(cont.) Planning and construction (cont. CU19)

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 in report CU19. I naturally stand behind the Social Democrats' other reservations but do not move for approval of these today.

Unfortunately, this report reflects something more than just technical positions in the Planning and Building Act. It reflects a government, led by the Sweden Democrats, that lacks drive in construction policy. Already at the beginning of the mandate period, it was made clear that some cross-bloc conversations would not take place, despite the industry requesting this in one of the worst construction crises since the 90s.

Nor either has the SD-led government been particularly responsive to the comments from the referral bodies. Can someone from the Tidö group, for example, account for how many of the responding referral bodies were positive towards removing the reporting requirement for the so-called attefallsåtgärder?

Instead of convening the Riksdag to make long-term decisions that can endure across mandates, which is extra important in times of construction crises, the government is content with short-term protecting its own ministerial posts.

During this time, housing construction has been and still remains at historically low levels, the sky-high unemployment in the construction sector is persisting, and a record number of construction companies have gone bankrupt. This is not sufficient.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats support regulatory simplifications in PBL; we have done so for a long time. We have also implemented many changes over the years.

PBL is a form of coordination of all interests within community construction. Order and tidiness shall be weighed against requirements for fast processes with minimal hassle. Rules that cannot be justified shall be removed, and processes that can occur faster shall, naturally, be conducted on that basis.

We want to emphasize that there is total political consensus that rules should be as simple as possible. However, it has turned out to be easier said than done to simplify the regulatory frameworks because, at the same time, it must not lead to housing and properties being built with lower standards.

We note that Boverket's new building regulations have opened up for bedrooms without windows, lower ceiling heights and so on, and that student apartments may now be built with poorer accessibility requirements. The risks are also great that construction errors are built into future attefall measures.

No one should have to live in a deterioration of rules. A removal of rules does not automatically mean a simplification. The government's removal of rules has occurred more for liberal ideological reasons than for purely practical ones.

Here, our view on these simplifications differs. We believe that in order to achieve the desired effect of a change, the expertise's knowledge must take hold. In that case, it is not possible to ignore the referral bodies' massive criticism of various proposals, which has occurred on a number of occasions.

Madam Speaker! One of the great challenges of our time is to develop a sustainable social housing policy. In our opinion, it fundamentally concerns three overarching tasks: to build more and sustainable housing, to counter social segregation and thereby improve the conditions for equal upbringing and living conditions, and to make it possible for economically vulnerable groups to meet their housing needs.

Part of this work is that housing and tenure forms shall be mixed. It is not about forcibly moving people, as some on the extreme right wing threaten. It is about enabling people to be able to demand what they desire. Therefore, we believe that municipalities should be able to dispose of a concrete tool in this work: a right to specify tenure form in the detailed development plan. The municipalities have the planning monopoly, the responsibility for housing supply, and the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that local social cohesion functions. But they lack tools. We believe that municipalities should be able to decide on mixed tenure forms when and where it is needed to break segregation. It is not about detailed control from the state. It is about giving the municipalities the opportunity to take responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces significant environmental and climate challenges that require immediate and effective measures. An important part is to better utilize our extracted resources. Today, we largely have a linear economy where resources are used and then discarded. By transitioning to a more circular economy where resources are used in a sustainable and efficient way, we can better meet the climate challenges and achieve our climate goals.

We need to review the conditions for reducing the construction and real estate sector's carbon footprint. Reused products are not used on a large scale because the market is small. One of the factors hindering trade is that reused construction materials are often more expensive than buying new, and it is difficult to quality-assure reused material. However, several companies and municipalities, for example Nacka kommun, have taken initiatives to introduce circular work and construction methods in order to be able to reuse entire or parts of buildings. That is positive.

But Sweden needs to move more clearly in that direction. To increase the proportion of reused material, we Social Democrats want to review the possibilities of introducing a quota obligation and incentives for recycled material in the procurement of new construction. Including the use of reused materials in the building regulations is also a step we see as necessary to promote sustainable construction. Therefore, there is a need to review the regulatory framework.

Despite changes having been made to shorten processing times, appeals still take far too long. To facilitate sustainable societal development, we believe that a review of the area is needed. Such a review is now being conducted, and we will return after the consultation round. It will be exciting to take part in.

There is a need for a clear focus on limiting the possibility of appeal in certain cases. This could involve limiting the circle of stakeholders, limiting the possibility to appeal building permits that comply with the detailed plan, and limiting the possibility to appeal to a higher instance. Such limitations must, of course, be weighed against the requirements for legal certainty and an individual's right to object to decisions.

We want to shorten lead times, streamline instance chains and improve coordination, especially between authorities and county administrative boards.

But people must have the right to have decisions reviewed. It is a fundamental rule-of-law principle. Faster processes and strong legal certainty are not opposites. It is a political responsibility to achieve both.

Madam Speaker! What disturbs me most in this report is that we may agree in principle, but the majority has consistently chosen short-term decisions over ensuring long-term rules of the game that hold over time. No cross-bloc conversations are being held during the most serious construction crisis since the 90s, which is truly bad. It is not we in the opposition who have demanded these conversations, but it is the industry that has demanded it.

At the same time in reality, construction companies are struggling with both finances and processes. Over 5,000 construction companies have gone bankrupt within the construction industry since 2023, according to Tillväxtanalys. We have sky-high construction unemployment, and many thousands have already left the construction industry while apprentices are not getting jobs.

Planning and construction is not a technical marginal issue, but it is crucial for whether housing that people can afford will be built, whether we will reach the climate goals, whether segregation will be broken or cemented, and whether jobs will be created or disappear.

In conclusion, I can only state that it has soon been four lost years for construction in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I would like to once again move for the approval of reservation 1 in report CU19.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats believe that owning one's home is the most economically and ecologically, and socially best way. We have therefore pushed for more people to be able to own their homes in the future.

On April 1, the mortgage ceiling is raised, and the increased amortization requirement disappears. We have a focus on simpler rules, shorter processing times, and more land for construction, especially for small houses, villas, and owner-occupied homes. We believe that today's system is too complicated and time-consuming, which hampers housing production and drives up costs.

The Christian Democrats have pushed for reforms that make it easier to build without a building permit in certain cases, for example, larger extensions, facade changes on one- and two-family houses, and measures outside the detailed plan. We are pleased that the Riksdag agreed on the same regarding the new regulations for building permits, which entered into force on 1 December 2025. Simplifications have truly occurred after decades of complications.

The Christian Democrats want freer construction, easier deviations from the detailed development plan, faster planning processes, and fewer requirements for building permits and notifications for smaller measures. The purpose is to shorten the lead times from idea to finished house.

The Christian Democrats and the government have pushed through state incentives for municipalities that plan for more housing, especially small houses and the conversion of premises into housing. There is a queue for these incentives right now, and we must nevertheless consider it a success.

In summary, the Christian Democrats want a more permissive and less detail-oriented system that makes it faster, cheaper and simpler to build, especially owned housing in small houses, without completely scrapping consideration for the environment, culture or neighbors.

The current government has implemented more than 60 of its own initiatives and reforms plus a number of initiatives and reforms in other departments. At the same time, three propositions are pending decision. These concern an efficient and secure construction process, simplified rules for building modifications, and faster expansion of correctional facilities and jails.

If one looks further, one sees that the costs for planning and building unfortunately have a large part in that nothing is being built. Municipalities more and more often request more investigations as they go along, which causes the processes to drag on and the costs to increase. Municipalities should, in principle, know from the beginning which investigations are to be conducted and only in exceptional cases add any.

The costs for planning work are constantly increasing. The fees have increased by 120 percent over the last 24 years, while the consumer price index has increased by 60 percent. This is something that causes the municipalities to raise prices so much. We believe that one needs to be transparent towards the citizens and state on the invoice how the costs have been calculated. We should also develop a building permit norm and describe what it should contain to get the municipalities to stick to what they are actually supposed to apply, that is, cost price.

I agree with Vänsterpartiet on one thing: We are not just building housing, we are building a society. Unfortunately, our track record is not the best when it comes to building a society. We have many areas of exclusion in Sweden that should not have been built in that way. They are not suitable to be managed in the way they are.

That is why we Kristdemokrater say that the types of housing must be reviewed in areas of exclusion. It may not be appropriate to only have rental apartments there. They may need to be mixed so that people can live there, build a housing career, and stay when they get a steady job and a secure life, so that it becomes safer in these areas.

I mean that we have failed to do what the Left Party wants. We want to build communities, but we do not do it in the way we have done previously. We must have mixed tenure forms from the beginning, and in the areas where we have rental apartments, we must mix them up in order to be able to make them safer.

I agree with Vänsterpartiet that it is terrible that children are being evicted in Sweden. I have asked in this chamber before: What is needed for Malmö, Gothenburg, and Stockholm, which are governed by Vänsterpartiet, to feel that they have support from the Riksdag where we say "You must take more measures so that children are not evicted in Sweden"? I have asked this in the chamber before and wish to receive an answer today.

I cannot allow children to be evicted in Sweden in our three largest municipalities. Furthermore, the evictions are increasing. These municipalities are governed by Vänsterpartiet. I think that a measure should be found so that we, from the Riksdag's side, can help so that these municipalities can take their responsibility.

I agree with Vänsterpartiet that Sweden has changed, unfortunately for the worse. That is why we must rebuild and build anew.

The Social Democrats say that we have no drive in the issues. They refer to the fact that no cross-bloc conversations are taking place. Did that happen that much during the last parliamentary term in these areas? Yes, I forgot: We changed housing ministers quite a few times, but I do not believe that is the right way to go.

The right way to go, I believe, is that there are parties that have a common view on this and that take the measures that are needed. I am convinced that 90 percent of all the measures we have taken in housing policy during this mandate period will not be changed during the next mandate period. It is usually not like that.

The Social Democrats were arguing that Boverket's new, more modern building regulations are a problem. The process was started when the Social Democrats were in government. At that time, it was agreed that it was a good idea to find new forms to build cheaper housing and build more efficiently. I believe that it is the right way to go.

Since then, the Social Democrats are absolutely right that many referral bodies have been hesitant and critical, but I believe that in five or ten years we will see that it was the right path to take, even if the Social Democrats do not dare to stand up for what they have actually started. I think that one must do that. Being upright in politics means that one stands by what one has started even when it is finished.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Larry Söder says that we initiated the simplifications of the building regulations that Boverket has developed, and that is correct. My point is that we must also listen to the expertise that responds to the investigations that are prepared. There may be parts, for example windowless bedrooms, that are not the smartest idea.

It is good if one listens to what the expertise says. That is why we have referral rounds – to take in the experience that comes from the industry, from expert organizations and from authorities that point out and say: There you perhaps didn't think quite correctly – redo it and do it right!

I asked a question in my speech to the representatives of the Tidö government: How many of the referral bodies were positive towards removing the reporting requirement for the "attefall" measures?

I asked you to read the referral report and the submitted comments, because they express a rather massive opposition to this and describe the problems with it. None of us here actually want to build poorer housing or properties, but we must take it in and listen to it.

I pose the question to Larry Söder: How many were actually positive towards this?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Referral processes are conducted to gather views, and I am convinced that Boverket has also taken some of the views into account. Then, one does not always do exactly as the referral bodies or those who have views wish.

It is the same when it comes to the "attefall" houses. One should be able to submit their views, but the government and the Riksdag make the decisions they find appropriate in that situation.

When it comes to the attefallshus, our position has consistently been that it should be solely a notification requirement. What changed was that the municipalities handled it as a building permit. Then, politics actually must react. Should we have it as a building permit, so that it costs a huge amount of money to put up an attefallshus, or should it just be a notification requirement? Then the lawyers say: No, you cannot have one or the other. In that case, you must have a building permit or no notification requirement. That is what we choose.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Larry Söder!

The problem when one does not listen to the referral bodies and the issues they raise is not whether it costs 15,000 kronor for a reporting obligation or not, but it is the consequences that occur for the individual property owner if one builds incorrectly.

All building regulations still apply, even if one does not have the reporting obligation. The risk is that one instead has to demolish its house, move its house or rebuild its house. It will be significantly much more expensive than the cost of the reporting obligation.

I pose the question like this: Is it a better thing to do to risk placing houses too close together so that the fire risk increases, than to review the fee system itself? I could think that we should review the fee system and how much one needs to submit when making a mandatory notification. We could perhaps have a "light" mandatory notification, because it is important to know that one is doing things correctly from the start. It is foolish to redo things afterwards, especially when one risks both health and life in the context.

I think you could have had a bit more understanding for the views that 46 of the 61 referral bodies submitted. I counted how many were completely positive about this. I can count those on one hand without lifting a finger. On the other hand, there were six bodies that still saw positive things in it. So, there was no overwhelming positive attitude toward this proposal.

If we speak of the referral bodies as expertise, should we not then listen to them and take that criticism to heart? This does not only apply to this case, but even when the "attefall" houses were introduced, the criticism was not listened to. That is actually the reason why we have to take a new approach regarding the attefall house issue today.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Leif Nysmed and I have completely different starting points on this. I am happy to place the responsibility on the property owner who carries out the measure, and it is their obligation to ensure that the rules are followed. Leif Nysmed wants a municipal official to tell him how he should do it. I do not think that is necessary. I think we can place that responsibility on the property owner. It is up to him or her to review the rules that exist.

I think we have too much red tape that stops individual property owners who want to use their plot in a way other than what the municipality considers.

When the attefallshus were introduced, it was a notification that was to be made. It was not that the municipality was to control it, but rather that one should simply submit a notification as an individual. But that was not how the municipalities wanted to handle it; they wanted to do it as a regular building permit with the cost afterwards. What happened? Well, the number of attefallshus that were built then decreased radically compared to at the beginning.

We want more attefallshus. Furthermore, we want larger extensions. It is the individual who should bear the responsibility. We think that if the property owners take it on, they should be able to do so. But Leif Nysmed thinks it is more interesting for officials in the municipalities to have something to do, which I do not think is interesting.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! There are two types of politicians. One type points at problems and says: We are investigating. We are reviewing. Work is in progress. It is someone else's fault. The other type takes responsibility and implements change. In September, you who are listening have a chance to decide which category this government belongs to.

Madam Speaker! There is one thing that unites all Swedish families: the need for a home, for a roof over one's head. Yet we find ourselves in the deepest construction crisis in decades.

As an example, in 2021 around 67,000 housing units were started in Sweden. Two years later it was just over 30,000. It is a drop of 50 percent.

At the same time, we have a situation where very many young people cannot move out from home and where very many people, especially in large cities, have to pay extortionate rents on the black market. And we have a government that, instead of implementing reforms, talks about whether or not it should be free of charge to report attefallshus.

Larry Söder! It costs – I checked it – approximately 1–1.5 million kronor to build an attefallshus today. Many municipalities charge an equally large fee regardless of whether it is a notification or a building permit. To have the debate focus on such an issue for an entire parliamentary term is beyond all criticism.

We know that according to Boverket's own assessments, we need to build 60,000–70,000 homes per year to catch up with the accumulated deficit that various governments owe. But we are not there. We build approximately half. That is the reality behind today's report.

Centerpartiet presents proposals for simplified planning processes, clearer time limits, faster building permits, strengthened ownership rights, facilitation of coastal construction, and more modern rules for reuse and climate-smart construction. What is the government's response? Rejection with reference to the fact that work is ongoing.

Madam Speaker! Sweden cannot be built with references.

The construction and real estate sector accounts for around 10 percent of Sweden's GDP. Over 300,000 people work directly in the sector. In other words, the construction sector is an important growth engine, but it is stalling significantly. When housing construction collapses, it does not only affect the housing search. It affects small construction companies, subcontractors, architects, the transport sector, tradespeople, and the municipalities' tax revenues. Thousands of layoffs have been made over the last two years, and what is the government doing? They are sitting still. They talk about the economy as if politics has no significance. But regulations affect investments. Processing times affect investments. Legal certainty and predictability affect investments. When it takes five, seven, or sometimes ten years to get a detailed plan through, fewer dare to invest. It is the responsibility of politics.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say a few words about the Sweden Democrats. It is a party that often says it stands on the side of the countryside. They speak warmly about small business owners, they speak about local self-determination, and they speak about how all of Sweden should live. I see that my Sweden Democrat colleague is nodding. But when concrete proposals are on the table to make it easier to build in coastal areas, give municipalities greater flexibility, shorten planning processes, and facilitate investments outside the major cities, the Sweden Democrats vote no.

This is a strange view on rural policy. In press releases and at press conferences, one is a rebel, but in votes, one is the government's most loyal supporting party.

Madam Speaker! The countryside does not need more speeches about pride. It needs reforms that make it possible to build and invest. When it comes to this, the Sweden Democrats have chosen the convenience of power over change.

Housing policy is, in many ways, also a question of freedom. It is about the freedom to build one's house, the freedom to develop one's land, and the freedom to start a project without drowning in bureaucracy. Today, many experience that the system is against them. It is unclear decisions and long processing times, and appeal processes that can last for years that drive up costs. The examples of occasions when this has occurred are infinitely many.

Every extra year in the planning process involves increased financing costs, uncertainties, and risks. This causes projects to fall through, and what happens when projects fall through? Well, then no housing is built. When housing is not built, young people are shut out of the housing market. That is the logical chain.

Madam Speaker! The construction sector also accounts for a significant portion of Sweden's climate emissions. Climate-smart construction requires action and not just words. If we are serious about the climate goals, we must facilitate the reuse of building materials, modernize the building regulations so that innovation is not hindered, and make it easier to build energy-efficiently.

Centerpartiet has submitted many proposals in that direction. What does the government do? Well, it responds: Investigation ongoing. There is a difference between holding press conferences about the climate and actually changing the regulatory framework so that it becomes easier to build sustainably.

The government often speaks about the work line. This is something that is close to the hearts of us Center Party members, but the work line begins with investments. When housing construction is halved, it affects growth. When investments fall, it affects employment. Over half a million people are outside the labor market today. That is far more than when this government, which beats its chest, took office.

When uncertainty increases, it affects faith in the future. It is not the economic cycle alone that creates this, but it is also a government that lacks reform momentum. This government's passivity costs Sweden enormous sums of money every year.

Let us speak plainly. Sweden needs reforms – not administration. What the Center Party has proposed is to introduce clear time limits in the planning process, simplify building permits for smaller projects, give the municipalities greater flexibility, strengthen property rights, and make it easier to build climate-smart. We want to ensure that the whole country can grow – not just the big cities.

These are not radical ideas. They are reasonable reforms in a construction crisis. Instead of reforms, however, we get rejections, or at best the answer that an investigation is underway. Instead of decisiveness, we get referrals. This is not how Sweden should be run.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in a construction crisis. Housing construction has been halved, and tens of thousands of needed homes are not being built. Hundreds of thousands of people are indirectly affected. That is a fact. That is the situation. And in that situation, the government chooses to say: We will return.

The Centre Party does not accept this passivity. We will continue to push for reforms that make it easier to build, easier to invest, and easier to live in the whole country. We believe that Sweden should be built forward, not administered into a standstill.

Now I have said a lot of words. I can conclude by saying that the Center Party naturally stands behind all its motions in this report, but for the sake of time, we will content ourselves with moving for approval of reservation 28.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Climate change is the great issue of our time. The consequences are already here, and they will become much worse if we do not do something immediately. It is increased precipitation, more prolonged heatwaves that make cities and apartments difficult to stay in, rising sea levels, crops that fail, and forests that burn. It is becoming increasingly clear that we must act – now! We cannot negotiate with the climate, because it is changing anyway. Politics must strengthen the work both in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and in continuously adapting to the changed climate.

The construction sector accounts for one-fifth of climate emissions and also significant consumption emissions from imported goods. There are technologies to reduce climate emissions already today. There are various pilot projects that show the way and show that it does not need to cost more. Politics needs to step up with long-term rules of the game and incentives so that the industry can truly transition.

The housing and buildings that exist should be cared for and renovated – not demolished. Cultural values shall be protected, and it needs to be rebuilt according to need and with quality. Empty offices need to be converted into housing, but people must not be shut out. We need to do it with quality. Even if one is in a wheelchair, one must have access to housing. We need to utilize the housing stock we have, but it must welcome all people.

When new houses are built, they should be made of materials that people feel good about and that have low climate emissions. They should be wooden houses that smell like home and reused building materials that give new houses a history and low climate emissions.

Energy efficiency is needed for the housing and buildings that already exist. It is needed both to lower the electricity bill and to reduce climate emissions. However, there is truly a tax injustice regarding energy efficiency. One can use the rot deduction for energy efficiency. It applies to villas, and one can also use it for certain parts of condominiums, but not for rental apartments. We believe that this needs to be reviewed. State support is needed regardless of which type of housing one lives in.

We have in our budget, which we have debated previously, proper support for energy efficiency in multi-family dwellings regardless of what type of house one lives in.

The climate transition must be fair and inclusive, and it must not come at the expense of people's rents and housing costs. Much is unfair when it comes to the economics of housing policy. Let us look at the mortgage ceiling that is to be raised on April 1 and the amortization requirements that are to be lowered. This will mean that housing prices will increase, which benefits those who already have a home while it becomes even harder for those who are trying to enter the housing market. Here, it would have been better to focus on first-time buyers.

Madam Speaker! An investigation has looked at start loans for first-time buyers. The proposal is not perfect in all its forms, and work needs to be continued on the proposal. A good start loan for first-time buyers combined with housing savings would have been a much better measure, that is, to target those who most need to enter the housing market and own their home.

The government removed the investment support for rental apartments when they took office, precisely during a recession and when it was truly needed. Several measures have been taken that have caused poverty to increase in Sweden. We have debated the housing allowance many times. The answers I receive from the Tidö government are constantly band-aid solutions. A real reform must take place, so that there is actually an improvement. The allowance must keep pace with the increased costs. For an owned home, there is an interest deduction. If the interest rises, the deduction increases, but when costs increase for a rental apartment, the housing allowance does not increase. Then politics must step in and decide actively. It is a structural injustice built into the system. That is why we in Miljöpartiet believe that it cannot be.

In the election campaign, proposals have now emerged to abolish the capital gains tax. It would be a costly reform, and it would target people who no longer have as many loans on their houses and villas. They don't actually have the greatest need for the money. Here, we think that one should look at building senior housing of good quality with common areas. Then it would be possible for elderly people living in villas to gain access to senior housing of good quality that they can move into before they have become really old. There they can live from the age of 65–70. There was an investment support, but it disappeared not so long ago. And it is only to be regretted that it was also removed. More justice was needed in housing policy when it comes to the economy.

I leave these questions and move on to another topic that has not been raised today, namely the need for nature, parks, and groves of trees in our cities and towns. Every person should be able to see trees outside their window. Everyone should have close access to nature or a park where children can play and where the elderly have the energy to go to rest under the tree canopies and socialize. People can meet. The water at our shores shall also be swimmable after a heavy downpour.

Trees and nature provide exactly the cooling needed so that apartments do not become too hot and so that it is possible to move around out on the streets as well when there is a heatwave. The urban nature needs to be protected and restored, that is to say, recreated.

The wetlands that once existed, which protect against both drought and floods, must be recreated. We also need to create new nature and parks. There are rain parks – rainstorm parks – where one can combine beautiful landscape architecture with managing rainwater during rainstorms.

At the beginning of my speech, I pointed out that climate change is already here, with floods and heatwaves. Measures need to be taken now. Boverket has held dialogue rounds and has presented various proposals on limit values for climate for new buildings in order to comply with EU legislation.

Madam Speaker! The proposals have different levels of ambition, and here it is important to choose the most ambitious option that truly drives a climate transition. We know that the technology already exists today, and it is precisely the political will that needs to be realized.

In June, Boverket will submit its proposal to the government. This Friday, Naturvårdsverket will submit its proposal for a national plan for nature restoration, that is, how Swedish nature should be recreated. Urban nature is included in the plan, and it is a great opportunity to truly invest in more trees and nature in our cities and urban areas. But the underlying documents I have seen are unfortunately bland.

The authority has done a good job, but it has been constrained. The Tidö government wrote in the assignment to the authorities that the bar should be set as low as possible, that is to say that the proposed plan should not exceed the minimum level in the EU regulation. The flexibility that exists in the regulation shall be utilized to the full extent where possible.

I urge the Government to seize both opportunities and truly make a difference for people, for all children and elderly who are hit hardest by climate change, for animals and nature. Introduce limit values for the climate impact of buildings, which truly drive the transition in the construction sector – those that are in line with the Paris Agreement. Do not choose a paper tiger.

The current government has not impressed regarding the climate during this parliamentary term. We heard as recently as today that the minister has abandoned the climate goal for the transport sector. It was expected, in itself, that we would end up there with the policy that has been pursued – unfortunately.

The current government has also not impressed when it comes to protecting nature or making housing policy more fair and inclusive.

But I still want to plead, when the restoration plan is presented, to take the chance to make proper efforts and take measures for nature in our cities and urban areas. We in Miljöpartiet will do what we can to raise climate requirements, protect nature, and lower the thresholds to the housing market.

I move for approval of reservation 24 under point 16.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 February.)

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