(cont. from § 16) Rental housing etc. (cont. CU14)

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the rental housing. After several years with the Tidö parties in power, one thing is completely clear: This government lacks both the will and the ability to defend the rental housing. It is happy to talk about freedom of choice, but in practice, it is dismantling the only form of housing that is still open to ordinary people. A home of one's own that does not require capital, inheritance, or bank loans – that is the rental housing, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I want to turn directly to all the 3 million tenants who exist in Sweden. It is 3 million people and families, 3 million voices and 3 million life stories. We are many and consist of all kinds of people. We are workers and students. We are retirees who see the rent eat up an ever larger part of the pension, and we are single mothers who turn every krona over and over. We are low-income households, whose children risk losing their homes when rents skyrocket and politics fails.

We are 3 million people, Mr. Speaker, and together we are strong. We can create change together. We can opt out of the politicians who have long ago opted out of us. We can choose a different policy and create a different society where people's right to their own home is more important than property owners' constantly increasing profits.

The economic reality in Sweden has become harder during the years that the Tidö government has governed Sweden. Households' margins have shrunk. The consequences are clearly felt among ordinary people in society. In 2025, 3,330 evictions were carried out in Sweden. It is the highest figure in over 20 years. 824 children were affected; 824 children were forced to leave their homes.

Almost every eviction has the same root cause, Mr. Speaker, namely poverty. During this parliamentary term, real wage increases have been virtually erased while prices for food, electricity, and rent have continued to rise. This has hit low-income earners the hardest. In just a few years, poverty has doubled.

Today, it is estimated that over 730,000 people live in poverty in Sweden. At the same time, we have over 600,000 dollar millionaires. That means that Sweden soon has almost as many poor people as dollar millionaires. It is a brutal indictment of a society where the gaps are growing.

Mr. Speaker! Poverty is not just numbers. Behind the numbers are people. Behind the numbers are homes that are lost. Behind the numbers are children who are forced to leave their homes, their security, their schools, and their friends. Behind the numbers are single parents who can no longer manage the rent. And behind the numbers are pensioners who have worked their entire lives but who have to spend their old age as homeless.

This is the reality. But when this reality meets the government's policy, it is met with something strange: excuses or silence. Or even worse: It points out immigrants as scapegoats. Everything that goes wrong in Sweden is the fault of immigration.

This is cowardly, Mr. Speaker. The government says the money is not enough. It is not enough for housing allowances. It is not enough for families with children. It is not enough for tenants. But strangely enough, the money is always enough for tax cuts for the richest and for subsidies for villa owners. The money is always enough for increased rotavdrag. The Tidö government spends 22 billion kronor on subsidizing renovations in villas and condominiums. At the same time, they tell tenants who cannot afford the rent that the market will solve it.

This is not housing policy, Mr. Speaker. It is class politics. The person who owns their home receives a state subsidy to renovate the kitchen. But the person who rents receives rent increases every year instead. When the government increases the rot-grant and simultaneously says that it cannot afford to support the tenants, it has already chosen a side. That side is never the tenants'. The Tidö government should be ashamed. This is not about economic constraints, it is about political priorities. It is shameful that one chooses to exclude 3 million tenants.

Mr. Speaker! The right to housing is a human right. The right to housing is enshrined in the Instrument of Government. It is also enshrined in the UN Convention and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but nothing seems to be enough for the Tidö Government. The existence or non-existence of the rental housing system is a matter of equality, Mr. Speaker.

The government does not understand how important it is for a society to have a wide range of rental apartments in all parts of society that ordinary people can afford to live in. It does not understand that it is about equality and reduced segregation. It does not understand that a mixed society is real security and not just words.

For individuals, this is about the most fundamental of all: having one's own secure housing with stable long-term conditions that one can manage financially on one's own. This is something that only the rental housing can deliver.

Mr. Speaker! The municipal housing companies are one of the strongest tools that the municipalities have if they want to pursue a socially responsible housing policy. Despite this, the right continues to be strangely silent about these so important actors in the housing market. The reforms to strengthen the municipal housing companies are conspicuously absent from the government's policy.

Vänsterpartiet wants to strengthen public service and reform the allbolagen. The market principles and profit requirements that apply today are in conflict with the public service's responsibility and must be abolished. We want the public service to have a rent-norming role when the parties negotiate rents, and it should be driven by social utility and social responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! Today, people are being sorted out from the housing market before they have even had the chance to show that they can be good tenants. Already in the report Lower the threshold to a good home, it was clearly shown how unreasonable income requirements and arbitrary selections shut people out of the housing market.

Today, many landlords require up to four times the annual rent in income. For a three-room apartment with average rent, such a requirement means in practice that more than half of Sweden's full-time employees are not approved as tenants. This is so, even though there is not a single connection between income requirements and people's willingness to pay the rent.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to the income requirements themselves, many landlords reject income from social security, sickness benefit, and housing allowance. They can set a number of irrelevant requirements that in practice filter out low-income earners, young people, the elderly, and newcomers. This is therefore not just a free market. It is an exclusion machine. Still, the government chooses not to proceed with sharp proposals against such excessive requirements.

Vänsterpartiet has for many years demanded that these unreasonable requirements be prohibited, regardless of whether it concerns private or public-service landlords. It is a simple and risk-free reform that would very quickly lower the thresholds into the housing market for numerous people.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to rental apartments, this government is only interested in one thing, namely that the one who rents out shall always get to earn even more money. The profit must increase continuously. The one who has much simply always has the right to get even more.

The large landlords' right to increase their profits annually takes precedence over everything. If, after many years of billion-dollar profits, they suddenly do not increase their profit one year, the Tidö parties act immediately. Proposals for market rents disguised under names such as security rents are delivered immediately on silver platters. This is something the Left Party cannot accept, Mr. Speaker.

Living in a second-hand lease means higher rent and fewer rights than for those who live in a first-hand lease. Second-hand tenants have the highest housing costs and often the lowest incomes. Private rental has doubled in a short time and is today a billion-kronor industry. In 2024, the total reported surplus from private rental amounted to just over 4.5 billion kronor. The metropolitan regions account for 60 percent of the rentals, and most often a rent twice as high as the first-hand cost is charged.

Despite this, the Tidö parties therefore feel an enormous need to increase the incomes for private landlords even further at the expense of the tenants, other taxpayers, and the housing market.

Regardless of what the Tidö parties say, private rental does not create any new homes. An increasing and uncertain secondary market does not build any new homes. Increased secondary rental does not create any moving chains. It creates a stagnant market with exactly the same number of homes as before. What the Tidö parties are engaged in is not housing policy, Mr. Speaker, but return-on-investment policy.

Subletting can sometimes be justified, but then it must occur on terms that are reasonable for the person who rents. Housing should fundamentally be a residence for the person who owns or rents it. They should not function as cash cows for individuals who do not need the housing.

To prevent speculation that drives up prices on the housing market, Vänsterpartiet wants to abolish the private rental law, and we want to tighten the rules for subletting so that all rental of housing reflects the use value.

Mr. Speaker! Rental housing is not just a form of housing. Rental housing is a prerequisite for equality. It makes it possible for young people to move out from home. It makes it possible to leave a destructive relationship. It makes it possible to take a job in a new city and to live one's life without being debt-ridden up to one's ears.

The Tidö parties do not seem to understand this. They do not seem to understand that a society needs a wide range of rental apartments, in all places, at rents that ordinary people can afford to pay. A society where only the rich can afford to live is, in fact, not a secure society. It is a segregated society.

Mr. Speaker! Statistics from SCB show that low-income earners are heavily overrepresented among tenants, and among these, single women are overrepresented. When the Tidö parties choose to opt out of rental housing, it is therefore not a neutral decision. It is a political decision that hits hardest against single women with children.

Every time a rental apartment is converted, a home disappears from the form of tenure that for many is the only possible one. To call this broadening the options is not only misleading – it is a lie.

Mr. Speaker! Tenants can no longer be shock absorbers in the real estate companies' business models. During years of economic boom, real estate companies have made billion-kronor profits, but when interest rates rise and the economy turns, the tenants are expected to bear the entire risk. It is not reasonable, and that is why Vänsterpartiet is now putting forward a clear pledge to Sweden's tenants: We want to freeze the rents.

After years of historical rent increases, years where households have borne the entire cost and years where real estate companies have continued to make billion-dollar profits, enough is enough. It is time to say: Enough is enough – stop! Put a stop to the rent shock, a stop to a policy where rents rise faster than wages, and a stop to a development where ordinary people are pushed out of their homes.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party does not accept a development where the rental housing is dismantled bit by bit. We do not accept that children are evicted, and we do not accept that unreasonable income requirements shut people out. We do not accept that ownership is elevated to the norm while tenants are treated as second-class citizens.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we want to stop the sell-off of public services, reform the housing companies so that public services can be operated based on social utility, prohibit unreasonable income requirements from landlords, and stop eviction notices. We also want to ensure that children are never evicted without there being a new home, because a child should never have to pay the price for political failures – never!

Mr. Speaker! This is fundamentally about what kind of society we want. Do we want a society where a home is a right or a society where a home is an investment? Do we want a society where people live or a society where people speculate?

To Sweden's 3 million tenants, I want to say this: I know that it is difficult to feel hope under the Tidö government when one is daily subjected to new and harsher political reforms that are contemptible and repressive. It is everything from collective punishments, evictions, visitation zones, surveillance, threats of sending in the military, sell-offs, and so on – but you are not alone, and you are not powerless.

You are 3 million people and 3 million votes. In the next election, you have the power to change this country. You can choose a government that stands on the side of the tenants. You can choose a policy where a home is not a luxury but a right.

A home is more than just four walls. A home is security, dignity and future. In a wealthy country like Sweden, everyone should be able to afford a home.

With those words, I move to approve the Left Party's reservation 7.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! Two things can be said about Malcolm Momodou Jallow, who is also the chairman of the Committee on Civil Affairs. The member is good at filibustering, and the member is good at presenting proposals that are detached from reality.

When even the Left Party's megaphone, the Tenants' Association, comes out and saws at the Left Party's proposal on frozen rents, one has to ask how well the Left Party is anchored in how reality de facto functions.

I know that there is a genuine commitment to the tenants' conditions. In contrast to the Sweden Democrats, who did not mention the rental housing a single time in their speech, Malcolm Momodou Jallow had the decency to talk about the rental housing. But one must also have the decency to come up with things that can actually be implemented.

To believe that the Swedish housing market is like Mamdani's New York and that the same rhetorical tricks work here is to deceive the voters. Then one gives hopes for things that are not possible.

How does Vänsterpartiet view the aforementioned criticism of the proposal on frozen rents?

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing to have the opportunity to speak about the proposal that the Left Party has put forward.

I think like this: The member of Parliament claims that the Left Party is coming up with proposals that are out of touch with reality. But given the number of people in Sweden who think that rents are too high and who are against the market rents that the Center Party wants, one might wonder who it is that is out of touch with reality. The majority – over 70, closer to 80 percent – of the Swedish population does not want market rents. Yet it is I and the Left Party who are out of touch with reality and not the Center Party, which wants to implement market rents. I believe that a bit more self-awareness is needed in this debate.

I and Vänsterpartiet are driving issues that we know the people are demanding. In three years, rents have been raised by 15 percent. Food prices are skyrocketing, interest rates are pressing households, and wages are not keeping up. Millions of people in Sweden struggle every month to afford staying in their homes. Over 3,300 evictions occurred last year, and among those evicted were several children. People borrow money to pay their rents.

In that situation, I think it is more reasonable and more grounded in reality to say that one is putting a stop to it so that people can get a breather and have the means to stay in their homes, rather than standing and advocating for market rents, which the majority of the Swedish people have said no to.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! I actually want to start by reminding Malcolm Momodou Jallow that many of the child abuses that the member is turning against – which I am also doing, for the record – occur in large urban municipalities where Vänsterpartiet is part of the government. I think it would be honorable if one started by cleaning in front of one's own door.

The second part is that we in Centerpartiet have never, ever said that we are for market rents – never, ever. The issue we have pushed for is freer rent setting in new production. That Vänsterpartiet and the megaphone Hyresgästföreningen falsely accuse us of proposing market rents says more about Vänsterpartiet than about Centerpartiet.

Our proposals concern things that can be implemented without harmful side effects. Malcolm Momodou Jallow gives a speech about how rental apartments are not being built. Why are rental apartments not being built? Well, it is because the calculations do not add up. Then Vänsterpartiet comes with the stroke of genius that we should worsen the calculations even further, so that even fewer rental apartments are built. I cannot make sense of that.

I sincerely hope that the Civil Affairs Committee's committed member – and also its chair – can answer how the calculation is supposed to add up. I really want to understand.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! It both surprises me and does not surprise me that Member Alireza Akhondi uses the same type of rhetoric that the Tidö parties have used here. It is said that the expelled children live in municipalities governed by the Social Democrats and the Left Party, who therefore do not care about these children.

This is a clear difference between the left and the right: We on the left believe that we have a responsibility for all children in Sweden, regardless of which municipality they live in. Regardless of which party governs the municipality where the homeless children are, it is our responsibility to fight for those children so that they get a home to live in. That is the difference between the left and the right.

It is the difference between me as a Left Party member and Alireza Akhondi as a Centre Party member: I care about all children in Sweden, regardless of whether they live in Malmö or Gothenburg and regardless of whether they live in a municipality governed by the Tidö parties or a municipality governed by the Left Party, the Social Democrats, and the Green Party. It doesn't matter to me. What matters – what is important – for me is that no children should have to be homeless. No children should have to be evicted in Sweden, one of the richest countries in the world, in 2026.

It is the difference between me and Alireza Akhondi: I will do everything in my power to fight for every single child, regardless of which municipality the child lives in.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Honourable Speaker! A few weeks ago, I had the privilege, together with my Social Democratic colleague Joakim Järrebring, to be present at the presentation of the 2026 homelessness report. The homelessness report is presented annually by Sveriges Stadsmissioner. This year, the focus was on the government's current homelessness strategy, but it also looked forward at what needs to be done.

The reading is both sweet and salty. Much good is being done, for example, the work with Bostad först, which is now being established in more and more municipalities with the government's support. Bostad först is a method to give socially vulnerable people a home and thereby also give them tools to manage their social problems. It is about what is sometimes called social homelessness.

The core issue, Mr. Speaker, is that structural homelessness is becoming entrenched because the housing market in Sweden does not function and has not functioned for decades.

Perhaps the saddest reading is that the number of child evictions is increasing, and as a resident of Gothenburg, it is distressing that my own hometown is the worst in the class. When the Enforcement Authority some time ago presented its figures on how many children were affected by evictions last year, Gothenburg had the highest figure in the country: 82 children had a guardian who had been evicted, and 55 of the children were registered at the address where the eviction took place. It is the second year in a row that Gothenburg's figures almost double in the Enforcement Authority's statistics.

Mr. Speaker! Reducing evictions has been a core issue for the Moderates and the government during this mandate period. Under Minister for Social Services Camilla Waltersson Grönvall, the government has developed – and we in the Riksdag have decided on – a completely new Social Services Act. It is a Social Services Act that focuses on preventive work, among other things to prevent evictions. Instead of working reactively when someone has been evicted, the focus now shall be on proactively preventing people, including children, from being evicted.

Two years ago, the government also gave a specific assignment to the National Board of Health and Welfare to work on prevention of child removals and to provide support to the municipalities in this work. In addition, the government has moved forward in the work with the introduction of mandatory municipal rent guarantees for families with children, which is actually one of the points that Sveriges Stadsmissioner highlight as most important to move forward in their homelessness report.

But perhaps most importantly is that the Moderaterna and the government during this mandate period have consistently focused on ensuring that ordinary hard-working people get to keep more money in their pockets. In times of inflation and increasing rents, it is even more important to keep taxes down for those with the smallest margins.

Mr. Speaker! The fact that the government is working powerfully and offensively against evictions matters less if the municipalities do not take their responsibility. In addition to developing a completely new Social Services Act and proposing mandatory municipal rent guarantees for families with children, we have now tightened the legislation regarding municipalities' obligation to work on housing supply. We have also given municipalities expanded opportunities to work actively with distributing housing to those most in need in the housing queue.

Mr. Speaker! That is why it is distressing to read in Göteborgs-Posten from February 23 how responsible municipal councilors from the red-green government question the Enforcement Authority's statistics instead of taking the work against child evictions seriously. Gothenburg, together with Malmö and Stockholm, is the worst in the country at working preventatively against the eviction of children. My appeal to the Social Democrats and the Left Party members here in the Riksdag is clear, Mr. Speaker: Give your colleagues in Sweden's largest cities a piece of your mind! Look them in the eye and explain that this is not acceptable! The government is offensive against child evictions – now the municipalities must be too.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government has during this parliamentary term implemented or initiated several reforms to protect and strengthen the rental housing sector in Sweden. Two years ago, we tightened the rules to be able to evict criminals from rental apartments, this so that no human being should have to accept that the neighbor sells drugs on the playground, stores explosives in the basement storage, or instills fear in the stairwell.

Now we move forward and implement similar reforms for housing cooperatives. It shall become easier for housing cooperatives to evict members who commit crimes. It shall also become easier to deny membership for those who are grossly criminal and want to buy an apartment to, for example, use as a tool for crime. Step by step, we are making Sweden safer.

Mr. Speaker! For a well-functioning housing market, flexible solutions are needed for those who need a home for a shorter period. The Government has announced a bill that increases the possibilities for a more flexible use of the existing housing stock. It concerns three things.

Firstly, a completely new private rental law is proposed. This means more accessible and clearer rules for private individuals who rent out housing. It increases security for both the one who rents out and the one who rents. Together with the new building permit rules, which were introduced at the end of last year, we have thus created increased opportunities for someone who, for example, lives a bit large to rent out a part of their home to someone else.

Secondly, we clarify the rules for how a condominium apartment may be rented out in a second-hand capacity and enable rental over a longer period of time. However, it is still the association's board or the rental tribunal that grants permission to rent out a condominium apartment in a second-hand capacity. It will also be clarified in the bill that the mere circumstance that an apartment has previously been rented out cannot be a reason to deny rental again. These reforms strengthen both the condominium owner's and the second-hand tenant's security in cases such as longer studies in another location or work abroad, while the board's possibilities to review a second-hand rental, as mentioned, remain.

For the third time, we are tightening and clarifying the regulations for block rentals and so-called shared housing. The legal situation has been unclear for both corporate housing and so-called shared housing or coliving. Regarding block rental, it has in some cases been abused. At the same time, court rulings have undermined serious actors. That companies can rent housing to their staff is important, especially in locations with an expansive labor market. Shared housing, Mr. Speaker, is a growing housing form where one lives in their own room but shares, for example, a kitchen and social areas. The target group can range from young adults who want to try life in a new city to older people seeking new social contexts in the autumn of their lives.

Mr. Speaker! In order to lower the thresholds for moving from owned to rented housing, the government has now announced that it will codify in law how rent-to-buy shall be regulated. Rent-to-buy already exists today in Sweden as civil law agreements. That they are now regulated in law will mean increased security for buyers, sellers, and other involved parties, for example banks and insurance companies. Rent-to-buy means that a tenant rents their home with an option to buy it from the landlord. Many people want to rent their home. But many people also want to own their home. A rent-to-buy law is, together with the changed mortgage rules and zero tax on the first 300,000 kronor on an investment savings account, an important reform so that more hard-working people can own their own home.

Mr. Speaker! At the Swedish City Mission's seminar a few weeks ago, I was asked what a home is to me. For me, a home is security – but it is also dreams. It is about the security for the formerly homeless person who receives a home through Bostad först. It is about the family with children who, through a municipal rental guarantee, get the security of not being evicted. It is also about the dream of one day being able to own one's home through a rent-to-own agreement.

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

(Applause)

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank David Josefsson for the speech.

This government has primarily focused on lowering taxes for high-income earners and wealthy individuals. In addition, there is now a focus on enabling so-called serious actors to start tenant associations for property owners. But this is not addressed in this report, which has the title Hyresrätt m.m., Mr. Speaker.

We know that the Moderaterna want to introduce security rent – market rent – step by step. We know that the Moderaterna oppose all forms of investment support and state construction loans for the construction of rental apartments with lower rent. We know that they want more secondary rentals, greater freedom for property owners and more insecurity for tenants. We know that they do not even want to lower the costs of building, renovating and maintaining rental apartments by exempting public housing from the law on public procurement. But that is not treated in this report either.

It doesn't actually do child abuse either, but now David Josefsson has raised this very serious issue. I would then like to inform the public and David Josefsson – and perhaps comfort him as a Gothenburger – that Gothenburg is not the worst. Hem & Hyra has reviewed how things look in the country and adjusted for population, which is reasonably relevant when comparing Gothenburg with Dalsjöfors or Ljusnarsberg. Eskilstuna, Katrineholm, Avesta, Söderhamn, Borlänge, Norrköping, Bollnäs, Nyköping and Botkyrka are in the top ten. Who is it that rules in Eskilstuna, David Josefsson?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Markus Kallifatides for his contribution. He spoke very much about what is not addressed in the committee report, and one can certainly do that. Something that I think should be talked about and which is included in the committee report is child removals.

I think this is telling. The spinal reflex of Vänsterpartiet in Gothenburg turned out in GP, as was said, to be to question the statistics and say that the Enforcement Authority is probably wrong and that a municipal assignment should be given to produce other statistics. What happens next in the exchange of remarks here in the Swedish Riksdag? Does Markus Kallifatides stand up and say: "The government has done very well, but we would like you to do more"? No, Markus Kallifatides' spinal reflex is to question the statistics.

The Enforcement Authority notes that 82 children in Gothenburg have a guardian who has been evicted and that 55 of those children were registered at that address. Markus Kallifatides' response is: Well, but Gothenburg is not the worst when calculated per capita. What does that help the children, Markus Kallifatides?

What is the Social Democrats' and the red-greens' solution to address child evictions, which are actually addressed in the rental housing report we are now debating? What is the Social Democrats' solution, Mr. Speaker? Will Markus Kallifatides call his Social Democratic counterpart and say: "This won't do – you must tighten up"?

The government has given the municipalities all the tools. We take our responsibility. Now it is time for the Social Democratic leadership in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö to not question the statistics but actually ensure that no more children are evicted. It is called dignity, Mr. Speaker.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that David Josefsson does not want to say that it is the Moderates and we Social Democrats who rule together both in Eskilstuna and in Katrineholm. They were the worst municipalities according to Hem & Hyras overview when it comes to child removals.

I often speak with my party colleague Socialborgarrådet in Stockholm. We completely agree that it is very good that the government, after four years of postponed implementation of this with municipal rent guarantees, now says that they will become mandatory. It was Karolina Skogs investigation proposal that has now waited for an entire parliamentary term.

It is not finished yet, David Josefsson. It is not completed yet. There is still no proposition passed or any ordinance regulating how this with municipal mandatory rental guarantees shall proceed. But we welcome it.

We also welcome Housing First and that more rental apartments with affordable rent levels are built, and we have policies for that. We want to reduce the number of evictions of children. It is, not least, about a broad equality policy.

It is about people not being able to afford to pay rent and not receiving support in time. All the country's municipalities have a great responsibility here. Then one must also ensure that municipalities have the resources to manage and be able to prioritize these issues.

There are many things at stake, Mr. David Josefsson, if one takes it seriously. Instead, one does as the Moderaterna and others have chosen to do. One turns the issue of child care into a question of pointing fingers at specific municipalities where, for example, Vänsterpartiet is involved in governing or some other party is involved in governing.

Instead, that is done to avoid facing reality. This exists widely across the country, and David Josefsson's party at the municipal level is involved and shares responsibility for this. We can tackle this together instead.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Markus Kallifatides, for your commitment to the issue. I would have wished that the commitment went further than just standing here in the speaker's chair and talking about it.

It is very good that you have a dialogue with your counterpart in Stadshuset in Stockholm. The next time you speak with them, I think you should say: That we are now moving forward with mandatory municipal rent guarantees does not mean that one cannot already provide municipal rent guarantees.

It is actually completely baroque that we in this chamber should have to say that it becomes mandatory for your colleague in the City Hall to receive it. Work on these issues instead.

It is the same thing when you say that the money is not enough. Gothenburg is the worst in Sweden at preventing evictions of children. There are 82 children in the Social Democrats' Gothenburg who have been evicted, and 55 of them from the registered address. The City of Gothenburg made a billion-kronor surplus. It is obviously not money that is the problem, but rather political will.

It is one thing to stand here in the speaker's chair and say that the government should do more. It is another thing to go home and actually do it. The government has tightened the municipal housing supply responsibility. We are now introducing mandatory municipal rent guarantees.

We have introduced a completely new Social Services Act that focuses entirely on preventive work. We have tasked the National Board of Health and Welfare to work in a focused manner with child removals.

It concerns above all what Member Kallifatides calls tax cuts for high-income earners. A common family with children, where the parents work in the public sector, has received 5,000 kronor more in their wallet because we have lowered the tax.

It is not high-income earners. It is ordinary people who struggle to pay the rent. I dare not think about what their private finances would look like that day, if misfortune were to strike, if the Social Democrats were to take over government power.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must remind the member that we do not use "you" as a form of address in the chamber. The next opportunity to practice this will be in the next exchange of remarks.)

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, David Josefsson!

The Moderates often speak of accountability in the economy. But when it comes to housing policy, the responsibility always seems to land on someone else and never on the government. This applies now to the municipalities. It is not all municipalities, but it concerns those municipalities that are not governed by the Moderates. They are the ones who are somehow at fault.

We see historically high rent increases. We see households being forced to leave their homes. We see a policy that consistently favors owner-occupied homes over rental apartments. Villa owners receive tax subsidies, and tenants receive rent increases.

There were 3,330 evictions in 2025. There were 824 children who were evicted. That is very many children who are evicted and do not have a home. They are forced to leave their homes.

David Josefsson's party is part of the government, and his party holds the Prime Minister's post. The Left Party does not rule in Malmö otherwise. It is among others the Liberals who rule in Malmö. This is said only for the sake of the matter.

Children living in my hometown Malmö are not David Josefsson's responsibility. They are welcome to be homeless. Children who happen to live in Gothenburg, where Vänsterpartiet rules, are welcome to be homeless. It is not the government's responsibility. It is not the Moderaternas responsibility.

That is what I hear here. I hope that all parents whose children are homeless today hear this. That is the message the Moderaterna are giving. If you happen to live in a municipality governed by a party that does not belong to the Tidö Government, it is someone else's responsibility. The Tidö parties have nothing to do with that.

It is a terrible way of thinking. You are in the government. You are to be responsible for all children and everyone who lives in Sweden. It is very important.

My question is: Does David Josefsson consider that the children from Malmö, Gothenburg and Stockholm who are expelled are not the government's responsibility?

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

David Josefsson (M)

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

I think I am being very clear. The Moderate-led government has taken an extremely large responsibility to prevent evictions. That was what the entire beginning of my speech was about.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government has tightened the municipal housing supply responsibility. We will now introduce mandatory municipal rent guarantees, because municipalities do not use that opportunity if it is not made mandatory.

The government has introduced a completely new Social Services Act that focuses entirely on preventive work. We have given a mandate to the National Board of Health and Welfare to work focused on child removals.

We have also ensured that ordinary families with children get more money in their wallets, because we take responsibility. All children in the whole of Sweden are the government's responsibility.

But it is not only the government's responsibility. The municipalities also have a responsibility. Some municipalities take that responsibility, Mr. Speaker. Some municipalities do not take that responsibility.

In my hometown Gothenburg, the municipality does not take that responsibility. I have here in my hand the article from Göteborgs-Posten. The headline is: ”After the alarm: the municipal executive board proposes increased follow-up of child removals”.

Mr. Speaker! A large family with children cannot live in a municipal follow-up. It is time for Malcolm Momodou Jallow to call his V colleague in Gothenburg and say: This is not working. This is not dignified.

The government and the Riksdag have taken their responsibility. Now it is time for the red-green government in Gothenburg to take its responsibility.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing to hear that the government is responsible for those children. That was not the message we heard here just now. It is good that it is being clarified.

In my world, the government is responsible for all children. It is said that the government has done all it can and has tried very hard. In that case, it has failed. Despite the efforts, there are today 824 children who are homeless. Despite the efforts, there are 3,330 evictions. That is the highest number in 20 years. It is a total failure. The best you can do is to acknowledge that failure and ensure that you do better. These children deserve much better, Mr. Speaker.

If the number of children being evicted is to decrease, a permanent and indexed housing allowance that follows the rental development is required, safer social security, and a housing policy that ensures more rental apartments are built with reasonable rents.

The current government is happy to say that the municipalities should take their responsibility, and they shall. But the state always has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that no children in Sweden are evicted. The government cannot continue to administer the consequences of its own policy and pretend that the causes lie elsewhere. It is not possible.

Here is the difference between the right and the left obvious. The Tidö government takes responsibility for the children living in the municipalities that you govern, while we in the red-greens take responsibility for all children in the entire country. We will also do that after the election. Sweden will change governments so that the children can get what they deserve, that is to say a safe home.

Stop making excuses and start pursuing a policy that reduces poverty and makes it possible even for the most vulnerable to stay in their homes! There should be a simple principle that the entire Riksdag could agree on: No children should have to lose their homes.

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

David Josefsson (M)

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

One can begin by stating that your policy does not hang together. On the one hand, you are now saying that the housing allowance should be indexed with the rent, and on the other hand, you stand in the rostrum and say that you will tear up the entire Swedish model for rents, make it politically steered, and freeze the rents. How are you going to have it?

I think it is important to state that it is one thing, Mr. Speaker, to stand here in the speaker's chair and say that one wants to stop child removals. It is one thing to record videos where one says that one wants to stop child removals and post them on TikTok or to write opinion pieces in Aftonbladet where one says that one wants to stop child removals. It is another thing to actually act.

This government has sharpened the municipal responsibility for housing provision. We have developed a completely new social services act that shall work preventatively against evictions. We have tasked the National Board of Health and Welfare to work focused on child evictions. We have lowered taxes for ordinary people.

When it comes to Vänsterpartiet, it is the empty barrels that rattle the most. Malcolm Momodou Jallow does not answer the question, Mr. Speaker. Is he planning to call his Vänsterparti colleague in Gothenburg, who does not tackle the problem but argues about the statistics, after we have finished the debate and say that this is not working?

There are too many children in Sweden, but also in Gothenburg, who are being evicted. This government is taking its responsibility. Now it is time for Vänsterpartiet in the Swedish Riksdag and in Gothenburg to take their responsibility. Children cannot live in a municipal follow-up of statistics.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, David Josefsson, for the speech!

I think it is very good that the government has sharpened the responsibility for housing provision and looked at the proposal from Karolina Skog's investigation. Karolina Skog was an Environment Party minister in the previous red-green government, and she was then tasked with investigating a social housing provision. She also has a lot of experience of housing policy in Malmö at the municipal level.

The proposal for mandatory rental guarantees is very important. But I really wonder why the government waited for four years to introduce the proposal. The proposal already came in 2022. The situation has become worse every year since the proposal came, but the government has sat on its hands.

In 2024, various proposals were tabled in the Riksdag on these issues, and we even saw proposals in the budget regarding mandatory rental guarantees. But nothing landed on the Riksdag's table since then, and I therefore do not think it seems to be particularly prioritized.

The government has waited until the final quarter of the mandate period to now, right at the end, present the proposal. I wonder how one can think that this is prioritized when one waits so long to present it.

There is a proposal that is closely linked to this, and it concerns setting reasonable requirements on tenants. Of course, requirements should be set, but they need to be reasonable and fair. This was also a proposal that was included in Karolina Skog's investigation, so it should be presented at the same time as the proposal on the mandatory rental guarantees. Why don't you present these proposals collectively?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Amanda Palmstierna, for the questions! I will try to answer to the best of my ability.

As I suggested in previous exchanges, municipalities can already today provide municipal rental guarantees. As Moderates – and I believe our colleagues in the government cooperation agree – we fundamentally believe in the Swedish administrative model. We hold local self-government in high regard. Municipalities have different solutions and different ways of working with different issues. The state should provide a framework but, to the greatest extent possible, not impose obligations on the municipalities.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we can observe that there are a number of municipalities that do not take their mandate seriously. My hometown Gothenburg is one of these municipalities. Instead of addressing the issue, they argue about the statistics there.

We have landed on the fact that it is actually time now. When Sweden's large urban municipalities and other municipalities do not take these issues seriously, it is unfortunately time to introduce a mandate. Unfortunately, the process is such that it is not just a matter of drafting the bill, but we must also include the proposal in the budget. That is why we first include it in the budget and now announce in the list of bills that a bill on this will also be coming.

Regarding the second question, which concerns what requirements landlords should set, it is fundamentally the case that different landlords, both municipal and private, must be allowed a freedom in how they choose. They may, of course, not discriminate, but they have a freedom when it comes to what requirements they set and how they choose their tenants. We are therefore not prepared at this stage to proceed with the proposal.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, David Josefsson, for the answer!

Just when it comes to the argument of municipal self-government, the government has really blocked many things behind this. It is about municipal rent guarantees, which could stop child evictions, but it is also about uranium demand, vetoes, and so on. I do not think the argument really holds up.

If the issue had been prioritized, the government would have worked on it earlier during the mandate period. It is about ensuring there is a long-term perspective and that it should not matter which municipality one lives in – one should have the opportunity to find housing even if one has a somewhat uncertain income.

I also reacted to what David Josefsson said in his speech about that the residents have received more in their wallets, because I do not think that is correct. You have introduced a much faster tapering off of the benefit, which means that the unemployed lose large parts of their income earlier. The child allowance and maintenance support have not been increased despite cost increases, and the child allowance is worth less than it has been in 50 years.

We have debated the housing allowance many times here, even though it actually falls under the Committee on Social Insurance. There, you removed the temporary supplementary allowance, which means that families with children get less in their pockets now compared to a year ago.

These are collected poverty reforms of various kinds that result in people having less in their wallets. The reason people are evicted is that they have less money; they are unable to pay their rent.

It becomes quite strange to, on the one hand, pull the rug out from under people and ensure that they cannot manage financially and also push the issue of market rents, which are called security rents, and on the other hand say that one is strengthening people's finances. It just doesn't add up – it doesn't make sense!

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Amanda Palmstierna, for your contribution!

I am, admittedly, a great friend of the largest fossil-free energy source we have in Sweden, namely nuclear power, but I find it a bit difficult to see where uranium mining fits into the consideration of rental housing.

I can begin by stating that the government has prioritized the work against child removals. We have introduced a completely new Social Services Act, we have tasked the National Board of Health and Welfare to work focused on child removals, and we have tightened the municipal housing provision responsibility. We have ensured that ordinary, hard-working people get more money in their pockets.

We have hesitated to make municipal rental guarantees mandatory. But as I could observe, there are several municipalities, including my red-green governed home city of Göteborg, that do not take this work seriously, and then we unfortunately must proceed with the proposal.

Let me then just briefly comment on this matter regarding security rents. A lie does not become true just because one repeats it several times. That we Moderates want to see a different type of rent regulation than the one that exists in Sweden today is due, among other things, to the fact that we see that the housing market is not functioning, Mr. Speaker. People get stuck in exclusion and in second-hand rental contracts in a way that one does not do in our neighboring countries, for example Norway, Denmark, Finland and Germany.

This is also seen on the red-green side, Mr. Speaker. There is even a party on the red-green side that has set as a requirement in the government negotiations: Tear up the Swedish rent negotiation model, otherwise we will not support a government!

I think we should have a sensible debate on how we can find a better way to regulate Swedish rents so that we do not get the housing shortage, the homelessness problems, and the child evictions that we see today.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Mr. Speaker! Over three million people in this country live in rented housing. We Social Democrats safeguard order and stability in the rental market and place the tenants' security at the center of housing policy.

This spring we will have many debates in this area. The Tidö parties stand unequivocally on the side of the property owners, and step by step Sweden's tenants are being weakened. It is no accident; it is a determined will from the Tidö parties.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we are debating the Committee on Housing's report on Rental Housing etc. The Tidö parties propose that the Riksdag should reject all motions concerning improvements for Sweden's tenants.

The current negotiation system for determining rents rests on the fact that there is well-functioning legislation that balances the interests of the parties. We Social Democrats distance ourselves from all initiatives that threaten the negotiation system. Among other things, there is therefore reason to carry out a review of the Rent Act to avoid unforeseen and sharp rent increases, for example in connection with utility value assessments. We Social Democrats seek a mandate to carry out such a review.

Renovations, Mr. Speaker, must be carried out in such a way that people can afford to stay. We want to see a slower and longer phase-in period for rent increases. We still consider the proposal from a previous government inquiry to be well-balanced and should be implemented. Furthermore, the position of tenants during renovations must be strengthened. The occurrence of luxury renovations for the purpose of replacing tenants in the existing rental housing must be stopped.

Something that has eroded the tenants' position is that the courts apply the concept "is not unreasonable" when assessing whether a renovation measure is reasonable. We believe that this leads to an imbalance in connection with rent changes during renovations. In the 2017 investigation, it was proposed that the concept "reasonable" should instead be introduced as a basis for assessment in the Rent Act. We still stand by the investigation's conclusion and believe that such an amendment to the Rent Act should be made to balance the interests of the parties.

Property owners shall be required to ensure that tenants are given significant influence in the renovation process, and they shall be given meaningful alternatives to take a stand on. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, furthermore, a higher rent level after renovation shall be phased in more slowly if we Social Democrats are allowed to decide.

We Social Democrats naturally stand behind all our reservations in the report, but in order to save time during the voting, I move for approval of only reservation 4.

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag recently decided on legislative changes aimed at facilitating for women exposed to violence, not least, to be able to remain in a previously shared residence. That is good. We can state that there is a broad party-political consensus on the principle that it is the one exposed to violence, often the woman, who should be able to stay and that it is the perpetrator, often the man, who should move, not the other way around.

We Social Democrats therefore want to see a general review of how a person who has been subjected to a crime in a close relationship should be able to retain the previous shared residence upon separation, regardless of the form of housing.

During 2024, the Riksdag decided on legislative changes that, among other things, expanded the tenant's responsibility for safety in the residential area. We have since pushed for the issue that the expanded possibilities for forfeiture that now apply to rental housing should not only apply to rental housing, but that corresponding tightenings should also be introduced in the housing association act. This is now underway. This is good, as are the proposals that are likely on the way from the Government Offices regarding the protection of tenants' positions in connection with conversion to a housing association.

We are fundamentally positive about these changes in the area, but we also see a need for a rapid and systematic evaluation of the new rules and the case law that is being developed. The Government should therefore closely monitor and evaluate the effects of the rental law and the upcoming housing cooperative law tightenings.

Mr. Speaker! Many live in second-hand housing. In the bill Strengthened protection for tenants from 2021, the then Social Democratic-led government proposed, among other things, a strengthened security of tenure for the rental of private housing. The Riksdag voted down the proposal.

We Social Democrats still believe that a strengthened security of tenure in the rental of private housing would be of great importance for the tenants' security. Today, a landlord in private rental can terminate a contract prematurely even though the contract is fixed-term. People who are already in a vulnerable situation on the secondary market can thus become homeless at any time with three months' notice. We Social Democrats therefore want to introduce a ban on terminating fixed-term contracts prematurely.

Mr. Speaker! More measures are needed to combat the parallel black housing market. The rules for subletting and tax deductions for private rentals should be reviewed and tightened, partly to counter extortionate rents. But the Tidö majority – we have heard it certified in this debate – does and will do exactly the opposite, Mr. Speaker. The Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats stand unequivocally on the side of the property owners, not the tenants. It is no more complicated than that.

Mr. Speaker! We must prevent deeply unserious and, in the worst cases, criminal property owners from becoming landlords in our country. In the important investigation report *Who owns the property* from 2023, measures were proposed to tighten controls during the transfer of properties. The purpose was to protect residential tenants against unserious transfers of rental properties and to prevent the property market from being exploited for crime.

The proposals submitted in the report on strengthening identity checks during property purchases will now be implemented. That is good. But the government submits no proposal for a new rental acquisition law. In our opinion, the proposals in the investigation report on a new rental acquisition law need to be further investigated with regard to the views of the referral bodies in order to find a more accurate control system that applies to all types of property owners.

Mr. Speaker! There are even more proposals from an even more recent government inquiry on measures for better order in the built environment. But the Tidö government meets these questions with silence at best.

The last time I asked questions to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer, he simply lumped together two completely different interpellations debates regarding the tenants' interests. So unimportant are the tenants' rights.

Mr. Speaker! Different forms of tenure, just as different forms of housing, meet different needs in the housing market. The cooperative rental housing fulfills an important function because it, among other things, implies housing free from speculation, something that distinguishes it from the traditional housing cooperative. The cooperative rental housing also has a greater element of influence for the residents compared to a rental apartment. In order for that form of housing to be available to more people, a review should however be made of the economic conditions for the housing form. This is not what the Tidö majority wants, and it is incomprehensible.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö parties began the mandate period by stopping in principle almost all support for the construction of rental apartments with lower rent levels. Since then, they have continued to investigate how tenants' positions can be further weakened and thus how property owners' power can be strengthened. Step by step, they are taking us towards the very old and primordial property owner's dream of market rents. Typical for the times, it is called "security rents" this time. This government will not move forward with just that proposal. They are content to, in all other ways, prevent the tenants' position from being strengthened.

We Social Democrats want to go in a completely different direction. We want to strengthen the position of tenants. We want the state to take a more active role in the housing supply. We want a housing policy that contributes to growth, strengthens welfare, and gives people security and freedom in everyday life. This means a new direction for rental housing and a new direction for Sweden where more people can feel security in their homes.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring (S) agreed.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First, we can state that many live in rented apartments, and many want to live in rented apartments. But there are housing queues, and therefore we need to build more rented apartments. We agree on that picture.

The Christian Democrats prioritize countering the shortage of rental apartments, primarily by increasing construction overall and making it more profitable for private and municipal actors to produce rental apartments, rather than subsidizing or regulating rents strongly downwards.

We have heard from the rostrum that the reason why rental apartments are not being built is that the calculations often do not add up. It is not only the private parts that create this situation, but also long processing times pose a problem for producing real calculations. It can also be a question of long appeal processes.

I mean that we in politics have a direct and indirect responsibility to review these parts in order to make it possible to build more rental apartments. But I also mean that the income side is a part that must be strengthened to make it possible to build new rental apartments.

That is why it is central for the Christian Democrats to introduce free rent setting in new production. It is one of the most central measures to stimulate the construction of rental apartments. We believe that today's system makes it too expensive to build, which leads to too few new apartments being built and that the queues for rental apartments are too long. We will continue to push these issues in the next mandate period, but right now there is no majority in the chamber.

We have ensured that the presumptive rents work better. We believe it is a good step, but we want to continue and go all the way, that is to say, free rent setting in new production.

We want to continue the process with regulatory simplifications and simpler construction processes. We want to reduce the regulatory red tape in the Planning and Building Act even more than the government has done. We think the government has taken a good step, but we want to do even more. We also want to limit the possibilities for appeals, have more permissive detailed plans and fewer building permit requirements, precisely in order to get housing construction started. It will lower the costs and the time required to build rental apartments. It is often emphasized that the municipalities are the bottlenecks, and that means long processes.

We also want to increase mobility in the housing market. The government has signaled lowered amortization requirements, a raised mortgage ceiling, and the like. But we also want to reform the capital gains tax, precisely to increase mobility in the housing market.

We also want to promote ownership and conversion. We believe that if one can convert, one can free up funds to build new rental apartments. If we mean that we want rental apartments, we must do such things.

I can also speak about what we will not stand behind. We will not stand behind any large subsidies for cheap rental apartments. We believe that the individual should have the opportunity to pay the cost, and we believe that a better way forward is higher housing allowances than today. They are far too low and not broad enough to function as we want.

In summary, it is important for the Christian Democrats to build away the housing crisis and make it profitable to build rental apartments. We believe that is the path to be taken. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is always pleasant to debate with Larry Söder.

Since the Left Party's proposal was mentioned, I would like to clarify certain matters, which leads to the question I intend to ask.

In 2022, legislation was introduced that made it possible for private property owners to apply for an arbitrator appointed by the Rent Tribunal if the parties cannot reach an agreement. The number of rent negotiations that have gone to an arbitrator has exploded. The private property owners deliberately put forward unreasonable demands for rent increases with the aim of making it impossible to reach an agreement with the Tenants' Association. The reason is that they can practically always count on higher rent increases in the arbitrators' decisions than they can push through in negotiations. In 2024 alone, 170,000 apartments went to an arbitrator. It is also problematic that the arbitrators' decisions today do not need to be justified.

From the Left Party's side, I want to clarify that we safeguard the parties' model one hundred percent. We would like to appoint an inquiry that can look into these issues so that the system is not exploited in an incorrect way. It is clear to us that it is primarily the parties that should look into these issues, negotiate, and reach agreements. That is what I want people to be aware of.

Larry Söder and I agree on the importance of the family in terms of security for children, that is, the importance of stable homes. At the same time, we know that children in Sweden are still being evicted from their homes. Last year, 3,330 evictions were carried out, which affected 824 children. These are children who have been forced to leave their homes, change schools, and be thrown into an insecure situation they themselves did not cause.

No child should be evicted without a new home being available. Do the Christian Democrats support the principle that no child in Sweden should lose their home without a new residence being arranged?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that David Josefsson, Moderaterna, has clearly accounted for how the government views this and what work has been done to reduce the number of evictions in Sweden. I believe, just as Malcolm Momodou Jallow does, that every child who is evicted is a failure for society as a whole, for the municipality, and for the government.

I do not think that blame should be placed on anyone, but everyone must work better. The problem is that the responsibility is shared in society. It is not just a question of the government or the municipality, but also those who are around the children and families have a responsibility to see the situation and help out.

Sometimes it is said that it takes a whole village to raise a child. I believe it is the same for a family's economic situation. Sometimes several parties need to help each other for the family to be able to manage, for a shorter or a longer period.

I believe that this government has done quite a few things that will have an effect a bit further ahead. I believe that the new Social Services Act will have the effect that the municipalities take a greater responsibility in their work.

I do not think there is anyone here who wants children to be evicted. The difference perhaps lies in whether we want to ban evictions or not. I do not think that evictions should be banned. I think that one should try to work as much as possible with different parts to protect the children.

We adults must stop blaming each other. I believe the best thing we can do is to help each other. But the fact is that children in Sweden are being evicted, both by private landlords and by public housing companies. It is something that we must have a zero-tolerance policy towards.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! That is why I said it is always pleasant to debate with you, Larry Söder. You come up with reasonable points.

I completely agree with everything you said. We all agree that no children should be evicted and that one should not shift the blame. We all have a responsibility, regardless of where the children live, regardless of which municipality they live in, and regardless of which party rules in that municipality. We here have a responsibility to do everything we can so that no children have to be homeless. I agree with that one hundred percent.

My question, however, is not about banning. It is about the Left Party's fundamental principle. We believe that there should be a very simple principle that no children should be evicted without a new home being in place. Social services and everyone else should be involved well in advance and ensure that another accommodation, an alternative accommodation, is secured before the child is evicted.

For me and Vänsterpartiet, it is important that the child does not become homeless before one starts to help the child, but rather that one starts early to help the child. As soon as one receives a signal that there is a risk that a family with children will be evicted, one should begin working to ensure that the family with children has somewhere to go, so that they do not end up on the street when the enforcement authority arrives, but in an alternative housing.

If the Christian Democrats share the view that the child's safety should be at the center, it may still be good to know if you are prepared to work for national rules or legislation that ensures that children are not evicted without an alternative housing option being in place. If not, I wonder if the Christian Democrats consider it acceptable that a child's right to a home is, in practice, determined by which municipality one lives in. If we do not have legislation or a principle stating that there must be an alternative housing option before a child is evicted, that is exactly what will happen.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! No one is happy in their heart to read newspaper headlines about children being evicted.

When it comes to a zero vision, I actually assume that all municipal politicians have such a zero vision. The question is whether it should be legislated. No, I think we must try to help each other, both the government, municipality and social services as well as those who are around the family, in order to avoid children being evicted.

In the end, the adults who are around the child also have a responsibility. One must alert as early as possible, so that society gets the opportunity to help. There can be situations where society does not get that opportunity.

I mean that this is a soft issue that must be worked on in a soft way. We can put cushions around, we can help, and we can put the float there. But I believe that parental responsibility must also be a part of it. One must ensure that one has an economy that ensures that one actually does not jeopardize the child's situation. I also believe that one must be able to speak to the social services if one has problems.

The evictions have been ongoing for quite some time in Sweden. But if the changes that this government has made are implemented and if municipalities get greater opportunities to do something about this, I believe there is a possibility that the number of evictions will decrease. I hope for that. But if they do not do so, I am prepared to take other measures so that they will decrease.

But right now, I think we must work with the tools we have been given. The municipalities have been given greater opportunities to work against evictions, and I believe that will have an effect. If it doesn't, we will certainly do more things – together.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker and honorable colleagues! Sweden has many housing markets today. Two of them stand out a bit extra. One applies in the large cities, where people queue for decades to get a rental apartment. Another applies in the countryside, where apartments sometimes stand empty or simply need to be demolished. It is the same country and the same legislation but completely different realities. It says something important: The Swedish housing market is not working.

Mr. Speaker! We have created something quite strange in Sweden: queues that no one really believes in. We have a housing market where people collect queue points the way others collect stamps. Children are placed in housing queues before they have even started school. People stay in queues for 20 or 30 years, even when they already have a home. I am one of them. Eventually, no one really knows what the queues mean. Are they a measure of housing shortage, or are they a measure of how many people are gaming the system? When the housing queue becomes a lifelong project, housing policy has stopped working.

At the same time, there are municipalities where housing companies struggle with a large number of vacancies, i.e., empty apartments. This is not because the people there do not need those homes, but because the system is too rigid to function in different parts of the country. The same rules apply in rural areas as in central Stockholm. It is about as reasonable as believing that the same traffic rules work just as well on a highway as on a forest path.

Then we have the Left Party's solution, Mr. Speaker. Here we have to take a deep breath. In the midst of this situation, the Left Party steps forward and demands frozen rents – not just regulated rents, but frozen rents. It is a proposal that is so detached from reality that not even the Tenants' Association wants to stand behind it. When even the Tenants' Association says no, one should perhaps stop.

What happens when rents are frozen? Investments are withheld, maintenance is postponed, and construction decreases – exactly what the Left Party says it wants to counter. It is obvious to everyone who can count that this is not a solution to the housing shortage. It is a guarantee that it will get worse.

Mr. Speaker! Let us also talk about the elephant in the room. The problem today is not that the rents are too low. Vänsterpartiet is right; there are many families, single parents with children, who struggle to be able to pay the rent every month. The problem is that construction costs have skyrocketed and, consequently, so have the rents. A newly produced two-room apartment can today cost 18,000–20,000 a month. That is the reality, and unfortunately, not everyone in Sweden has a parliamentary salary.

It is easy to stand here in the chamber and discuss models, but for many people, the question is about something much simpler: Can I afford to move? Can I move out of my parents' home? Can I move out of the villa? When even divorces depend on the difficulty of finding housing, one has to wonder what we have done wrong.

If we do not succeed in lowering construction costs and increasing construction, we will continue to produce rental apartments that ordinary people simply cannot afford.

At the same time, Sweden faces another development that we talk almost nothing about: the demographic change. Over the coming decades, the number of elderly people will increase sharply. This means that the need for senior housing, sheltered housing, and elderly-adapted housing will grow rapidly. If we do not plan for this in time, which we rarely do, the consequence will be that elderly people remain stuck in housing that does not work for them, while families with children cannot move in. It is a system that creates a lock-in for all generations, and it forces Kristdemokrater to come up with stupid proposals to abolish the capital gains tax for an already well-off generation.

Mr. Speaker! In this report, the majority is essentially doing what has been done in Swedish housing policy for decades, regardless of the government. They say no to reforms, they refer to investigations, and they push the problems into the future.

Seven terms have passed of this mandate period – it feels like every time we have this debate I have a competition with myself where I state the number of terms – but when it comes to housing policy in general and especially the rental market, the government sits in its renovated premises and has coffee.

Mr. Speaker! What then is the Center Party's way forward? We believe in something quite simple, namely a housing market that, to begin with, must function in the entire country. This means more types of tenure, more condominiums, and new models, such as rent-to-own. I visited Riksbyggen, who told me about their rent-to-own apartments. It seems to be fantastic and also a driving force for people to state: "Even I have the opportunity to one day own my apartment." Forward momentum, the opportunity to realize oneself, and the opportunity to break out of exclusion should be prioritized in our country.

A functioning housing market also requires a functioning rental market. That means, in plain language, not freezing rents and that construction must become cheaper.

We are the country of all comparable countries that invests the least in housing policy. The entire parliamentary term has passed, and whether larger attefallshus should be subject to building permits or not is this lazy government's entire achievement. Sweden deserves much better, honestly.

Let us make the rules smarter and plan for the demographic reality that awaits. Above all, we must take our heads out of the sand and address the funding issue – that which de facto governs the development forward.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Sweden needs a housing policy that can achieve three things simultaneously. It must increase construction, increase mobility, and work in the entire country. It sounds like rocket science for Kristdemokrater, but I promise it is not particularly complicated. It is actually simple to implement, not just in theory but in people's real lives. Ultimately, housing policy is not about systems but about something much simpler: that people should be able to afford to live and have the opportunity to live their lives.

Centerpartiet wants to reform the housing market, not freeze it and hope for miracles.

I support all of the Center Party's reservations but move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It was a bit difficult to request a reply from Alireza Akhondi, because today he has, quite happily, sounded like a bourgeois politician. But when the windfall tax came up, I was forced to.

Alireza Akhondi says in the speaker's chair that we need to increase mobility in the housing market. Today it is a fact that many older people continue to live in their large villas where they may have lived for 5, 10, 20, 25 years, and the prospect that they will move to another residence that is more adapted to their situation is small.

I assert that the capital gains tax of 22 percent creates a lock-in effect. Is it fair to levy such a tax? In the rest of Europe, our high tax upon sale after 20–25 years is quite unique. During the time one has owned the property, one has not only bought it, but one has also taken care of it and invested resources into it – and the state is ultimately to levy a capital gains tax on this.

This locks older people into the housing they once bought. I think they should be allowed to move to housing that suits them better and let families with children move into the villas. We are not proposing that the capital gains tax should be removed immediately, but rather after 16 years in a home.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! I just had a déjà vu from 2006 when the Kristdemokraterna stood in the square and told about pensioners who had to sell roof tiles to afford to pay the property tax. There are some of us who remember the Kristdemokraterna's arguments.

Let me tell Larry Söder something. The problem with the mobility of the elderly is not the 22 percent capital gains tax. The problem is, among other things, that the banks' financing does not work and that many elderly people do not apply for what they are entitled to, namely housing benefits and housing supplements. What is being built is also so expensive that in many cases it pays to stay put instead of moving to something smaller.

To ignore all other issues and populistly go for the wallet issue and say that one will get to keep more is no solution to real problems. It is to continue to stick one's head in the sand and hope for the best.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Alireza Akhondis's analogy is quite accurate. In 2006, it was the Kristdemokraterna who wanted to abolish the property tax. What happened two months before the 2006 election? I remember that. Then the Alliansen stood behind the Kristdemokraternas proposal. In other words, Centerpartiet, Folkpartiet and Moderaterna stood behind the Kristdemokraternas proposal. Why did they do that? Well, because it was right.

If the Centre Party and Alireza Akhondi reflect for a while on what we are actually saying and do not just reflexively say that they are stupid proposals, I am convinced that the Centre Party and Alireza Akhondi will come to the same point again. I recognize the wingbeats. I recognize the rhetoric from the Centre Party. The Centre Party has the opportunity to change its mind this time as well.

It is a fact that when people live in their properties for a very long time, it means that housing mobility does not function in the way we desire. It is a fact that their homes and villas, which are larger than what one or two people need, could be used for a family with children. It is also a fact that we will not be able to build our way out of the housing crisis, but we must use every square meter in the best possible way.

It is not reasonable that we have the highest taxes on the sale of housing in Europe, when one has owned their home for 15–25 years and has invested reinvestment money there. One is therefore paying tax on one's own investment and on the inflation that has occurred. If one has lived in a property for that long, I think it is reasonable that one should be able to move to another home without receiving an unreasonable tax from the state.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! Tax is theft. I have heard such arguments for 25 years, and I have probably used them myself as well. I have never voted red. Believe it or not, Larry: I am an ultra-bourgeois politician.

At the same time, we know that during the period of the alliance, we succeeded in significantly pressing down the tax burden in Sweden. We also know that financing is needed as the population ages, the issue of preparedness becomes increasingly important, defense expenditures increase and so on, and then it is a matter of trade-offs. What is reasonable to do and when?

Somewhere, the Christian Democrats should also ask themselves what they are willing to sacrifice to solve the problem – a problem where there are several possible solutions. In that trade-off, I am convinced that Larry Söder and the Christian Democrats have landed completely wrong.

I am going to tell a poorly hidden secret, Mr. Speaker. The Alliance did not abolish the property tax. You municipalized it. Sometimes it hurts to criticize oneself, but I believe in honesty in political debate. Then it is important to also say that what one proposes comes at the expense of something else.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It was a bit lovely to get a look back at which political slogans were used in the 2006 election campaign. I myself took my matriculation that year. I will willingly admit that I didn't quite keep up with the debate then, but I promise to try to be a bit more present this year. But enough about that, Mr. Speaker. Now we are debating the report on rental housing.

For the Liberals, the starting point is simple: People should be able to choose how they want to live. Not everyone wants to own their home, and not everyone should have to do so. Three out of ten live in rental housing, and for many of them, the rental is not a second choice but the first and best choice.

For myself and for my party, the rental apartment stands for freedom – freedom to move where work is, to a new place of study or simply to start a new phase in life, freedom to avoid binding oneself financially but also security in having somewhat more predictable costs and that the responsibility for maintenance does not lie with the individual.

I think this is good for the individual but also for society as a whole. A functioning rental market makes Sweden more mobile, more dynamic and more open. Rental housing is and shall continue to be an important, modern and self-evident form of housing in our country.

Mr. Speaker! A factor that is of great importance for the housing market's functioning is the tax system. Different forms of housing need to have equivalent tax conditions. Taxes should not hinder development within any part of the housing market. On the contrary, the tax system should be designed so that it contributes to more housing being built, managed, renovated, and developed.

That is why it was welcome when Fastighetsägarna, Hyresgästföreningen, and Sveriges Allmännytta jointly highlighted proposals for better tax conditions on the housing market a few years ago. That in itself, I think, was very hopeful. If these three actors, who have somewhat different perspectives and sometimes different interests, can reach a complete agreement on this area, it is my hope that we in politics will also be able to do so at some point in the future.

If one has taken part of the proposals, one realizes that it is not about any total overhaul of the tax system. It is about some changes in the existing regulatory framework which, taken together, can make a big difference. The proposals that were submitted concern, among other things, abolishing the property fee for rental buildings and increasing the possibilities for deductions and credits for repairs. Just as those who submitted the proposals believe, I think that it can promote a more sustainable development of the real estate sector and strengthen rental housing as a form of housing. I hope, as I said, that we can move forward in the matter.

Mr. Speaker! Once upon a time, today's rent-setting system was well-intentioned, but today it leads to unreasonable consequences. The housing queues are long. The current regulation has actually created an "In-group" and an "Out-group" in the housing market: on one hand, insiders, who have had luck or contacts that have resulted in them receiving a first-hand contract, and on the other hand, outsiders, such as young people, newcomers, and newly arrived people, who are instead referred to to please continue waiting in the queue.

That is why my party has, for many years, among other things, pursued the issue of free rent setting in new production. This means concretely that the landlord and the tenant should be able to agree on the rent when an apartment in a newly built house is rented out for the first time. Instead of the regulation setting a ceiling, as in today's system, supply and demand are allowed to meet to a greater extent.

It is not about changing the conditions for the rental apartments that exist today and for the existing tenants who live there, but it is simply about that the new housing – those that have not yet been built and that no one yet lives in – should be able to be rented out on a different market.

Mr. Speaker! Housing is the foundation for security, health, and faith in the future. Those who have a home also have better opportunities to manage school, get up in the morning and go to work, and have an organized family life and an organized everyday life. Those who lack a home often have to struggle against the wind in almost all areas of life. That is why the social part of housing policy is so important.

The government has during this mandate period strengthened the work against homelessness, among other things through initiatives such as Housing First. It is a good method that is evidence-based.

The government has also given Socialstyrelsen assignments related to evictions, especially when it concerns families with children. We have implemented changes that give municipal housing agencies greater opportunity to use priority lists and reservations. And now we are moving forward with that the municipalities shall be obliged to provide rental guarantees, in order to achieve a broader impact than what is the case today and to counteract insecure housing conditions, evictions, and homelessness.

But we Liberals are also of the opinion that we do not only need to do more with the tools that already exist, but we also need to try something new. That is why we are pushing the issue of need-based housing, a concept where we simply direct apartments to those who have the greatest difficulty entering the housing market. If they, for example, risk homelessness or need to flee from domestic violence, they are today most often referred to temporary emergency solutions. We want instead to give them real homes with their own key and their own contract.

Mr. Speaker! Another important component that must be addressed when discussing housing, also in this issue, is the housing allowance.

We have previously implemented a permanent increase of the housing allowance for economically vulnerable families with children. We are now also moving forward with a more modernized housing allowance. Today, it is based on annual income. This means that people must try to predict their finances far in advance, even though many live with small margins, varied working hours, or changed family circumstances. For many, this has led to a difficult situation where one becomes fully or partially liable for repayment, completely unnecessarily. Through this change, we now ensure that we significantly reduce that risk.

Madam Speaker! A housing allowance should be a support when the economy is under pressure. It should not function as a debt trap, as it has done previously. When so many people are affected by clawbacks, it is not the individual who has failed. In that case, it is the system that has had deficiencies.

I would, however, not want to pretend that this solves everything. These are two important steps that have been taken during the parliamentary term regarding the housing allowance, but they must not be the last. The housing allowance has been plagued by deficiencies for a long time. It has lost its precision, and when the support does not follow the developments in society, it risks being completely eroded and losing its function for those who need it the most.

In the long run, we therefore need to continue to move forward. We need to review how the support can better follow the developments in society so that it does not fall behind again. Carrying out a comprehensive review of the housing allowance is a reasonable and responsible way forward.

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

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Patrik Karlson, for the speech!

The theme for the evening, Madam Speaker, is that we are discussing issues that are not the subject of this debate on rental housing and so on – for example, the question of the design of the housing allowance and upcoming proposals in that area, which we Social Democrats, for one thing, welcome.

Patrik Karlsson also mentioned tax issues, which are also not addressed in this report. I recalled that during a previous parliamentary term, we had a January agreement in Swedish politics where it was, if I remember correctly, stipulated in point four that four parties plus a supporting party would achieve a tax reform.

I would therefore like to note that in the future, after a Social Democratic electoral success in the autumn election, there may perhaps after all be opportunities to discuss with Patrik Karlsson's party Liberalerna and possibly also with Alireza Akhondi's party Centerpartiet more proper measures to, for example, lower costs regarding building, maintaining, renovating and managing properties. Exciting!

Madam Speaker! We have a proposal on the floor of the Riksdag to exempt the municipal public housing companies from the cost-driving Public Procurement Act. Unfortunately, no proposal has been submitted to do what the public housing companies desire, which according to them could lower costs and thus the rents by in the magnitude of 10 percent in new production and also the costs in procurement of maintenance measures and such. It can affect all rents. How do the Liberals and Patrik Karlson view that question moving forward?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Markus Kallifatides, for the questions!

First, I can state that I think it is perfectly in order that one sometimes drifts a bit outside of what is contained within the report. It is probably more common than not in this chamber, regardless of who is standing here. I could imagine that the member himself has surely done so in one of his speeches, but let us leave that be.

I think it would be absolutely excellent if we could carry out a broad tax reform in this chamber that spreads across the block boundaries. We have been pushing that issue for a long time, and it is true that we agreed on it in the January Agreement. Then it fell on another issue, which however concerns rental issues, but then it was because of other parties. It was a pity that we did not manage to push through that tax reform.

Then, of course, we go to the election on the basis that this government shall continue. I hope that we will be able to resolve this issue internally by then, but of course, all parties shall be allowed to join that discussion and be able to provide some input on it. It is my opinion that it would probably also be most sustainable. It would also include other issues, not just the one concerning housing, but that has a natural place there. I look forward to those conversations and, above all, the implementation.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, Patrik Karlson, I am sinning myself in this exchange, that is quite true, and I intend to do so also in this final reply.

I want, to summarize this evening's debate on rental housing and more, to pose a straight question to the liberal member of the Committee on Civil Affairs. Is he prepared to pick up the phone to his party colleague in the municipal executive board in Norrköping, where the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna govern the municipality and where they are at the top of the list of municipalities that, adjusted for population, expel the most children? It is a rather straight and clear question.

There is a review of how this looks, and my point tonight has been that it is a pity that we stand and point out municipalities as has occurred in this debate instead of asking the question more principally. What are the tools that are nevertheless missing? What is it that is happening out there in the municipalities?

The Christian Democrat member Larry Söder has described this matter regarding child abuse as a soft issue. I share that view, so let us stop pointing fingers. But it was an issue that I let the member choose how he wants to answer regarding the colleagues in, for example, Norrköping.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I note that the members in this debate are focusing on "and so on" in the title of the committee report, obviously very much so. But there is a model for committee report debates, and that is the scope of the report.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Yes, we are a bit of rebels sometimes. We apologize for that and shall try to stick to the order.

I do not know if I misunderstood the member slightly, but I cannot remember standing and pointing someone out to the right or left on this issue. If it was any of the other members in the chamber who did that, I think the question should be asked of them so that they can answer it. I cannot really get into it and answer for them.

What we do agree on, however, is that one needs to have a broad consensus and work both long-term and jointly to find solutions to these problems so that the number of children who are evicted goes from 824, as it was last year, to 0 eventually. That is, at least, my ambition and why I work with these issues in the Swedish Riksdag.

Then I just want to bring to the record that it is correct that we Liberals govern in Norrköping, but we also do it together with the Social Democrats. It is very important to keep that in mind, regarding this matter of throwing a bit of dirt at each other. I can, however, promise that we also have conversations across block boundaries in Norrköping to solve not only the issue of evictions but the safety issues generally speaking. There, I have a good dialogue with my party comrades, so I think that Norrköping will improve in the measurements going forward.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Members! The government's policy is not a work line. It is a poverty line. The government's policy is not a roof-over-your-head line. It is a poverty line.

The most common reason people are evicted from their homes is that they have been unable to pay the rent. We have debated this thoroughly here tonight, and I want to continue on that thread.

Last year, over 3,000 people were evicted from their homes. Over 800 children were affected by evictions. 7 percent of Sweden's population live in material and social poverty.

Take that! Is that the kind of Sweden we want?

Apparently, the Tidögänget wants that, as they have worsened the allowance and introduced a much faster tapering, which causes the unemployed to lose large parts of their income more quickly. They have not increased the child allowance or the maintenance support at all despite all the cost increases. The child allowance is now worth less than it has been in 50 years. When it comes to the housing allowance, which we have also debated many times here, the temporary supplementary allowance was removed last year. Families with children get less in their wallets now than they did a year ago. The Tidö government also scrapped the state investment support, which existed to produce affordable rental apartments.

Madam Speaker! The most common cause of eviction is that people cannot pay the rent. In that case, we need to broaden the debate and, in addition to rental apartments and housing policy, talk about the overall cost of living for people and about poverty.

On this, the right wing wants to introduce market rents. Some call them security rents, others do not. It is to lay out smokescreens to call them security rents. They are market rents, and this risks driving up the costs significantly.

We in Miljöpartiet want to see a Sweden that holds together. We want to reduce the gaps. We want housing to be a social right. Everyone has a right to a roof over their head. We want to properly reform the housing allowance so that it is not eaten up by inflation. We want to take state responsibility for housing construction and introduce upgraded state support for affordable, climate-smart rental apartments.

Karolina Skog, who was the Environment Party minister in the red-green government, investigated social housing provision and put forward several different proposals. Some of the proposals have been taken forward by the government, which is very good. Others have not been taken forward. She put forward a proposal on mandatory rent guarantees, i.e., that the municipality should guarantee that the rent can be paid. It is a very important proposal that lowers the thresholds for people to enter the rental market. But the government waited four years to introduce that proposal. Now we have heard the argument about municipal self-government. I do not think it holds that the government waits until the final quarter of the year to introduce this proposal – during the election campaign year and actually after the legislative freeze. Had it been prioritized, it would have been submitted earlier.

Karolina Skog also submitted a proposal that the requirements a landlord may set shall be regulated so that they are reasonable in relation to the apartment sought. It is difficult for many to enter the rental market despite having the means to pay precisely because the requirements landlords set are unreasonably high. It is something that needs to be regulated. It should be the same across the country. We in Miljöpartiet want this regulation to be implemented.

Madam Speaker! I also want to talk about renovations and tenants' participation. Tenants' position in connection with renovations must be strengthened. Last autumn, Hem & Hyra conducted a review which showed that tenants generally lose appeals in the Rent Tribunal when it comes to renovations. They are thus forced into renovations that they do not want. We have seen examples of demolished and then totally renovated kitchens and bathrooms that have resulted in a shock increase in the rent and which have been against the tenants' wishes. They become renovation bills.

An increased influence for tenants would likely lead to the renovations being carried out being less extensive.

Madam Speaker! Necessary renovations of course need to be made. But being forced into standard increases that are not needed and are not requested is not okay.

With the utility value, one attempts to define a housing unit's practical value for a tenant, and the utility value serves as the basis for setting a reasonable rent. But the utility value system needs to be reviewed so that resource efficiency is increased and, of course, to ensure that people are not forced to face shock-increased rents.

Unfortunately, there are many property owners who do not reuse functional interior fittings from, for example, kitchens and bathrooms when they renovate. They do not really have incentives to do so. But if they instead go with "wear and discard" and tear everything out completely and make it new, it results in a higher use value, which then serves as the basis for the rent negotiations. And then the rent becomes higher.

There are examples of renovations where old quality and design have been replaced with inferior quality, followed by increased rent. But there are also examples of the opposite, where rents have been able to be kept down with a careful renovation of older kitchen cabinets and original details. There are, therefore, good examples of that this can be done.

We in Miljöpartiet believe that the regulatory framework needs to be reviewed to strengthen tenants' position during renovation and to clarify that the utility value system should go better hand in hand with increased resource efficiency.

Madam Speaker! The last point I want to raise today in the debate – and which is in the committee report – is shared housing. It is about living together with common areas.

Throughout life, there are many occasions when one needs to review their housing and when traditional housing forms might not quite fit. It can be when one is going to study and needs to change residence and loses their usual social context. It can be when one has lost their partner in the autumn of life and would like spontaneous social interaction.

Living in a shared accommodation can be a lifestyle or something one enjoys for a part of life. It is not for everyone, but it is a piece of the puzzle that is largely missing from today's housing market. We need to strengthen this.

A collective housing solution offers several advantages when it comes to increased social opportunities. But it also provides economic and climate-smart advantages, as one shares living space, interior furnishings, household appliances, and so on.

A form of shared housing means that one has a private room and a private bathroom. Then one shares the kitchen and living room. It is very important that the cleaning is included in the rent and that there is a relational management, as it is called. Otherwise, it will not work.

When it comes to, for example, converting office properties into housing, it would mean many advantages when building shared housing, as it is easier to design a floor plan for shared housing in old office properties. Then one avoids compromising on this with daylight and accessibility, which the Tidö government has presented proposals on.

But there are legal obstacles that make it difficult to establish and operate shared accommodations in Sweden. The regulatory framework is unclear and outdated. It creates uncertainty both for the residents and for housing companies.

A judgment was issued in 2024. In that case, the rent for a former resident in a type of shared accommodation with, among other things, a shared kitchen and living room was examined. The Rent Tribunal judged in that case that it should be equated with a subletting of a traditional apartment. Such an assessment complicates and can put a stop to many commercial shared accommodations.

Madam Speaker! This regulatory framework needs to be reviewed. A clear legal definition was needed. The regulatory framework needs to be clarified to increase safety and strengthen the protection for both tenants – with reasonable rent levels – and landlords, so that it is possible to operate shared accommodations.

We in Miljöpartiet have long championed collective housing and shared housing. We now believe that the regulatory framework needs to be clarified so that a missing piece of the puzzle can be added to the housing market – to strengthen tenants' security, to reduce climate emissions, and to counteract loneliness.

Madam Speaker! I stand behind all our motions, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 6.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I promised Amanda Palmstierna's representative in the committee that I would not request a reply today, because otherwise we risk not getting home until midnight tonight. But when Amanda Palmstierna, who normally is very good at remaining objective and correct in the debate, talks about freer rent setting and calls it market rents, I must react.

We are heading towards an election. It is an election that is super important for many people. I think that we here in the chamber have a special responsibility to declare the product correctly. To call the Centerpartiet's proposal on freer rent setting for market rents is not a correct product declaration.

The second thing I bumped into, Madam Speaker, was the question of child evictions. I pointed out in a previous speech that the red-green parties, including the Green Party, govern in the large municipalities, and it is there that most children are evicted. One must therefore first sweep clean in front of one's own door and not merely point fingers and say that it is someone else's fault.

I actually have no concrete question to add for my bench neighbor, who is very wise.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Alireza Akhondi, for the reply at this late hour! I think it is quite a luxury. As the last in the debate, one is not always used to receiving a reply. It is appreciated, even if my colleagues further down the speaking list perhaps do not.

Regarding rent setting – regardless of what one chooses to call it – the point itself is that people should have reasonable housing costs. That is what we from Miljöpartiet want. People should be able to live. But a higher proportion of the costs goes to the housing, and we do not think that is reasonable. This is what we want to achieve. People must be helped out of poverty.

It is also important that incentives are provided to build new rental apartments. But we do not think that proposals should be thrown out that result in a very high rent. That is not the right way to go. It would be more reasonable instead to focus on different types of state support, construction credits, and so on.

Another thing that has not come up in the chamber today is increased competition in the construction sector, which is very important. It is a track that one absolutely needs to look at in order to bring down costs.

Let us put the concepts aside. We cannot have a rental system where rents skyrocket so that people cannot afford to live. That is what is important.

Regarding child deductions, we all need to work together on the issue. But what we are debating today in this chamber is what can be done nationally and what the Riksdag can do. Municipal policy, we must discuss at the municipal level. I, of course, have a lot of contact with Åsa Lindhagen, who is in the City of Stockholm and who is passionate about children's conditions.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I both share and admire Amanda Palmstierna's commitment to issues of justice. These are issues that, given my own upbringing, have also been close to my heart. Perhaps our methodology differs regarding what is the right way forward, but there is no doubt about the commitment.

What becomes problematic is that if one addresses the wrong thing, one does not solve the underlying problem. We agree that it is shameful that children are being evicted. That we, in a country that allocates 7 billion to tax reductions for ISK, do not have the means to ensure that children have a roof over their heads is, for me, a mystery.

It is about priorities. Much in life is about priorities. This is a strange priority. At the same time, we are saddling future generations with election promises that have even caused the Fiscal Policy Council to recoil.

We must take a step back and consider how we can produce affordable rental apartments. That is what I said in my speech: We address the financing issue. Construction costs have skyrocketed, and that means the calculations do not add up. When the calculations do not add up, it is always the end consumer who pays. That is how the logic is and always has been. We are the country of all comparable countries that allocates the least to housing policy. We must change that. I hope that the voters give us the confidence to address this issue correctly after the election.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree that it is distasteful for the government to lay a pre-election budget in the very last year. We will have to come and clean up after it later, when we hopefully are in government. This is not the first time this has happened, but something we see time and again.

An analogy that can be drawn concerns the rapid expansion of detention centers and prisons. There, they are going full throttle. But when it comes to ensuring that children are not evicted, they wait four years for, for example, mandatory rental guarantees. This issue should really be prioritized much more. However, it is not Alireza Akhondis party that is driving the issue in this way.

I will also answer how we make the calculation work. Many different measures must be taken here. For example, competition in the construction sector needs to increase. Unfortunately, there is a lot of cheating in the construction sector. We need more interventions there. Different types of support were also needed, such as credit guarantees and investment support.

We also need to look at the whole. The basic model with a use-value system and parties negotiating with each other needs to remain firm, but it needs to be developed. The rents need to be reasonable. It is not the tenants who should pay for the entire construction; instead, the state needs to take responsibility and help. This is a very important and clear priority for Miljöpartiet.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 12 March.)

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