(cont. from § 7) Response to interpellation 2023/24:372 on the timber house industry and residential construction
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the timber house industry and housing construction. KD argues that previous construction was due to a boom economy and a zero-interest environment 1, but that the government is now addressing structural problems, simplifying regulations, and working to increase housing construction 1 2. KD has tasked Finansinspektionen with investigating a raised mortgage ceiling, exemptions from amortization requirements for new production, as well as investigating rent-to-buy 2. KD has also tasked Boverket with mapping buildable land 3 and has raised the ceiling for the rotavdrag 3. S argues that the government lacks crisis awareness, that the measures are insufficient 4, and that villa construction has been halved since the government took power 5. S advocates for support for short-term layoffs, start-up loans, investment support 4 as well as a comprehensive package to support the construction industry 6. SD argues that the government is already introducing measures to reduce bureaucracy and improve opportunities for savings 7 and that the government has not pumped in money that increases inflation 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! What do they usually say on TV? For new viewers: There has been a short break in the debate which was prompted by the answers I gave to questions posed by Member Ödebrink, and I presented the answers before the break for the question period. Therefore, I intended to take up some of the threads that the members were on in the subsequent contributions.
Leif Nysmed referred to the fact that the previous government ensured that construction took place. I want to problematize that claim. Between 2015 and 2021 – and this was also pointed out by Carina Ödebrink – more housing was built than today. This is largely dependent on the fact that we were in a boom period with a zero-interest environment. For Leif Nysmed to take the credit for this and claim that it was a government that ensured that construction took place is to take on a very large suit, considering that we were in a boom period that lasted a long time and with low interest rates.
In response to Carina Ödebrink's post, I would like to say that not for a single year did construction reach the level of Boverket's estimated needs during those years, despite the economic boom and the low-interest environment. This is due to – as Member Beckman pointed out – that there is a neglected need for reform in the housing market.
I would like to call for some self-reflection. More could have been done to be better prepared for the so-called seven difficult years if one had addressed structural problems, if one had made buildable land available in attractive locations, if one had shortened lead times, if one had improved and simplified regulations that would have resulted in more standardized construction. This is something that is still perceived as municipal special requirements, and it is something that has been raised by Mikael Eskilandersson.
We have begun to address this step by step. The assignment to the County Administrative Board that Beckman referred to is precisely about turning things around, that is, that the County Administrative Board shall report on which measures have been taken to increase housing construction in cooperation with the municipalities.
With this said, Mr. Speaker, it is important to take step by step, measure by measure. The Government has taken the measures that we have presented so far. But we are not finished, and of course, much more is required.
For wage earners and for entrepreneurs, there is a main enemy, namely inflation. It is inflation that has largely caused increased production and financing costs. We must ensure that inflation continues to trend downwards according to the forecasts we have seen. Then there will be opportunities for other measures in the toolbox that will become available if the economy gets stuck at a low level and unemployment continues to be high. I do not rule out further measures that may be required in this tough situation, and I agree with the description of the problem that the members in the chamber have made. The absolute most important thing is to continue to dampen inflation and take responsibility for the economy in a difficult situation.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! Housing was built on a large scale up until 2021-2022. 250,000 new homes were completed by 2020, and with that, the goal that the Social Democrats had set was achieved.
Today, actors across the entire construction sector are underlining the seriousness of the current situation and pointing out that a broad mobilization of immediate and concrete measures is now needed to save both the timber house industry and the timber industry.
The answer from the minister is that there is now a majority in Sweden's Riksdag, and what is needed are reforms to address the structural problems in the housing market. But I do not see the measures, neither in the short nor in the long term. I do not think that the acute situation is being taken seriously.
More apartments must be built for young people, and there must be more housing chains. And more small houses must be built. I believe that the Minister, just as I did, when he was out on a visit to the county, saw the lines where the finished modules are to be rolled out - and they were completely empty.
The stimulus to the municipalities that the government has in its budget of 60 million to increase the supply of planned land, which will apply from April 1 this year, amounts to 207,000 kronor per municipality. I do not really know how far it goes, but to me it appears to be a little.
I have not received answers to my questions. What is the government doing in the acute crisis? It is not enough to constantly repeat the mantra about high inflation, high cost levels, and high interest rates. It is not sufficient to tilt one's head and say that one understands the concern and sees the problems; instead, policy is required to meet the crisis. It is a serious situation in one of Sweden's most important industries.
We can compare with how it was during the pandemic. The S-led government then took very powerful measures to support companies and wage earners. If one compares with how it is today, one sees that there is a world of difference. There was a decent consensus, broadly, in politics regarding the measures we took, among other things when it came to short-term layoffs.
It can also be said that during the pandemic, the Moderaterna were out and saying that they were prepared to invest 100 billion kronor a month to save Swedish companies. Where is that will and ambition today?
Those who are listening to the debate – now, there is no one in here, but perhaps some are sitting in front of their televisions – can sometimes be misled into thinking that this is just going to be a political war of positions. But this is actually serious. It is a very serious situation. And I become concerned when the debate takes such expressions that it becomes something that I do not think it should be.
Increased tax deductions are not the solution now. Good access to planned land may be needed, but it is not the solution here and now. Where are the measures that the collective timber house industry is now calling for?
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! The industry argues that the government's measures are insufficient. More is needed in both the short and long term. The government seems to lack a sense of crisis.
The Government's mapping of companies responsible for the construction of small houses risks needing constant updating, not because more companies responsible for the construction of small houses are being added, but because more and more risk bankruptcy. The list would then shrink.
There are proposals for measures from the parties, from both the unions and the employers. The Minister says that he has listened, but I think that I can at least repeat some of them.
It is about support for short-term layoffs to save the competence in the industry. It is about start-up loans so that more people can be able to buy their first home. It is about investment support, credit guarantees and other incentives for the construction of small houses in wood.
In order for the housing shortage not to grow, it is required that construction takes place. When the economy turns, we will have an enormous pent-up need for the construction of housing. Then all actors are needed, not least the timber house industry. They are part of the solution to the housing shortage. The timber house industry is a future industry and an important part of the green transition. Building timber houses in factories is both efficient and climate-smart. Furthermore, it offers good jobs with decent conditions in the countryside.
Andreas Carlson knows all of this, but instead of acting, he stands with his arms crossed and lets the collapse continue. There are proposals from both the industry and the opposition. The government can act but chooses not to do so.
Exactly as the Minister says, more is required. But what is it then? How many companies will need to go bankrupt before Andreas Carlson thinks it is time to do something to support the timber house industry in Jönköpings län?
Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! We heard here about support, investment support, and incentives. Yes, imagine if we had had in place all the measures that the new government is actually looking at and which are now about to be introduced - this was already underway during the last parliamentary term.
I am speaking about the digitalization of the planning and building process, which hopefully can speed up the recovery by making it faster in all stages leading up to the start of construction.
We are looking at the shore protection, which will be changed so that more plots can be created where one can build. It should not only be the rich who should be able to afford to live near the water.
The municipalities are working on producing more buildable plots, including detached house plots and not just plots for multi-family houses. This is something that this government has stimulated.
The possibility of borrowing for one's housing is improved, and the mortgage ceiling is raised. We heard as recently as in the question period that the conditions for saving shall be improved. The previous government did the opposite and worsened those possibilities.
When all this is implemented, the dream of owning one's own villa is therefore not as unattainable as it was with Social Democratic policy.
But most importantly, the government has not listened to the Social Democrats' wish to fuel inflation with large subsidies and by pumping in money. Now we see that inflation is on its way down and that society is stabilizing.
As late as today, the Governor of the Riksbank, Erik Thedéen, said that monetary policy must remain tightening for inflation to become low. I still think that one must listen when the Governor of the Riksbank and other people in that category express themselves so clearly about how one should act moving forward.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! Actually, almost half a million homes were built during the two previous parliamentary terms. It is a difference compared to today.
Mikael Eskilandersson beats his chest. Now there are going to be more villas. We have a need for over 60,000 homes. Does Mikael mean that 60,000 villas should be built per year? Then you'll have to work at it. Since you took power, the construction of villas has been halved. It has gone from 12,500 down to 6,000 last year. And it is estimated that 5,000 will be built this year. So you will have to start increasing the pace a little bit.
I do not believe that it is only the preparation of new plans that makes it possible for new villas to emerge. There is land today to start building on. There are villas that are built and that remain unsold due to the price level. It is the price and the possibility of demanding a home that determines what is built.
I want to point out that earlier in the debate, Mikael Eskilandersson claimed that the former Minister for Housing, Johan Danielsson, said that only rental apartments should be built. One can read the debate on the Riksdag's website. It clearly states, what the Social Democrats always say, that we want a mixed development. We want villas, terraced houses, semi-detached houses, rental apartments, and condominiums – what people demand and have a need for. We want a mixed development, and that is an important part of being able to achieve a cohesive society.
But I received no answers from the Minister to my questions, and they are still quite important. There is a need for over 60,000 homes per year. 25,000 were built last year, and 20,000 are being built this year. I also do not see others highlighting that any turnaround is seen in the near future regarding this. This means that the need will become even greater per year.
My question to the Minister was: When does the Minister believe that housing construction will reach the figures calculated by Boverket? This is essential regarding how we can address the housing shortage that exists in the country.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! First, I note that my body language is apparently being observed by the members of the Chamber – that I am tilting my head and that I am standing with my arms crossed. That may be the case, but one can stand with arms crossed and at the same time present the measures we have taken. And one can simultaneously say, just as Johanna Haraldsson touched upon, that more was needed. I agree with that. We are not finished yet. We are step by step catching up regarding the lack of urgency concerning the housing market's need for reform, which is palpable and which is noticeable in a very tough way when we no longer have a zero-interest environment and a boom economy.
It is clear that there is a difference compared to today regarding the number of built housing units, which Leif Nysmed is pointing out. But, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to make a political point of it, as he is trying to do. In the same way, he said what I quoted last time, that it was a government that ensured that building took place. We must thank the government for the economic boom that persisted and which perhaps actually began during the Alliance years. And we must thank the government for intervening in monetary policy and adopting negative interest rates. There are several evaluations regarding whether it was the most viable path; I do not, of course, concern myself with that.
But it sounds very much like it was only the previous government's merit that it was built. Now we have inflation and a recession, and then the Social Democrats suddenly have a lot of measures for this. It would have been appropriate if those measures had been turned into concrete reforms to tackle the structural problems that exist, not least when it comes to small house construction, if the fine words about mixed tenure forms had led to concrete measures to shorten lead times, simplify regulations, and counter special requirements, and to ensure that standardized processes, which one is so successful with in the industry in Jönköping County, could have been rolled out to achieve sustainable construction. That time existed. That chance was missed, and today they beat their chests and claim it was the government's merit that there was a boom and low interest rates.
We are working at a very high pace to ensure, step by step, that more housing can be requested. I will return to some of those measures.
I also want to touch upon Carina Ödebrink's comparison with the pandemic. Yes, there is a big difference compared to during that crisis. At that time, we did not have the inflation that we have now; we are still in an environment with high inflation. I do not think I heard Carina Ödebrink suggest that one should use 100 billion per month for this crisis – she is welcome to elaborate on that. But had one done that and not taken responsibility through a weakly restrictive budget, the inflation would risk being fueled, which would increase production and financing costs and mean an even tougher situation for the companies that have been highlighted in this debate.
The Government has given a mandate to the Financial Supervisory Authority regarding the mortgage ceiling - to be able to raise it from 85 to 90 percent. This comes together with another proposal that the Government has commissioned an investigation on; it concerns rent-to-buy. One should be able to buy half a home and then successively pay off the other half. It would mean that more people can take the step into the market for owned homes and to own a small house - more can realize their housing dreams.
In addition to this, we have also tasked the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (Finansinspektionen) to investigate exemptions from the amortization requirement for new production. And we have an investigation that reviews macro-based supervisory measures; we are, of course, ready to take measures when we receive it. This is therefore in addition to the other measures I have been involved in regarding more buildable land in attractive locations.
There are no shortcuts, and it is important to develop the reforms required to achieve a better functioning housing market.
Carina Ödebrink (S)
Mr. Speaker! I will begin by thanking you for this important interpellation debate, even though I am in no way satisfied with the answers we have received to our questions.
It is a bit strange that the current government, when it was in opposition, had no problems with putting forward proposals despite the fact that we had high inflation. But now that one is in government, it is suddenly completely impossible.
It is not enough to just hold up a mirror and blame the previous government. This issue is too important for that, and the acute crisis is here and now.
I read that the government in Finland has presented a comprehensive package to support the Finnish construction industry, and I think we should do the same here.
I will conclude by saying that the housing collapse we see here and now very much resembles the situation we had in the early 90s. We say that it is a collapse, but if you do not want to listen to us, you can listen to the trade union organizations, the wage earners and the industry - that is how they describe it.
Perhaps the Minister can also listen to a party colleague who was previously Minister for Housing to get some guidance on what needs to be done, even if I perhaps do not think it is more attefallshus that we need to build to solve the housing crisis.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! No, Carina Ödebrink, I did not come to the chamber today with a mirror. I came here with an interpellation answer where I point out several measures that the government has taken regarding planning stimulus for small houses. I mentioned the assignment to Boverket to map out buildable land to get small house construction started and to provide a description and a knowledge base regarding which companies are responsible for the construction and which small houses are being built. This is a mapping that has not been done previously, a mapping of buildable land that absolutely can become a very important tool.
I have also, Mr. Speaker, in my response pointed out the rotavdrag (deductible for renovation) for which we are now raising the ceiling and which can save some jobs in a very heavily pressured sector.
I have answered the question regarding skills development and the funds allocated for places within vocational colleges and vocational adult education. It concerns added funds of 1.7 billion kronor, Mr. Speaker.
In my interpellation answer - a paper, that is, not a mirror - I accounted for the mortgage ceiling increase and the mandate that the government has given to Finansinspektionen, as well as for the exemption from the amortization requirement for newly produced housing.
I also said in my response, Mr. Speaker, that we are following the developments closely and do not rule out further measures. We are therefore not finished. But I have answered the three questions.
We have had a good and productive exchange of views, and we are essentially in agreement on the problem picture. I would finally like to thank you for the commitment and the realization that there are no simple, quick solutions, but that it concerns a complex problem picture, which is all the more reason to work at a high tempo to step by step achieve a better functioning housing market. Thank you for this debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.