(cont. from § 10) Housing policy (cont. CU13)

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes one gets quite heated when listening to colleagues' speeches. The fiery speech that Helene Odenjung gave in defense of freer rent setting, I could not let pass unnoticed.

In light of what the member said in the rostrum, I wonder: How is the completed investigation on freer rent setting in new production progressing? Given the commitment the member showed in the rostrum on that issue, I assume that the Liberals are fighting tooth and nail to have the investigation presented as a government bill before the Riksdag.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! I must thank Alireza Akhondi for the praise that it was such a fiery speech!

I believe it is every liberal's duty to work every day for more liberal reforms in Sweden. Exactly when the bill lands on the Riksdag's table, I cannot answer. I have to blame the fact that I am so new in the chamber that I do not have a handle on it.

We will continue to work on the issue. That I can also promise the member.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! It was nevertheless pleasing to hear that Helene Odenjung stands up for the important liberal issues.

Freer rent setting in new production is not intended to make Center Party members happy. It is intended so that we can achieve better functionality in the failed housing market that few have dared to address in recent decades.

I also have another question. One can still read between the lines both when colleague Larry Söder and also when Helene Odenjung speak that we might eventually see that the temporarily increased housing allowance could be expected to remain. Was it a budget news item that the colleagues here in the chamber were trying to discreetly convey? Or what does the reality look like when the bill for the autumn budget is laid on the floor of the Riksdag?

An argument that is incorrectly put forward is that the municipalities have appropriated the extra funds. As former head of the social services, I can say that one can always raise the level of the social assistance. Then you also bypass the legislation that the social workers have to comply with. It is not the case that the municipalities take those funds. One can actually raise the norm in the same stroke.

I would still like to hear Helene Odenjung's budget news, whether we dare to rejoice at this or not.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! I must apologize to the member if he expected news from me. I am not the economic policy spokesperson, and I cannot present budget news here today. Furthermore, I thought the report was about housing policy and perhaps not specifically about housing allowances, which are not even handled in our committee.

But with that said, I still want to emphasize how important it is to ensure that there is accuracy in the measures taken for economically vulnerable families. That is what the Liberals continue to fight for.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is one of Europe's least densely populated countries. We are the country where both space and room should exist. Why, Mr. Speaker, do we then end up so far down the list when it comes to building villas and terraced houses?

In Sweden, we have for a long time built a very small proportion of small houses and villas. In other, even significantly more densely populated countries, the proportion of small houses is larger. My view on the Swedish folkhemmet is not that it should be high-rises where families are crowded into cramped apartments. Our homes are an important part of the folkhemmet and what we want to achieve for living conditions.

During previous parliamentary terms, far too much focus has been placed on building rental apartments. Market actors are now speaking openly themselves about how it was lucky that the housing subsidies ended when they did and did not continue. Otherwise, we would have faced a situation where we had even more empty apartments around in our small and medium-sized municipalities.

It also belongs to the picture that we had a government that for many years let the borders remain wide open and thus needed housing for all those who had come here. A responsible refugee policy has definitely affected the demand for apartments.

Allmännyttan has today, according to its own statement, more than 8,000 vacant apartments across Sweden. Many other property owners across Sweden are also now having difficulty finding tenants, especially for the newly built apartments that were built at less attractive addresses.

The subsidies could be divided into two main categories: the rental apartments located in attractive locations that would have been built anyway, and those located at less attractive addresses and perhaps should never have been built.

There are major problems in the Swedish housing market. It is particularly serious for two categories. It is the category of people who are completely without housing and the category of people who cannot find the type of housing they are looking for.

When it comes to the people who are completely without a roof over their heads, which is approximately 750 people according to Socialstyrelsen's figures, it does not help that there are vacant apartments. They simply do not have the possibility to demand what is on the market. Here, the municipalities' social services must become better. It is primarily in the larger municipalities that these people are found.

Apartments to be used for social contracts or Housing First are available today within a reasonable distance. Our system with social contracts shall resolve these situations. The small municipalities have, overall, managed this much better than the large ones. The worst in class is undoubtedly the Social Democratic-led Stockholm.

To fundamentally change the system and, for example, copy Finland's system, which I have heard many suggest over the years, is hardly any solution since the corresponding figure in Finland is around 700. That many people lack a roof over their heads. Calculated per capita, Finland is therefore significantly worse than Sweden at handling acute homelessness, as the country has significantly fewer inhabitants than Sweden.

When it comes to the second group, that is, the group that cannot find the right type of housing, this has serious consequences for the entire society. We see how difficult it is to recruit labor where there is a lack of housing.

We have also seen that the birth rate is down to extremely low levels. There are obviously several underlying reasons for this, but it should definitely not be ruled out that part of the explanation is the lack of suitable housing for families with children. Those who are about to start a family need a good, secure, and sufficiently large home. All the small apartments that previous governments have spent enormous sums on through subsidies are not what families with children are requesting or need.

I am glad that we in Sverigedemokraterna, together with the government, have changed the focus in housing policy. We stand for a policy that changes the chance for ordinary people to be able to find their dream home. When around 80 percent of the population want to own their home and a large part of them want to live in a villa or a terraced house, the policy that is now being pursued is much more correct.

We look forward to powerful regulatory simplifications for ordinary people. This will first happen through the simplifications of the Planning and Building Act which will give the ordinary villa owner more opportunities to develop their home and also create more housing.

Boverket's building regulations are changing and enable a better development of new construction techniques.

After that, Sverigehuset, a type-approved small house that can be built throughout Sweden, will also become a natural consequence. It will become noticeably cheaper to build when 290 municipalities no longer need to check exactly the same houses multiple times. The risk of the municipalities setting up unnecessary obstacles is eliminated.

To this, the upcoming changes for the financing of changed mortgage caps shall be added. We are several parties in the Tidösamarbetet who see that there is a need to make it easier for first-time buyers and also families with children to afford their housing. A possibility to borrow a larger share is needed. But some form of state guarantee was also needed so that young people can enter the housing market. Start loans for young people is a variant of a state guarantee that can be introduced.

Through the measures that are now on the table regarding financing, it is estimated that construction should increase by around 10 percent. The approximately 28,000 homes that were built already last year, before particularly many measures had been put in place, indicate that with the increase after the measures we will reach at least 30,000 homes. That is what the big banks estimate is needed in the long term.

The shore protection is being changed so that it protects what needs to be protected but does not unnecessarily hinder construction. When it comes to shore protection, it is interesting that the municipality that, for natural reasons, should protect the most shores, namely Stockholm, is the municipality that receives the most exemptions. In the countryside, where there are as many miles of untouched shores as one likes, it is much rarer for exemptions to be made, even though the impact on nature should in total be significantly smaller.

Now we are changing things so that more land can be built upon, even outside Stockholm. The dream of Volvo, villa, and dog therefore becomes no longer as unattainable as it has been. More small houses, terraced houses, and villas are also good for freeing up rental apartments. No rental apartments become as cheap as those that already exist and can be utilized better.

We need to get out of the vicious spiral that we have previously been stuck in, where people who want to live somewhere else are forced to stay and occupy apartments, which in turn creates an unnecessary shortage of apartments for those who are in need of rental apartments.

It is important for the whole society that those who can and want to own their home also get the opportunity to do so. Ownership creates security and makes the whole society more robust. As we now also see that more and more municipalities have a surplus of rental apartments, more forms of ownership need to become a natural part of the market. In the long run, some of today's rental apartments should be converted into owner-occupied apartments to better match the demand for owned housing. This is something that is also underway as the investigation is complete and has been sent for consultation.

Depending on their own finances and what their own needs look like, people should be able to choose between buying, owning, rent-to-own, or renting. But, Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether one owns, rents, or rent-to-owns their housing, it is self-evident for us Sverigedemokrater that it should be safe in our residential areas. Last year, the legislation was introduced that makes it possible to evict tenants who destroy safety through crime and by abusing their violent capital. Together with a long series of increased penalties and other safety-creating measures, it has had a noticeable effect. During 2024, the number of shootings decreased by 30 percent compared to the year before.

We will also, within the framework of the Tidö Agreement, proceed with mandatory cooperation between authorities and property owners. I am convinced that it will have an effect in our most vulnerable areas today. The so-called "vandals investigation," which was recently presented, will also ensure that our residential areas are no longer filled with criminal people with high violence capital who are granted residence permits. Sverigedemokrater will restore safety in all of Sweden.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize for exceeding the speaking time slightly. I nevertheless wish to conclude by moving for approval of our reservation 29. We in the Sweden Democrats naturally stand behind all our reservations, but in order to save time during the voting, I move for approval of only this reservation.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have earlier in the debate heard how David Josefsson from Moderaterna has said no when it comes to whether one should extend the temporary supplement to the housing allowance. We have heard Larry Söder for Kristdemokraterna say that they would very much like to extend it. We have heard Helene Odenjung from Liberalerna say that they also would like to extend it.

Then the question is what will happen next week. A qualified guess is that it will be Mikael Eskilander who is blamed if there is no extension.

I therefore intend to ask the question directly to him: Have the Sweden Democrats ensured that there will be an extension of the temporary housing allowance? Or has it been blocked? It is quite obvious after this debate that it is not the government that will decide on the matter.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can start by reassuring Märta Stenevi that I am quite convinced that it will not be blamed on Mikael Eskilandersson because I sit on the Committee on Civil Affairs, and the Committee on Civil Affairs does not handle the issue of housing allowances at all.

However, the housing allowance often tends to come up in our debates because it is a way to support families that are vulnerable. And it is something that our party, just like the parties in the government, are keen to do.

I do not know exactly what will be stated in our government bill, and I have particularly little insight into the parts that do not concern the committee I sit on. The housing allowance is, as Helene Odenjung previously pointed out, an issue that actually does not concern our committee. There is also not, as I remember, any reservation from Miljöpartiet that concerns specifically the housing allowance. I therefore do not quite see that it is up for debate in itself.

On the other hand, we do a great deal in the housing area to support people. Not least, we do it through tax deductions and the basic deduction, which is directed at all those people who work.

I want to assert that even the rotavdrag (roof deduction), which is actually not touched upon in our committee either, is aimed at ordinary people. There are very many ordinary people who may need to replace a socket or something at home, and as soon as you need to hire a tradesperson, you actually benefit from us raising the rotavdrag – especially when we did it now by raising the percentage one can deduct. Previously, the sum was increased.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There was not much of an answer. The member first spent a minute talking about what does not belong in the Committee on Civil Affairs and then the next minute talking about things that, according to the same logic, do not belong in the Committee on Civil Affairs.

I am of the opinion that the housing policy, which we are debating today, will to the highest degree also need to include the discussion on housing benefits, even if it is not formally handled in the committee.

The question, however, is whether this is the answer from the Sweden Democrats to the parents who have to borrow money for the rent. Is the answer to nursing assistants, healthcare assistants, childcare workers, women victims of violence, and others who cannot put food on the table that they can get a repair deduction if they want to change a contact? Is it the Sweden Democrats' answer to their vulnerability?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, of course that is not the answer, Märta Stenevi.

The housing allowance is a benefit that we think is good. No one has suggested that the housing allowance should disappear. What it has been about is the extra part that has been a temporary increase. I cannot comment on what has been concluded in the government cooperation because I have not been involved in the specific discussions regarding the housing allowance. Obviously, one must however ensure that there is a basic support for the people who need it.

In the extension, it is the municipalities that provide the basic support. If one cannot afford to buy food and so on, one ends up with social services in the municipalities. I think it is quite important that we keep it that way. The municipalities are those who can best help. They can step in and help the individual in a completely different way than we as government representatives can.

I am also involved in how my municipality manages its social services and know that it often requires one to go into very carefully how the finances look for each respective person.

I am glad that our government, the government I support, has raised the basic allowances and increased the opportunities for people to support themselves. That is somewhat what distinguishes our parties: whether one should pay in everything in tax and then receive subsidies back, or whether one should be allowed to keep the money and manage one's own finances. Then there are always exceptions, and there is always a safety net that is needed despite this.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! I was actually truly provoked, not only by Mikael Eskilandersson but also by Helene Odenjung. I would very much like to have an answer to this question: When our Moderate colleague talks about gasoline prices, when my Tidö colleagues talk about the number of evictions, and when one talks about the basic deduction, in what way does that have more to do with housing policy than the housing allowance? That is my first question.

My second question, which I actually want an answer to, is: In what way have the Sweden Democrats, during these two and a half, almost three years, contributed to better housing construction and a better housing policy? Have we built more homes during these years? Have we reduced the costs, as the member claimed from the rostrum with their type-approved Sverigehus? In what way would the Sweden Democrat dream of a house that one can place on a plot be made possible by the policy that the vice chairman of the Committee on Civil Affairs is talking about?

Sometimes maybe one should let things be. One already knows the answer in advance.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member presented a long series of questions. In what way have shootings, insecurity, and crime in our residential areas been affected by our housing policy? It is now a little more than half a year, actually nine months, since the law that made it possible for property owners to evict criminals was passed. The possibility of evicting criminals definitely affects the possibility of obtaining secure housing.

To that we shall add the BID cooperation that we have written into the Tidö Agreement, that is to say the cooperation that shall take place between property owners, police, and social services to make it safer in our residential areas. It is a cooperation that already exists in many places and which has a great impact in the form of it actually becoming safer. Some property owners have, however, chosen to stand outside and do not care about their tenants in the way we would wish. In that case, it is required that we as politicians step in and say: Here we must legislate that you actually have an obligation as property owners to participate in this cooperation.

In that way, we have definitely influenced it so that it has become significantly safer.

Then I would like to ask a question in return, namely in what way the Center Party could get its demands through in the government basis that the member appears to be going to the election with. I find it difficult to see how the member, together with Malcolm Momodou Jallow, who unfortunately has left the chamber, is going to agree on, for example, market rents.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! We do not engage in cheap points, at least not we who want to be serious in our opposition. My Left Party colleague has apologized for being double-booked. To point out from the speaker's chair that he left the room shows what a low level there is in the debates in this committee.

The same applies to the attacks on the Center Party in previous exchanges of remarks when we did not have the opportunity to answer any questions. It is also childish, Mikael Eskilandersson. If one wants to know what the Center Party thinks, one poses a question to that member, however, not to avoid answering the very relevant question that I asked Mikael Eskilandersson: Today is April 9, 2025. What have the Sweden Democrats done so that we can get increased housing construction in Sweden? When the government took office, over 55,000 homes were built. That figure is now down to 28,360. In what way has this government made it cheaper to build houses or apartments in Sweden?

It is those questions that the deputy chairman of the Committee on Civil Affairs must answer.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the member spent a long time explaining what was appropriate and what was not appropriate, but very little time actually answering my question about market rents, which I posed here in the rostrum. He avoided answering it completely. It is perhaps not so strange, as the Center Party will have a very difficult time getting market rents through together with the Left Party.

Regarding what the Sweden Democrats have done, it may be difficult to manage to say it in just over a minute. We have, among other things, made significant regulatory simplifications, which we stand behind together with the government. We are pushing for the government to proceed with several of the investigations that have been conducted.

From the rostrum, I mentioned a long series of measures that we want to implement to achieve improved construction. We are well aware that the economic cycle has caused housing construction to decrease. But it is not the new government that has caused housing construction to decrease. That we removed the subsidies – which the Center Party actually participated in doing before the new government was formed, I want to remember – was because they were harmful.

The subsidies were no great gain for all the municipalities that now stand with empty apartments. It concerns many medium-sized municipalities, and I can list a whole long row. In Helsingborg, Hässleholm and several other municipalities, there are today apartments that no one rents. Empty apartments must be paid for by other tenants. It does not become cheaper when one has empty apartments.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! My Moderate colleague began his speech by saying that Sweden is richer, safer, and freer. But 8,868 bankruptcies affected over 20,712 employees in 2023. There were 10,762 bankruptcies in 2024. So far this year, there have been 2,999 bankruptcies. Many of the bankruptcies are within the construction sector; this concerns over 2,000 companies. The number of unemployed as of January 2025 was 592,000. In the autumn of 2022, it was 369,000.

Two and a half years into the parliamentary term, we have seen two bills concerning the area of housing policy. One concerns the shore protection, i.e., relaxations in the shore protection legislation. That was a task that the Center Party did during the previous parliamentary term and which this government voted against at that time. The other bill concerns the evictions of people.

My Sweden Democrat colleague claimed that he needed more than a minute to say what the Sweden Democrats have contributed to housing policy during the mandate period. I needed about ten seconds to account for what the government has de facto done within the area of housing policy during two and a half years.

My Moderate colleague spoke about the price of gasoline, which actually has nothing to do with this debate. But as an answer, I can say that in the autumn of 2022, a barrel of oil cost 120 dollars. Now it costs 64. That the world market price of things is falling is not the government's merit.

What has this government done? The first thing you did was to stop the investment support. Then you broke the agreement that you had written with municipalities that had promised to build housing in exchange for the government fulfilling its part in an entered agreement on high-speed railways – or main lines, as they actually are. It is the government's policy in a nutshell.

Boverket, our authority, says in its forecasts that it is necessary to build 52,300 new apartments per year in the coming years. That is, 523,000 new homes need to be built by 2035. But in 2024, only 28,330 apartments were built – or rather, started. The year it was [reached] was 55,448.

What does the Centre Party want to do, Madam Speaker? We highlighted the need for a housing commission, as one of our first proposals in the committee. We know – and we have heard in the exchanges – that issues concerning housing policy, i.e., that which is being debated today, lie in several committees.

To be able to do something really well, one needs to bring together the committees and the companies, organizations, and politicians who work with these issues as a whole. Then one can actually address the systemic errors that even the Tidö group admits have been the problem of housing policy for decades. We proposed it. But the Tidö parties did not even want to bring it up for discussion in the committee.

We have year after year proposed more measures exempt from building permits. We have even proposed areas exempt from building permits in municipalities. It is said – hearsay, Madam Speaker – that perhaps a government bill will come at some point proposing exactly what the Centerpartiet has proposed, namely that the strict amortization requirement should be removed. Where is that proposal? You say here in the rostrum that you agree. But where are the concrete proposals so that decisions can be made?

We have proposed that the regulations for interest rate compensation, that is, what must be paid to the banks, should be reviewed. But the banks are allowed to continue to charge unreasonable amounts. They are allowed to continue to make billion-dollar profits while ordinary people struggle to pay their rent.

When we ask how it is going with maintaining the temporarily increased housing allowance – I don't know if you can call it temporary when it has been a few years – they shrug it off and say it has nothing to do with housing policy. Tell that to the nursing assistant, the police officer, and everyone else who is struggling to make ends meet, given how the cost of living has increased for ordinary people!

Centerpartiet has proposed more credit guarantees for small houses. I am sorry to admit this, but it is the solution for the Sweden Democrat's Swedish house. If you want to achieve more small houses, you should work on lowering the costs – not appoint a cottage commissioner who perhaps will report in January 2027.

We have also proposed that the green deduction for climate measures should be increased. But the word "climate" does not seem to exist in Tidögänget's vocabulary. I would have liked to continue with our proposals and tell about everything that Tidögänget does not do. But I respect the reported speaking time. To save time, I move for approval of reservation 8.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! When one reads the Centre Party's housing policy motions and perhaps especially when one listens to Member Alireza Akhondi, one gets the impression that the party in many respects agrees with us Moderates on a great deal of substantive policy. The Member thinks, with the freedom one has when sitting in opposition, that the government does too little and does it too late, but in substance he and his party mostly agree with us.

As parties, we share the view on reduced regulatory burden, shorter lead times, and more buildable land. We want to get more housing forms and increase the freedom of choice for households. We want to increase the opportunities for development in the countryside and strengthen the opportunities for entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, the Center Party has chosen to stand outside the government cooperation and pointed out that they want Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister. That would mean a red-green government, probably with Left Party ministers and possibly also with Center Party ministers.

At the same time, the common denominators of the red-green side on the housing policy front are at least not obvious to the observer. In the report that we are now debating, there are no common reservations on any point.

My question to the member is therefore whether he could describe what housing policy he envisions that the Center Party should agree upon with the Social Democrats, the Green Party, and the Left Party when Magdalena Andersson has been voted in as Prime Minister after the election. What housing policy will Alireza Akhondi drive as a Center Party housing minister in an S-led red-green government?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! David Josefsson! I am among those who actually mourn that the Alliance no longer exists. Since the day I became of age and could vote, I have always voted blue or for the Centre Party. At my first election, I voted for the Christian Democrats, largely thanks to Alf Svensson's very warm demeanor. I perceived that he saw the little person. It warmed my heart very much.

The Speaker is right that, in substance, there is quite a lot of consensus between the Center Party and the Moderates. But standing here in the chamber and patting each other on the back does not solve the challenges of housing policy, David Josefsson. It is you who sit in Rosenbad and have access to the Government Offices' over 5,000 employees.

I have repeatedly taken up in this speaker's chair that since 2006, over 60 investigations have been conducted in the area of housing policy. One could, if one wished, dust off some of the proposals and try to present them before the Riksdag, including the investigation concerning freer rent setting in new production, which I know my Moderate colleagues de facto have the same view on as we Center Party members. But instead, we have pseudo-debates about who might become Sweden's Prime Minister. I swear, none of us owns a ball of yarn.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! We do not stand in this speaker's chair to pat each other on the back. We stand here to clarify for the voters what the government alternatives look like and what the political alternatives in different governments look like.

I asked Malcolm Momodou Jallow earlier about what policy he saw a red-green government could pursue. Mikael Eskilandersson from Sverigedemokraterna asked the same question. We received no answers. I asked what things he could compromise on, and he answered what he could not compromise on.

Now I pose the question to the Centre Party: Which political issues could the members imagine cooperating on? What housing policy could be the basis for a Social Democratic and Centre Party government?

The party leader of the member has said that he wants to see Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister. Alireza Akhondi answers what policy he could imagine driving with me who is Moderate. That is very good. The Moderate Party is indeed the coalition party in Sweden's Riksdag. We would have gladly seen more parties involved in a government cooperation.

The Center Party has closed the door. It has been said that one does not want to see Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister, but rather wants to see Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister. In that case, Madam Speaker, the natural question is: What housing policy does one intend to pursue? What will one compromise on with the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party? What is the red-green housing policy issue?

In the report that we are debating today, there is not a single common reservation from the four opposition parties. They have not been able to agree on even a single issue. Since the Center Party says that they want to support Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister, the question to Alireza Akhondi is: What housing policy will a red-green government pursue?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Apparently, we are to continue with a pseudo-debate with guesses about who will become Prime Minister – but for all that, David Josefsson. Do you know why David Josefsson there are no common reservations? Yes, because I, as a member of the Center Party, represent the Center Party. This means de facto that I, as a member for the Center Party in the Committee on Civil Affairs, move for the approval of the Center Party's proposal. I am not sitting in any negotiation in the committee where I am to negotiate myself an alternative. I represent Center Party members.

Is there anyone asking: Who do you see as Prime Minister of Sweden, Alireza Akhondi? As long as Muharrem Demirok is our chairman, the answer is actually Muharrem Demirok. And when we elect a new party leader on May 3, he will be the one who has my full confidence as Sweden's Prime Minister.

During the last parliamentary term, I sat and negotiated real politics regarding the biggest thing that has happened to the Swedish labor market since 1938. I sat and negotiated LAS and transition, and we finally addressed lifelong learning. I have learned that in negotiations, one does not draw red lines. Who we should negotiate with, however, to push through the Center Party's policies is decided by the voters in general elections. When we know the final result, David Josefsson will receive an answer from me.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! How does one use 4 billion in housing policy? One can allocate them to an investment grant to stimulate the construction of housing with lower rents than would otherwise have been possible. In that case, they would suffice for two or perhaps even three years. One can allocate them to stimulating energy efficiencies that permanently lower costs for households and companies for heating and lighting for a long time to come. One can allocate them to a grant to renovate the older housing stock in the million programs, or one can allocate them to urban environment agreements or invest them in infrastructure. Then, of course, one can also burn them on half-year kitchen renovations in villas and hope that it will save a construction industry in crisis.

Madam Speaker! I had the great honor of serving for ten months as Minister for Housing in Sweden's government. I would have gladly done it longer, but I am of the opinion that the content of politics is more important than which positions one can negotiate for or cling to. When the Riksdag chose to vote through that napkin sketch of a state budget that had been negotiated by the Sverigedemokrater instead of the budget that we had negotiated, I left my post. I am proud of that, because politics matters.

Madam Speaker! During the brief year that I was Minister, over 70,000 homes were started, which is more than double as much as during last year and more than double the forecast for this year. Get me right now; I am absolutely not taking the credit for it personally. But the fact is that during the time the Miljöpartiet held the housing minister post, more homes were built in Sweden than had been built in decades.

During each of the seven years, more housing was started than during the last two years. We may have changed personnel at a number of occasions, but we worked purposefully and structurally to achieve more housing – and it yielded results. That is also something I am proud of, because politics, as they say, matters.

Madam Speaker! A housing policy is not just about building. A housing policy also requires that the people who live, work, and live in Sweden can afford to pay for their housing and can live on their wages. Housing policy is to have ambitions for good housing, sufficiently large housing, and secure homes for children.

Madam Speaker! Lunch was served at Mynttorget today. Makalösa Föräldrar, an association for the truly destitute parents who live alone with their children, offered porridge. They offered porridge because that is what they eat for lunch – when they eat lunch.

The government spends billions of our tax funds to let villa owners renovate kitchens – or, excuse me, change sockets. Even more billions go to lowering the tax for the very, very richest. Those who own their home receive a subsidy of one-third of the interest cost, paid with tax funds. It is a subsidy financed by everyone who pays tax, including those who do not own their home.

Madam Speaker! A single mother with two children in a rented apartment in Stockholm, on the other hand, does not get a share of these billions. She gets a hundred kronor in tax cuts – congratulations! But she loses many more hundreds of kronor when the temporary supplement to the housing allowance is removed. In the middle of summer, it disappears, when the children are home from school and no school lunch is served. For the mother in my example, it means that she loses more than 500 kronor a month – 500 kronor a month! Therefore, she eats porridge for lunch, when she eats lunch at all.

More and more low-income earners in Sweden, especially single parents, choose to forgo eating lunch in order to afford food for their children. The rent is, after all, always prioritized. When the money is not enough, one borrows from a neighbor, a friend, or a parent. Nearly half of the single parents with low incomes have had to do so in the last six months.

Let it sink in for a moment: 40 percent of single people with incomes below the median wage have borrowed for rent or equivalent costs in the last six months! Do you understand what poverty crisis we are facing?

Madam Speaker! We have a clear housing policy goal that the Riksdag has established, namely that families with children should be able to afford a sufficiently large home. Instead, the families who should be offered help to be able to live in a good and reasonable way have been forced to move into ever smaller homes. Families with low incomes are becoming increasingly overcrowded, and now we are in a situation where the money no longer suffices for food. It also does not suffice for medicines, which are furthermore going to become even more expensive now. And it definitely does not suffice for any holiday.

It is in that situation that the government has chosen to withdraw the supplement to the housing allowance. They have not chosen to strengthen it and not to make it permanent, but they have chosen to withdraw it. They abolish it, in the middle of the summer, and leave the families in the lurch – despite the fact that child costs are increasing. It should not be possible in Sweden for children to be left without a home. It should be a completely self-evident task for us as a society to ensure that it does not happen.

Madam Speaker! Housing policy should be much more than construction. Housing policy should be about the right to a home and about giving children growing up in Sweden a sufficiently good home so that they can pursue their education. It should be about the possibility of meeting one's rent on a full-time salary even if one is a woman working in health and social care and even if one lives alone with one's children.

Madam Speaker! Let us continue to debate how we build housing, how we plan good communities, and how we can invest in a construction industry that has had it really, really tough. But let us also continue to debate how we strengthen the ability to pay for all these wonderful, fantastic parents who work and toil every day but cannot make the finances work.

Surely it should still pay to work – not only for the one who works in industry, as a venture capitalist or a member of Parliament, but also for the one who works in care? Surely we want the nursing assistant at the elderly care home and the childcare worker at the preschool to also be able to afford to pay the rent and put food on the table? Surely we think that even single mothers should be able to eat lunch, and not just porridge? And surely we think that their work is worth a bit more than just applause?

Housing policy

Madam Speaker! Surely we think it is a disgrace that society's safety net has become so full of holes that children can be evicted from their homes? At least, that is what I thought. Instead, I now hear that the Tidö parties think it is good, desirable, and reasonable that full-time working parents can be referred to the social services and receive subsistence support when the money is not enough for rent. That was the Sweden Democrats' answer to this problem.

To extend – permanently – the supplement to the housing allowance should be a matter of course, Madam Speaker. To stop evictions of children is a requirement. I move for approval of reservation 18.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 April.)

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