over 10 percent inflation. Combating inflation was absolutely most important. One reason was also that the diesel price was driven up to over 28 kronor per liter. As everyone knows, you need excavators when you start building houses. They generally run on diesel. It is very difficult to convert that entire industry to not run on diesel in a short period of time.

Two minutes is also a very short time to account for everything we do. But we do significantly more than the previous government did when we ensure that there is more land, for example with the new coastal protection rules, which the Tidö parties agree to move forward with. We also want to appoint an inquiry to go even further when it comes to making more land available. I will return in the next reply.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Madam Speaker! I find it almost a bit moving when the Sweden Democrats' Mikael Eskilandersson is forced to contort himself around the fact that we have a situation where the Swedish construction market has collapsed and where we risk facing serious problems with expertise because many are leaving the construction sector.

Many skilled construction workers are becoming unemployed, and the number of construction companies is decreasing. During this government's mandate period, 5,000 companies have already gone bankrupt, and more risk following the same path. This means that no apprentices are entering the residential construction market, which leads to skill supply problems.

It is almost a bit touching that the Sweden Democrats believe that work with regulatory simplification, shorter construction processes, and increased land availability will solve the problems. I agree that these can be good measures, but they are not measures with any substance.

The government has not proposed anything other than what we are debating today that would in any way get housing construction started in Sweden again. They are sitting on their hands. They wait and see. They refer to the fact that we have bad luck because the global situation is problematic.

The government does nothing with the instruments they have. One can choose to stimulate growth in different ways, for example by supporting households, supporting the construction industry, or in other ways supporting innovation and growth in our country. But the government has chosen to precisely not support the housing sector in Sweden. They do not come forward with a single proposal and do not take up any of what we have proposed. If the investment support is so reprehensible, what other proposals have the Sverigedemokraterna contributed with to speed up construction in Sweden? I have seen nothing.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! A long series of changes are needed. There is not one thing that solves everything. One can always say that subsidies would solve everything, but the problem with the subsidies was that we now stand with an enormous number of apartments that were actually not needed. They stand empty. There are hundreds of apartments in Södertälje alone. There are apartments in every small town around where I live, in Helsingborg, Hässleholm and so on. One can list almost all medium-sized towns in Sweden and find places that have a surplus of apartments.

The subsidies resulted in apartments being built in poorer locations, where there actually was no demand. For the apartments that were built in better locations, there was already a demand.

What is needed is land and money. It also must not take too long. This is what is needed to get the construction started, and it is precisely these three things we are working on. We are working on securing more land to build on, ensuring that people find it easier to borrow money, and that it goes faster. It should not take seven years before one can set the shovel in the ground and begin a construction project. These measures will lead to the construction industry performing better.

We must remember that the construction industry has already started to show positive figures compared to when it was at its worst, that is, a year back in time. That it was so was due to the fact that we had an extreme inflation, and that must first be fought. No one buys a house when one does not know what the interest rate will be.

If the government we have today had not taken such a great responsibility to push down inflation, it is not certain that it would have turned around as quickly as it seems to be doing. The construction figures are actually going up today. That can be verified against the facts that have been presented.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I have a very simple question for the member from Sverigedemokraterna, but since the member focused on the proposal for a green rot deduction and was negative towards it, we can talk about that as well. The simple question is: Does the member from Sverigedemokraterna believe that an increased subsidy rate for rot deductions from 30 to 50 percent, however good it may be, can turn around the situation we have in the Swedish economy? It has been presented as the answer to the crisis we have right now with half a million unemployed, increased costs for companies, an increased number of bankruptcies, and falling figures for new entrepreneurship. In addition, we have a tariff chaos created by a nationalist, protectionist policy from the Trump administration.

Then I have one more question: Why are the Sweden Democrats so much against a green tax deduction? The installation companies think it is very good. And speaking of single-person households in villas in Skåne, for example on Kullaberg, I have met both such people and others. There are quite a few who have a tough economy and who were hit very hard when we got electricity price increases after Putin's invasion, which we have received again now. They would really like to have the opportunity to replace direct electricity with heat exchangers. They think it would be very good. The companies that also exist in the region think it would be very good to have this opportunity.

It is not difficult at all. There are very clear lists of what one can and cannot do with a green rotavdrag. We now want to extend this to also apply to energy saving. It would be in exactly the same way. One knows what applies and what does not. There are no oddities, it is exactly like with a regular rotavdrag. I wonder why it would be so terrible.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam President! Thank you, Martin Ådahl, for the questions!

I am extra glad that Martin Ådahl is taking the floor on me, because I then get the opportunity to explain what I found so enormously funny about Martin Ådahl's speech earlier. It was the fact that he spent a very large amount of time talking about how one can save two reactors when we have a debate that is about the root deduction. I thought it was funny that he completely left the subject. It was actually a bit comical.

The answer to the questions is, of course, that the renovation deduction is not a solution for the entire situation, but it can alleviate some of the worst unemployment. More people can work for ordinary villa owners who need to renovate their houses. At the same time, it is a good reform for people to have the opportunity to see to their own houses and be able to carry out the renovations that we know are needed. For this, green renovations are not the only ones needed.

What can turn the development around is everything else we are doing: land, money, and time. It is these three foundations for construction that are needed in order to achieve increased housing construction. If there is land to build on, someone who can afford to pay for the homes, and reasonable time for the construction of the homes, it will be built. The problem is when one of the three ingredients is missing. What has been missing now is perhaps above all money, and that is due to the extremely high inflation.

When it comes to the green tax credit, I am extremely much against bureaucratizing and complicating everything, and a green tax credit complicates the system. It can be compared to a regular tax credit, where one avoids all that and it does not have to fit into a certain template. One always ends up outside the boundary.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam President! There is actually nothing wrong with either the discussion about the deduction for renovation or what is mentioned here. The problem is that the only answer to our deep economic crisis – with all the unemployed and the customs situation – is the change in the deduction for renovation from 30 to 50 percent.

I understand all that other stuff. It might be a bit tough to hear when one is dealing with specific housing issues, but we have a bigger picture here than just the specific situation with rot. We must do something to lower the costs. You have increased the costs for companies to hire by 13 billion kronor, Mikael Eskilandersson, and have not replaced them with anything else. You promised that you would lower the costs of hiring.

We have very high unemployment. We have a deep economic crisis. The only thing you do in that crisis, even through this proposal, which is supposed to be passed extra quickly, is to raise the subsidy rate. It is not enough. You are not up to the task. You are not capable of turning the crisis around. The Sweden Democrats, who have promised a lot but hold little, are the least capable of all.

Those who work in the industry and who meet with the installation companies know what the green rotavdrag is about. One should be able to make investments in both materials and other things. It is not a bit more bureaucratic than for the regular rotavdrag. The big advantage is that one can make energy savings and energy supply simultaneously.

Again: The most serious problem is that you are not capable of handling this. Now is the moment of crisis. Now the clock is ticking for the Swedish economy. You have mismanaged the economy seriously for two years. Unemployment has gone up, and the economy has stagnated. Now that the clock is ticking, this is the only thing you have to come with.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was quite bold to hear from a representative of one of the parties that supported the previous government and handed over a Sweden with over 10 percent inflation. The member claims that it is the new government that, during the short time it has governed, has created all the problems that exist on the Swedish construction market.

In the housing market and in the construction industry, they are extremely critical of how the previous government handled housing and construction issues. In practice, they tossed the housing minister post back and forth like a relay baton. I believe they managed to have six or seven different housing ministers in eight years. It was more common to change housing ministers than anything else.

This in itself must have been extremely harmful, and that was what we then had to deal with, not to mention the diesel price, which was 10 kronor higher per liter, as if that in any way were to be an advantage for housing construction.

We have gotten everything right now. We have brought down the inflation to 2.3 percent, which I believe it was at in April. That is a fairly reasonable inflation. The last time I fueled the car, it cost 15–16 kronor per liter for the diesel. That is a fairly reasonable price compared to how it was when we took over.

I would like to assert that we are indeed mature for the task, and we are definitely working in the right way. We work on our issues and ensure that we solve them. For my part, it is the housing and construction industry, and then others can solve other parts of the Swedish economy. Mark, money, and time are what is needed.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! I will try to keep it brief regarding the tax deduction itself today, but I would like to start by commenting on some of the things that Edward Riedl raised in his contribution.

Yes, we see significantly lowered petrol and diesel prices today. And yes, we know that the government has spent enormous sums to lower these prices, but the fact is that it is the world market price of oil that has given the large reduction in petrol and diesel prices. Furthermore, we know that this reduction increases emissions in a situation where they should decrease. One could think that the money that the government has spent on lowering taxes should instead have been spent on increasing electrification and speeding it up so that more and more people can drive fossil-free.

I also want to say something about the inflation that the government inherited. Yes, the inflation was very high then, but that this would have been due to the previous government's policy or that it is this government that has brought down the inflation is not entirely consistent with the truth. The high inflation was due to the pandemic and to Putin's invasion of Ukraine. It was then handled by the market and fell. We know this because it was something that happened in all of Europe and all over the world, more or less, and not just in Sweden.

When it comes to the rot deduction, Miljöpartiet rejects the government's proposal to increase rot. We do so because it is a costly proposal with unclear effects. Konjunkturinstitutet has said it, and LO has said it. Tillväxtanalys writes in its referral response that they assess it to be a relatively expensive proposal with unclear effects. Ekonomistyrningsverket writes that it would yield small or diminishing effects on employment in relation to the cost.

As has been raised earlier in today's debate, it can be stated that if the government truly had wanted to invest in getting the construction industry started, it would have had a better effect to introduce an investment support. We proposed this in the autumn together with other parties. Then the situation would have looked significantly different. More construction workers would have had a job to go to. This would have been good for unemployment and the economy.

Edward Riedl also said that the opposition constantly says that the government is doing nothing for Swedish households. We know that the government is doing something for Swedish households, but perhaps not just for the most vulnerable. One is very fond of bringing up the example of the police officer and the nurse, but what one does not speak so loudly about are those who work and earn around 16,000 kronor a month and who receive 9 kronor in reduced tax. That is a completely different figure.

We still maintain that it is the households with the best finances that benefit from the government. This can also be seen in the budget for the expansion of the rot deduction and in the rot deduction as a whole. The National Audit Office has looked into this, and in December 2023 they submitted an audit report. There it can be seen that more than half of the total deduction amount is used by the 20 percent of households that have the highest incomes. We think it is important to see which households it is that get to take part in the rot deduction, and we would have preferred to see that it was those who have the worst finances.

We would have preferred to see an increased child benefit and an increased housing supplement. This would also have had more effect in the economy and created extra security and faith in the future for many households, something that we know is important to turn the economy around.

There was also talk about things that are not working. There, I would like to say that we have now received further examples that the government's policy, which lowers taxes for the rich, is also not working. It does not work to turn around the Swedish economy, and it does not work to get the housing market moving.

With this, I move for approval of the reservation in the report.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam President! The number of housing units being built in Sweden decreased when inflation soared and interest rates rose. Suddenly, it became quite expensive to finance housing construction, and at the same time, the costs eventually became difficult to oversee. The situation today is more favorable, with inflation that has been pushed back and interest rates that have been lowered but are still higher than before.

To get housing construction started, it is far-reaching reforms that are needed so that housing construction is not boosted temporarily but manages to stay at a higher level even in economic downturns.

It is pleasing to see that the coastal protection issue is being reformed in a first step and facilitates housing construction. It is pleasing to see that the regulatory framework for building permits is being reviewed to exempt several conversions and additions from building permits, which creates new opportunities for more jobs. It is pleasing that the construction of student housing is being streamlined and that greater opportunities are being created to build student housing more cheaply and efficiently. It is pleasing that noise levels and how these should be calculated are being reviewed to increase flexibility in construction. It is pleasing that, through Boverket, more modern rules are being developed to get the industry to find new and more efficient ways to produce housing. It is also good that an efficiency commission has been appointed to review the cost development within housing construction, which is now far above KPI.

The government sees the need for a high pace in housing construction and has been prepared to do extensive work to make the housing market function better over time. That is not to say that over shorter periods, temporary measures may be needed, such as for example boosting the rotavdrag from 30 to 50 percent, which is a good measure.

The rotavdrag was introduced, as we all know, in 1993 as a measure to reduce the occurrence of households' purchases of black labor within the construction sector. Since then, it has been adjusted both regarding the deduction level and what types of services are included. I contend that the rotavdrag does precisely this even today – it makes the services white, instead of them ending up on the black side. It benefits all citizens in Sweden in the form of more stable companies but also employer contributions to the state that otherwise would not have come in.

The enhanced renovation deduction reduces costs for both small and large renovation projects. I mean that it is a classic cyclical measure to have a temporarily increased subsidy rate.

During the full year 2024, renovation services were purchased for 41 billion kronor, of which 12.4 billion were paid out in rot contributions. The deduction was utilized by almost 1.2 million Swedish citizens, distributed relatively evenly across all 290 municipalities in Sweden.

The building material retailers let it be calculated what, among other things, an increase of the deduction on labor costs from 30 to 50 percent would have for an effect. Such a reform would mean that jobs within the construction sector are created, or saved, which should have high priority in order to be able to retain the knowledge when demand picks up speed again.

For me, every job opportunity that can be preserved is important. It is about the income it provides the state and that it is another family that can stand on its own feet and, not least, the social aspect, that one has a job to go to.

A published report from the Riksdag's investigation service, which looked at which income groups used the rot deduction, found that two-thirds of those who utilized the rot deduction were middle- and low-income earners. It was 700,000 people out of a total of 1.2 million. The rot deduction is used within all income segments and in all of Sweden's municipalities.

If the recession becomes prolonged, many companies will lose skilled staff to other sectors. With root, we can save jobs in the construction sector, and the increase to 50 percent is important as a flare that makes it possible to preserve more jobs.

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

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing the extra supplementary budget for the temporarily increased tax deduction for renovation. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal.

I am honestly incredibly tired of certain parts of this debate. It is a blame game over whose fault things are, especially from the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats, the Riksdag's two largest parties.

It is still a fact that this government took over when there was high inflation. But it is also a fact, I think, that it was not entirely the Social Democrats' fault that there was high inflation. It has to do with things like the war in Ukraine, a very restless world, and a pandemic that was handled in – I hope – the best way. Can we not for once stick to talking more about our parties' proposals and why we think they are good?

One should perhaps also be clear to the voters: If one does not think the government's proposal is good, how does one then want to handle it and act instead?

This was not actually what I had intended to bring up, but it was a reflection on the fact that it is becoming a bit tiring.

But now we shall speak about the temporarily increased renovation deduction, from 30 to 50 percent. It is not just about being able to renovate bathrooms and perform additional insulation, but it is also a component in several other proposals that the government is presenting to increase growth and jobs and keep the wheels turning in a recession. This is therefore not the only thing, but it is a part of it.

The proposal we are now discussing is part of the spring budget for 2025, which in its entirety is a step in the government's work to strengthen the economy. In total, the spring budget contains reforms for approximately 11 billion kronor as part of the total reform space for the year, which is 71 billion kronor.

The idea behind the total budget is to stimulate growth, accelerate the recovery, and meet the challenges that Swedish households face. The renovation deduction is one of several tools in this package – a tool that combines short-term demand stimulation with long-term benefit. The intention is to stimulate the construction and craft sectors, counteract undeclared work, increase employment, and strengthen demand in the economy.

Madam Speaker! For such an initiative to succeed fully, it does not just require a deduction in a budget, but above all, it requires people with the right education and the right competence. It requires a Sweden where more people succeed in school, where more choose to attend vocational training, and where more young people dare to dream of taking the step into working life regardless of where they live or what background they have. That is why we Liberals never let go of the school, not even in an amendment budget concerning the rot deduction. Measures are required that stimulate in the short term, while we must never forget what is required in the long term, between economic reforms and education, and between the jobs of the future and today's classrooms.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is suffering today from a widespread shortage of skills, not least within the construction and craft sector. At the same time, far too many pupils leave primary school without being eligible for upper secondary school. Far too many young people leave upper secondary school without a diploma.

This is a loss both for the individual and for society and for every young person who does not get the chance to become a painter, carpenter or plumber. For every young person who misses out on a job that actually exists, Sweden loses strength.

This is something we Liberals do not accept. Therefore, we are driving major reforms to strengthen the school and take it back to the basics. We have taken responsibility in a government position to turn the results through more money for the school, many important investigations, more teaching hours in Swedish and mathematics, more time on focus and knowledge, reforming the teacher education, reduced administrative burden for teachers, and reforming the independent school system, to mention a few things. I want every child to pass school and feel hope for the future.

For the school year 2024–2025, approximately 131,000 students applied for a vocational program. For the second year in a row, the proportion of applicants to vocational programs is increasing. Furthermore, we have strengthened the opportunities for apprenticeship training. Therefore, we have allocated more resources to vocational training for adults, and we are working to increase the attractiveness of the professions that build Sweden.

We need all occupational groups. We need those who pull electrical wires, build walls, lay floors, and renovate windows. This is what makes the rotavdrag translate into real jobs. But for it to work, it is required that the education system delivers, that the school equips all children with basic knowledge, that the vocational programs maintain high quality, and that adults who want to change careers get a chance.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, ROT is only one piece of the puzzle. It is an important piece, but not the whole picture. That is why we Liberals want to hold together the social construction, not just with economic steering measures but with knowledge policy. We do not do this only by stimulating consumption, but by investing in people's ability and in our human capital. We see education as the most important freedom reform to manage the jobs, to manage integration, and to manage the climate challenge.

With ROT, we stimulate the economy, but with education, we shape the future. That is why we say yes to an increased ROT deduction. But we say at the same time: It is not enough to just fix the facade – Sweden needs a stable foundation, and the foundation begins in school.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

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