Rental housing etc.

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Malmö's municipal housing company has in stages attempted to evict two adult brothers who are leaders in the violent organized crime in Malmö, which TV4 has reported on, among other things. But because it is the parents and not the brothers who are on the lease agreement, they have received rejections in both the rental tribunal and the court of appeal.

The case is not unique; I have encountered similar cases in both Gothenburg and Stockholm. It can involve teenagers using their parents' apartment and stairwell to deal drugs, or a family member storing weapons and explosives in the apartment's storage room. In some cases, it concerns pure acts of violence in connection with the apartment, such as assault, shootings, and explosions.

With today's regulations, it is difficult, bordering on impossible, for a landlord to evict such a family if there is no immediate connection between the crime, the housing, and the apartment holder.

Madam Speaker! The previous government gave an assignment to investigate increasing the possibilities for landlords to evict criminals. That was good, but it lacked an important aspect, namely the possibility to carry out an eviction when it was children who committed the crimes and the parents who were on the contract – also in cases where the children are adults. The new government has now given this as an additional assignment.

Madam Speaker! To me, it is very strange that the legislation is not already changed and looks the way it does. But it is even stranger that there are political parties in the Riksdag that do not want grossly criminal individuals to be able to be evicted.

Madam Speaker! In the debate, it sometimes sounds as if the eviction of criminals would be some form of punishment. That is not the case. The person who has committed a crime receives their punishment in a court and serves it in prison. Evicting serious criminals is about something completely different. It is about people's right to a good living environment and about protecting ordinary, honest people who happen to live as neighbors with these wrongdoers.

In Sweden, no family with children should have to be afraid to let the children out in the yard to play because other tenants are dealing drugs there.

In Sweden, no one should have to wake up to gunfire in the middle of the night or jump over bloodstains on the way to work or school when someone was assaulted in the stairwell during the night.

In Sweden, no one should have to be evacuated from their home in the middle of a family dinner because the police have found explosives in the neighbor's apartment storage room.

The person who behaves that way towards their neighbors has no right to stay, and it is remarkable that the chamber cannot unanimously stand up for the neighbors' right to a reasonable living environment.

Madam Speaker! At the end of March, I visited Stockholm City Mission and their housing office on Lundagatan in Södermalm. The housing office mediates, manages, and matches housing for people who are outside the regular housing market, and one notices an ever-increasing demand.

When one talks about homelessness, a distinction is often made between social homelessness and structural homelessness. Social homelessness is when someone, for various social reasons, such as illness or substance abuse, fails to arrange their own housing.

Structural homelessness is instead when someone cannot arrange a permanent housing because the housing market simply does not function.

If in the first case one is homeless due to social problems, it often becomes the opposite in the latter case. One gets social problems because one is homeless.

It is those who are structurally homeless, who must move between different second-hand contracts and who live in cramped, insecure and often very expensive conditions, who are the ultimate victims of the fact that the Swedish housing market does not function.

If in the past one spoke of homeless Pelle who slept on a park bench because he was an alcoholic, today one can just as well speak of eight-year-old Pelle who has to move around between different apartments because his mother cannot get a permanent housing contract.

Solving these problems is perhaps our most important challenge in Swedish housing policy. Initiatives against social homelessness such as Bostad först, which the government is now strengthening, are obviously important. The public sector must take a larger role for those who, for social reasons, are excluded from the housing market.

But measures against structural homelessness are also required. Greater freedom of choice, more housing forms, and more ways into the housing market are important to address structural homelessness. This could, for example, involve enabling different types of shared housing but also safer regulations for private rentals so that one does not need to move between different apartments.

Madam Speaker! We also need to reduce the barriers to arranging a home of one's own. It is not reasonable as it is today that two young adults with good educations and stable incomes are completely excluded from buying a home of their own due to harsh credit restrictions and high housing prices.

When calculating the cost of buying a newly built two-room apartment in one of our major cities, a monthly income of often over 100,000 kronor is required. This is with the remaining-to-live-on calculation, amortization requirements, calculation interest, and monthly fee included. This means that a couple where one is a police officer and the other is a teacher is completely hopeless without help from, for example, a wealthy parent.

That the previous government has in this way allowed home ownership to become a class issue is completely unacceptable.

Rental purchase models, which the Chamber has previously made an announcement about, can be a way to reduce barriers and enable more people to own their own housing.

It is also good that the government is reviewing the credit restrictions. They were introduced with good intentions, but the effect has been that one has both reins and a muzzle. It is not reasonable that young people are excluded from the market in that way.

For some parties in this chamber, it is ugly to own one's own home. In my world, owning one's own home is the absolute best thing one can do. Owning one's own home creates freedom and economic stability. But it also makes one feel a responsibility for one's immediate environment and one's local community. That more people own their homes is, for me, actually an intrinsic value.

Condominiums exist today in Sweden but are not a major phenomenon because the form of ownership is only permitted during new construction of housing. One way to further increase the freedom of choice on the housing market would have been to also allow the conversion of existing housing into condominiums. It would have created the possibility for a more flexible use of apartments and enabled even more housing and a more efficient use of the existing housing stock.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties were already agreed on a number of important issues in housing policy during the previous parliamentary term, this based on the fact that we shared both the problem picture and what we believe are the solutions to achieve a functioning housing market.

In the Tidö Agreement, there are three clear housing policy issues that the government is now working on. It is about regulatory simplifications for construction. It is about broadened ownership, and it is about increased safety in one's own residential area. Despite the fact that the government took office as late as in October, we are already underway in all of these issues.

The government is now restructuring Swedish housing policy - from a situation where only those with a lot of money in the bank, years in a housing queue, or good connections can get hold of a home, towards a housing market that works and where everyone can achieve a good housing career, we hope.

The government has worked on resolving the structural problems regarding how the existing stock is utilized - all in order to eliminate structural homelessness.

But the government is also working very hard to ensure that it is the grossly criminal gang member who is forced to move out of the stairwell. It is not reasonable that the family with children no longer dares to stay because the children cannot play outside in the courtyard.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! In David Josefsson's speech, the investigation that the government has presented regarding being able to more easily evict families when one of the children has committed a crime was mentioned. In the report, it was called an important political measure.

First and foremost, let me be clear: Vänsterpartiet has no interest whatsoever in protecting criminals, on the contrary. Criminals shall be prosecuted, period. I say this so that the debate here today does not get stuck on irrelevant accusations regarding Vänsterpartiet's positions when it comes to criminals specifically. I want this said. Vänsterpartiet agrees with Moderaterna that those who commit crimes shall be prosecuted.

I would like this debate today to be about all the others who are not criminals, that is to say the mother, the father and the siblings who have not committed crimes. They shall be punished according to the proposal put forward by David Josefsson's government.

Fundamentally, it is about collective punishment, which goes against all basic principles in a rule of law. People should not be punished for actions they have not committed. People who are not criminals should not be punished.

Why does David Josefsson want collective punishment in this country? Why should mothers, fathers, or younger siblings who may be studying or just living a normal life become homeless? Why should they be evicted from their homes because they happen to be related to someone who has committed a crime?

Where are all these people going to go? That is what I want an answer to. I have asked that question many times. Where are they going to go?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying exactly the same as I said in my speech: It is not about a punishment. It is not prosecution. Punishment and prosecution occur in court when one has committed a crime.

This is fundamentally not about those who are evicted. It is about the neighbors.

I would like to ask a counter-question. I have myself been in residential areas where all the residents know that there is an apartment where drugs are being sold. It is so well-known that the police have installed a camera outside to monitor it, but the landlord cannot evict the family, because it is not the one who is dealing who is on the contract.

The previous government commissioned an investigation on how it could be made easier to evict criminals, but they failed to include the fact that it is the child who commits the crime but the parents who are on the lease for the apartment.

Then my counter-question is: Why should we accept that families with children, for example, do not dare to let their children out in the yard because drug trafficking takes place there? Why should we accept that neighbors are woken up in the middle of the night by shootings and explosions or that they have to be evacuated because the police have found explosives?

Why can such not be a reason to evict the family to which the criminal belongs? Why can the perspective in this discussion not be about the neighbors who are honest and ordinary people but who suffer because their neighbors do not follow the law and expose them to danger and discomfort? That is my perspective in this issue.

I think you should be very clear that you do not accept that people can behave this way towards their neighbors. That is the government's opinion. We are very clear on that, and I am surprised that there are parties in this Riksdag that do not share that view.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! David Josefsson speaks about ordinary honest people. He proceeds from the premise that the innocent family members who have not committed crimes - we must emphasize that - are not honest people.

Have we lost our minds? This was a democratic country the last time I checked. We do not punish people who have not committed crimes.

Most of the parents I have met, perhaps all of them, are desperate about their children's situation and are fighting to get them away from the criminal environment. They are terrified of losing their children to violence. They fight every day. They call social services and the police. They do everything in their power to help their children who have ended up in criminal environments.

With this legislation, no parents will contact any authority to ask for help. Do you know why, David Josefsson? Yes, because they know that when they do, they will be evicted and have nowhere to go. Not even the government, which proposes this, can tell us and the entire Swedish people where these people are supposed to go.

I ask the question once more: When you evict 50, 100 or 1,000 families, where are they supposed to go? Can David Josefsson explain that to the Swedish people?

People talk about working to stop homelessness. But what they are doing is putting forward proposals that actually achieve the opposite. They are making more people homeless.

Furthermore, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is law in this country. You are making children homeless. That is a violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Vulnerable women living in violent relationships cannot become homeless. You are evicting women who need help! You evict them and put them on the street, and you cannot answer where they are supposed to go! What kind of government is this? Have we lost democracy in this country?

Vänsterpartiet never wants collective punishment. We are for those who commit crimes being prosecuted in accordance with the law - nothing else.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind everyone that all speeches are addressed through the Speaker. It is not directly to the opposing member that one addresses oneself, but it is to the Speaker that the message is directed.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, for raising this question!

There are a number of things that need to be clarified here. There is no investigation that says that as soon as one has been convicted of a crime, one should be evicted together with one's family.

This is about very specific cases, where crimes occur in or in connection with an apartment where, under current legislation, it is difficult to carry out an eviction. The previous government has presented a good investigation directive, but we supplement it by also including the situation where the parents are on the lease.

A parent who cares that the children are committing serious crime and wants the serious crime to stop naturally does not allow the apartment to be used as a drug den.

One does not allow explosives to be stored in the warehouses. One does not allow children to have automatic weapons and shoot at people on the farm. One does not allow drug trafficking on the farm.

This is not about this happening automatically. It is about when it becomes a nuisance and when it becomes a vulnerable situation for the families living nearby. When they become vulnerable, the landlord must have an opportunity to evict the criminal persons.

One can speak about the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Is it something we should have in this issue, it is well just the children's perspective. I think it is completely unacceptable that children should not be able to go out to the playground because a drug dealer is sitting there and dealing drugs - and then he goes into his apartment and fetches more drugs. I think it is completely unacceptable that children are woken up in the middle of the night because of gunfire or because the police have to evacuate because there are explosives in the warehouse.

It is that perspective we must have in this matter, Madam Speaker. It is that perspective that the government has. And it is incomprehensible to me that we cannot have a political consensus in this matter.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I will just clarify for all members' sake what I said earlier. Swedish parliamentary custom, as mentioned, means that one addresses the Speaker formally. This means that the speakers do not speak directly to each other. They do not, for example, say "you" or "you all" to each other. The speakers address the Speaker. Thus, they speak about each other and not to each other. I say this so that it is clear what the intention was with my previous contribution.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Member David Josefsson has raised a number of areas. We had two debates yesterday on two reports from the Committee on Civil Affairs on the housing policy area. And now this evening we have a debate on a report from the Committee on Civil Affairs on the housing policy area. David Josefsson has represented his party in all three.

I intended to bring up something other than what was raised in the previous exchange. We are, therefore, in a situation in Sweden where housing construction is collapsing. It looks very serious for the country's construction workers and for the country's housing seekers and those in need of housing. We run a great risk of building up a large debt for the future.

Madam Speaker! This government's priorities in sharp politics so far are, as I see it, tax cuts for Members of Parliament such as David Josefsson and myself, reduced fuel tax for the one who takes the monster truck from a Stockholm suburb to Stureplan and, most recently, a tax cut on plastic bags. We are actually waiting for the housing policy kick-off that our housing minister has spoken about.

We have also seen a prematurely phased out investment support for the construction of rental apartments, including student housing, with lower rent levels.

Hand on your heart, Member Josefsson! Is the Member really satisfied with these priorities in the situation we are currently in? We are heading into a recession. Construction is falling. It is a housing shortage, which, according to the Member, also feeds the structural homelessness. Is one then satisfied with having prematurely cut the investment support that existed?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Markus Kallifatides, for the contribution!

Madam Speaker! This is the third housing policy debate in two days - we had two yesterday, and we have one today. Yesterday we discussed exactly the housing policy issues that the member is raising. I say as I said then: I do not believe that the investment support was good policy when we had a boom and we fueled an already white-hot housing construction. And I do not believe that it is good now as we enter a recession.

I am concerned about the situation we see, and I am above all concerned about the high inflation. It is also the government's first priority to stop the high inflation, to lower the inflation.

No party proposed more money in the budget than we did for the investment support. But an investment support in this situation would only result in even higher inflation and even higher interest rates, and thus even more households would become even more vulnerable in the tough economic situation.

This government's priority is to achieve a change regarding the structural problems that exist and have existed in the housing market - both in booms and in recessions. I can say as a large Swedish trade union did: I am proud of the policy the government stands for, but I will not be satisfied until we have actually achieved a change regarding these issues.

But this government has been in power for half a year. I am, as I said, proud, but I am of course not satisfied. The work has only just begun, but we have good conditions to actually achieve a reorganization of Swedish housing policy.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, David Josefsson, for the answer! Combating inflation is the highest priority. We Social Democrats share the view that it is very important that inflation is dampened. According to the official forecasts, we are expected to return to the two percent level at some point in 2023 or 2024. That is how it looks. We hope that it will be so and that global trends do not work against us.

Lowering taxes for high- and middle-income earners and furthermore borrowing to do so is hardly an inflation-fighting fiscal policy. No economist in the world can claim that. Letting an existing support system continue under the rules then applicable for payments of investment support in 2024, 2025, and perhaps 2026 is probably not a big deal, so to speak. It is probably nothing that fuels any inflation, especially not as investments in new construction do not even enter the consumer price index, which is the measure of inflation that the Riksbank takes into account in its policy rate decisions, for example.

We Social Democrats proposed in this chamber an authorization of 8 billion kronor, according to the applicable rules. It was our proposal. I have heard the Minister for Housing and also David Josefsson speak as if there is no Social Democratic alternative proposal, Madam Speaker. But there is, and there was. I urge David Josefsson's party comrades to consider changing their opinion on this matter.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is true that the Social Democrats gave an authorization in the budget, but no extra money was added. That is where it becomes a problem. To give an authorization but not provide extra money is, in the name of honesty, not serious politics, and that was one of the problems with that proposal.

Another problem is that it actually fuels an already scorching or very hot construction market. We have seen how construction prices have gone up in recent years. It is admittedly not included in the consumer price index, but it is clear that there will also be effects on consumer prices when billions are pumped into the construction companies so that they should build more housing and there are no incentives to be cost-effective in the construction.

That is why I say: It was not good policy during a boom, but it is also not good policy during a recession.

This government will not propose any investment supports. Instead, a number of regulatory simplifications will be proposed. As I noted in the debate on planning and construction, it is something that all parties are now talking about. I truly hope that we can have a constructive discussion between the parties regarding various regulatory simplifications.

This is admittedly outside the scope of the rental housing report, but I extended a hand yesterday, and I continue to extend a hand today. I hope that we can have constructive discussions in the Civil Affairs Committee regarding these issues, because we must achieve structural changes in the Swedish housing market. Rules regarding construction are one of the absolutely most important areas of reform, where the government will exert great effort. If we can reach a political consensus on that, I am the first to welcome it.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Today is once again the time for the annual occasion when even the right is forced to talk about the rental apartment here in the chamber. It does not belong to the usual occurrences, one could say.

For Vänsterpartiet, the position and security of tenants is a very high priority. It is closely linked to other inequalities in society. All people, regardless of income, shall have the right to a secure home at a reasonable cost - including Sweden's 3 million tenants.

Today, the rented home is also the most expensive home, even though statistically it is in the rental apartments that the poorest primarily live. Simply put, it is those with the lowest incomes who are forced to spend the largest proportion of their already low disposable income on housing.

Madam Speaker! In Malmö, where I live, the large housing companies have given greed a completely new face. After the tenants have just received the worst rent increases in 30 years, six of the largest companies want to raise the rents once again from July 1 - three months after the first rent increase.

Heimstaden is one of the companies, and they justify the requirement for yet another rent increase by stating that "responsible management for us means ensuring a sound economy so that one can take care of both the property and the tenant in the best possible way." I wonder how they intend to take care of the tenants when they want to raise the rents twice within a year.

We know how households are struggling. They are struggling to make the money last for the most necessary things and scraping together money to be able to pay rents to some of Sweden's greediest companies, the same companies that for over a decade have earned enormous amounts of money from these tenants whom they now, without hesitation, trample on even though they are already lying. It is, in short, shameful.

In 2021, 37 percent of the rental income became pure profit for Heimstaden and three other housing companies that together own almost 100,000 apartments in Sweden. Between 2011 and 2021, that is in just 11 years, the rental income increased from 4 billion to 23 billion for these four companies. But now, Heimstaden, together with some other housing companies in Malmö, argues that this year's record-high rent increase of 5 percent is not enough to make the calculations work.

It is very difficult to feel respect for these real estate companies today. Over a gilded decade, they have increased their profit margins on the tenants by an unimaginable amount. If Heimstaden had truly dedicated itself to "responsible management," they would reasonably also have good margins now that times are not as good. But these margins are not felt by those affected – the single mothers, the poor pensioners, or the young people living in any of these companies' apartments.

It is political decisions that underlie this injustice. The injustices that today disadvantage the rental housing are, therefore, a direct consequence of state policy. It is also why political decisions can restore the balance and create a more just society. With the Left Party's policy, Madam Speaker, we can once and for all level the injustices.

Vänsterpartiet has many good and important proposals in today's report. With our proposals, life becomes safer for tenants. We protect not only the rental apartment as a form of tenure but also public housing as a form of ownership. We want to immediately stop all sales of public housing and once again allow public housing to grow larger and stronger.

We also continue to safeguard the Swedish model for rent setting, with collectively negotiated rents according to the utility value principle. The development of the negotiation system shall be handled by the negotiating parties, not through state interventions. We will always say no to market rents, no matter what the right-wing parties choose to call it. We will never abandon the ambition of a general housing policy and we oppose all forms of social housing in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! With the Left Party's housing policy, the state dares to invest heavily in both the renovation and energy efficiency of the existing rental housing stock and in the new construction of rental apartments with reasonable rents. Among other things, we want to reintroduce the investment support for the construction of rental apartments, and we want a state top loan that replaces a larger portion of the own capital. With our policy, the enormous state subsidies to the owned forms of tenure will give room for the rental apartment.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet will continue to fight to strengthen the position and rights of tenants. Today we have a situation where the upgrading of housing often leads to unreasonably high rent increases. Many cannot afford to stay in their homes after a renovation, and thus their security of tenure is also, in practice, compromised.

It is time for politics to deal with this absurdity called renovation charges. Landlords are exploiting current legislation for their own gain, and action must be taken against these unprofessional and often short-sighted landlords.

Madam Speaker! Given the enormous renovation needs that the rental properties of the Million Programme face, the number of renovation bills also risks increasing sharply if nothing is done. Tenants who have paid rent for their housing for decades should not have to be punished with rent increases of 50-100 percent just because landlords have not managed the ongoing maintenance that the rents should have been used for.

It is high time for the government to take action.

Vänsterpartiet proposes, among other things, that landlords should provide an estimate in advance of how high the rents will be after a renovation. We also want the government to review the rental legislation so that the balance between the parties' economic interests, in cases concerning renovations, becomes more equitable than it is today. As it stands now, the property owners win 90 percent of the conflicts that end up at the Rent Tribunal – a completely unreasonable balance that shows that there is practically no tenant influence left.

To prevent the most unserious actors from buying up worn-out rental housing stock, performing surface renovations and raising the rent significantly, and subsequently selling the properties with a good profit, Vänsterpartiet wants a so-called speculation stop to be introduced, according to the Danish model. This means that a landlord who buys a property and carries out a renovation may not raise the rent until after five years. As an additional protection against sharp and rapid rent increases during renovations, the substantial rent increases that do occur should be phased in at a calmer pace.

Madam Speaker! Non-profit housing companies shall be operated based on goals of social utility and social responsibility, not based on market principles and return requirements that lead to companies being forced to carry out involuntary sales of properties and to the housing companies being unable to carry out necessary upgrades of neglected million program properties without raising the rents unreasonably high. The requirement that the companies shall conduct their operations in accordance with business principles must be removed from the law.

Before the Act on Publicly Beneficial Municipal Housing Companies, the so-called allbolagen, entered into force in 2011, public housing was rent-standardizing in negotiations. Only public housing could therefore be used as comparison material in an assessment of an apartment's use value in the Rent Tribunal. Since the rents for public housing were set according to a cost principle, it meant that the use value received an "anchor" in the cost of operating a publicly beneficial housing company.

Madam Speaker! When the Allbolagen were introduced and the self-cost principle was abolished, it also meant that the public utility's role in setting rent norms was abolished. Rents must still be set based on the use value, but the parties no longer have the "anchor" to base them on. In my opinion, therefore, the public housing companies should again be operated based on goals of social utility and social responsibility, and the public utility should again become rent-normative when the parties negotiate rents.

Madam Speaker! Once again, it is time for me to stand here in the chamber and defend the children's right to housing against the landlords' right to profits. No one else seems to want to do so. But we must dare to protect the children in cases of eviction - not the landlords. Once again: It is not about questioning the landlord's right to have their rents paid, but rather about questioning why children are evicted from their homes at all when they, according to Swedish law and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, have a right to secure housing.

To throw a child into uncertainty is completely unacceptable, and I mean that it should be a government's task to take necessary initiatives to ensure that it does not happen. Vänsterpartiet wants the government to take measures that make it impossible to evict a family with children before the family has a full alternative housing option to move to.

Instead, the Swedish government chooses to invest in an investigation aimed at getting even more children evicted. At least it is an inevitable consequence of an ongoing government mandate that fundamentally aims to make it easier to evict innocent tenants. This week, the government also sharpened the investigation mandate so that the focus on evicting specifically families with children became even clearer.

In today's report, this investigation is raised as an important housing policy measure. What is the government proud of regarding this measure? But perhaps it is not so strange, since this happens to be one of the very few things that this government has achieved at all.

The goal is, therefore, to evict innocent tenants, who in many cases already have it very tough according to both the police and social services. These are people who have not committed any crime and children who become homeless. How can anyone believe that this will improve Bostadssverige?

In addition to the fact that the investigation has a fundamentally unlawful perspective, the common thread seems to be to trample on all those people who already have it toughest in society today. It is about men's violence against women. The same investigation examines how it can become easier for a landlord to terminate a lease agreement in cases of violence in close relationships.

More women who are being abused should be evicted from their homes. Where are they supposed to go? How does it help a woman subjected to violence to also lose her home? Where are she and the children supposed to go?

The proposal violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which became law in 2020. The Convention states that every child has the right to a reasonable standard of living, which includes housing. Where are those children supposed to go? With such a law, more children will be evicted, and more innocent adults will be evicted into homelessness. Where is everyone supposed to go?

It is collective punishment when one punishes people who have not committed crimes. To be punished for what someone else does is collective punishment and does not belong in a rule-of-law society.

This is also about a lack of justice. If poor tenants are to lose their housing if one of the children has committed a crime, it must reasonably also apply to wealthy villa owners. But we do not hear the government talking about villa owners. The stricter legislation is therefore only to apply to certain residents, namely the country's 3 million tenants. What happens when children or residents in villas and condominiums commit crimes is not revealed in this investigation and will surely never be in any future investigation either. It is also desired that it should become easier to evict tenants without first urging these to make amends.

Most of the parents I mentioned earlier are desperate about their children's situation when they end up in criminal environments. They are terrified of losing their children. We must help these parents instead of punishing them.

Madam Speaker! Criminals should be imprisoned, but their mothers, relatives, siblings, or parents should not be evicted. Evicting innocent people does not make Sweden safer. More homeless families with children do not reduce crime in Sweden – on the contrary. It is simple mathematics that one might think even the right would understand – but no. Neither the police nor social services think the proposal is good. Throw it in the trash, and focus on producing good, much-needed proposals to meet the housing shortage in Sweden.

With this said, I move for approval of reservation 6 of Vänsterpartiet.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In this report on, among other things, rental apartments, condominiums and other forms of tenure such as owner-occupied apartments and rent-to-own systems, the Committee on Civil Affairs proposes that the Riksdag reject all motions, primarily with reference to ongoing work and previous positions. We Kristdemokrater stand behind this assessment.

I would like to begin with a few words regarding what is being addressed under the heading Forfeiture of the rental apartment. We must both combat organized crime and create safe living environments for everyone. It is therefore positive that the government has appointed an inquiry to review the rental regulations upon termination of a rental agreement when the tenant or someone else living or staying there commits a crime in the apartment or in the surrounding area. Pending the results of the inquiry, there is currently no reason to propose any other measure from the Riksdag's side to increase the possibilities of evicting a tenant due to criminality in different ways.

So, a few words about student apartments. I want to begin by pointing out that there are no specific provisions in the Rent Act for just student housing. The Rent Act also applies to what we call student apartments in everyday speech. There is also no need to define just student housing as a separate form of housing. This applies especially because it is already possible today to set conditions in rental agreements that make it possible for landlords to verify that the tenant is actively studying, that is, fulfills the conditions for their time-limited rental contract.

Madam Speaker! A condominium is like a row house in height. You buy your apartment and become the legal owner. This means low costs as well as the personal freedom to rent out your home without permission or to sell to whomever you want. We Christian Democrats believe that this form, together with a rent-to-buy system, could increase the diversity of the housing market and give the individual greater opportunities to find the housing form that would suit them. I also believe that it would increase the stability and security in existing areas where pure rental apartments are in the overwhelming majority. An area with only rental apartments prevents the individual from building a housing career within their area. Instead, one is forced to move to another area, to great loss for both the individual and the residential area.

Seven out of ten want to own their home. Some of these may want to do so in the form of a condominium and through hire-purchase.

The Riksdag urged the previous government as recently as the spring of 2022 to promptly return to the Riksdag with proposals that make it possible to convert existing dwellings into condominiums and to appoint an inquiry with the purpose of investigating a rent-to-buy system. In view of this, and that work is ongoing regarding the relevant issues within the Government Offices, there is also no reason here for further measures from the Riksdag's side regarding condominiums and rent-to-buy systems.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for the approval of the Committee on Civil Affairs' proposal in report CU14.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Berntsson. He is a substitute in place of colleague Larry Söder, who this evening was concerned that we Social Democrats, in the event of a successful election and takeover of power in 2026, would reintroduce state support for the construction of rental apartments and student housing with lower rent levels.

I can assure you that there is reason for such concern because we Social Democrats have known since approximately the end of the Second World War that the state needs to support new construction to maintain the pace of construction also during economic downturns and thereby secure people's housing supply.

I would like, on this occasion, to pose a question to the member regarding the issue of housing supply and the availability of rental apartments, including student housing.

Our wise Center Party committee colleague Alireza Akhondi reminded us here in the chamber yesterday that the newly appointed government has made quite drastic decisions regarding the outcome of what the previous Alliance government initiated, namely the so-called Sweden negotiation. It revolves around the plans for new main railway lines in Sweden, and regarding these, negotiations have been held with a large number of municipalities on social planning issues including housing construction. These are large projects and large commitments.

I still want to ask the member of Parliament this late in the evening whether the member of Parliament has any perception of the consequences for the availability of rental apartments in the country going forward. Is the member of Parliament really completely satisfied with these decisions?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the members for the questions. They touch upon somewhat different areas.

To begin with the real estate investment grants, I understand my colleague Larry Söders concern. It seems to be the recurring proposal from the Social Democratic side when it comes to how one should try to ensure that more housing is built.

Unfortunately, we do not see that it has been a favorable path. Unfortunately, it has largely ended up in either more expensive housing from the start or in the owners' coffers in a way that was not intended. I do not question what one intends to achieve with this, but unfortunately, the result is not as accurate as it should be when one considers that, in any case, in the future, as much as 8 billion kronor will be allocated to what has been talked about but not included in the budget.

I do not have much time to answer the second question regarding the Sweden negotiations. But unfortunately, it was a major failure during these years that one got stuck for so long on high-speed trains. That caused the entire idea of the Sweden negotiations to be partially shot down in that part.

With that, my time is up, but it may be possible to return in a later exchange of remarks.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Magnus Berntsson for the answer.

Despite my short time as a Member of Parliament from September 2022 until today, I have already on many occasions heard it said from the bourgeois side and the SD side of the chamber that the investment support, the state support for building rental apartments with lower rent levels, would not have worked in any way.

The only evaluation I have been able to find, conducted by Evidens, draws the clear conclusion that not least in the medium-sized and smaller cities in Sweden, the investment support has caused construction to increase by reaching groups in certain income brackets.

This is the only evaluation I am aware of. I am proceeding on that basis. It would be interesting to hear if there is any other background to the strong conviction I hear from the member's side of the chamber that this support has not functioned.

We Social Democrats have argued, as we have since the Second World War, approximately, that support for new construction is a very important part of a social housing policy where people's needs are met by the market's supply.

It was a question to the member on this. What is the basis for this strong conviction that the investment support is not something good?

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

We are of the same age in this chamber, so we will hopefully have reason to debate many more times. But in the Committee on Civil Affairs, I am not keeping the member company, so there he may continue the discussion with my colleague Larry Söder.

Actually, the question I received now and the one I received earlier about the Sweden negotiations are somewhat related.

The really big effect on housing construction depends on the municipal side providing builders with available land. That was actually largely what the Sweden negotiation was about, because a large part of the financing would be about land. Therefore, that is where a large part of the solution lies – even if one does not link it to high-speed trains.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Our economy is being held back by a shortage of housing in almost the entire country. There must be a change in that.

We Social Democrats therefore want to see a general and social housing policy. It is fundamentally about three overarching tasks: to build more and sustainable homes, to counter social segregation and thereby improve the conditions for equal upbringing and living conditions, and to also make it possible for economically weak groups to meet their housing needs.

Segregation in our country is not broken by special solutions for the resource-weak. Housing and tenure forms shall be mixed. Overcrowding shall be combated with community building. It is therefore that we shall continue to build rental apartments that ordinary people can afford to live in, in the whole country and in all areas.

In the area of housing supply, we Social Democrats have therefore submitted a long series of proposals, most of which are based on the latest government inquiry on the area.

In the investigation report Lower the threshold to a good home, a new housing supply law, a national action plan for housing supply, new tools for state steering of housing construction, and reinforced housing allowances as the effective tool for more equal upbringing conditions for all children were proposed, among other things.

We Social Democrats are also clear that state funding is needed for the construction of new housing, not least in the situation we have now with a complete collapse in housing construction.

That is why we Social Democrats in the Riksdag have proposed to clear the queue of applications that exist regarding the investment support for rental housing with lower rent levels and to develop and introduce a new and even better designed state investment support for rental housing, including student housing, with conditional requirements for social responsibility – that is to say, Madam Speaker, state financial support for the construction of new rental apartments.

Furthermore, we have proposed that the Public Procurement Act, LOU, should not be applied to public utility housing companies - that is to say that newly built municipally owned rental apartments should be able to become cheaper and not be stopped by legal processes regarding procurement issues. These are two very sharp reform proposals for more rental apartments, which the right wing has rejected.

Madam Speaker! Within the framework of the report we are discussing here tonight regarding the area of rental housing, we Social Democrats propose that municipalities be given the right to specify the form of tenure in the detailed development plan – that is, the state gives municipalities a better opportunity to plan for a community construction with mixed forms of tenure.

In addition, we Social Democrats propose a slower and longer phase-in period for rent increases during renovation, strengthened security of tenure in the rental of private housing, and that luxury renovations aimed at replacing tenants in the existing rental housing stock be stopped, among other things by introducing the concept of "reasonable" as a basis for assessment in appeals to the Rent Tribunal when it concerns renovations.

We therefore have concrete proposals to put a stop to so-called renoviction. These are proposals so that Sweden's tenants can actually feel secure in their housing.

We Social Democrats propose that the processing times in the rental tribunals regarding unauthorized subletting be shortened and that the rules for lodgers be tightened, that is, that we get the rental market in order and that we also turn over these stones to combat gross organized crime.

But the right-wing majority - that is, the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals - proposes that the Riksdag should reject all of this.

Madam Speaker! We naturally stand behind all our motions, but for the sake of time, I move for the approval of only our reservations 4 and 7.

What do the majority of the Riksdag and the Sweden Democrat-controlled government do instead of approving all our good proposals? Well, they have abolished the investment support for the construction of rental apartments and student housing with lower rent levels, and they have also cut the support prematurely. In the Riksdag, they have said no to exempting public utilities from the law on public procurement. None of the proposals from the large state inquiry on a socially sustainable housing supply have been moved forward yet. The inquiry on the preliminary screening of owners during property acquisitions has received additional directives that suggest that they actually do not want better preliminary controls.

More and safer homes, including rental apartments, that is not happening. Better conditions for tenants, we are not getting that. This parliamentary majority prioritizes lower taxes for high-income earners and lower taxes on gasoline even for those who drive a monster truck from some Stockholm suburb into Stureplan.

Tens of thousands of homeless, hundreds of thousands overcrowded, children and young people who cannot get a place to study in their own homes, hundreds of thousands of housing-anxious people on an insecure secondary market, that is, millions of truly housing-seekers, are forced to stand back. We even have difficulty securing apartments for crime victims, often women and children, fleeing from violence in close relationships.

There will be no proposals on reinforced social prerequisites or on municipal rent guarantees, no proposals on how municipalities should be persuaded to take their responsibility according to the Act on Municipalities' Housing Provision Responsibility, the Social Services Act, or the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is Swedish law. Instead, it is identity politics and culture wars that prevail - against windmills, both real wind turbines and pure fantasies such as "socialists only like rental apartments."

No, we Social Democrats want to build a stronger society, and that requires real politics – legislation, budget items, and state governance. And that policy must be established here in Sweden's Riksdag. Such is our constitution. That is why, Madam Speaker, the Speaker stands higher in rank than the Prime Minister.

We Social Democrats often speak about the rental housing, for the simple reason that owner-occupied housing has for a very long time and in every way and respect been favored by current tax rules, rules for municipal public utilities, and bourgeois municipal political decisions regarding, among other things, land use. That is the reality, Madam Speaker.

But we Social Democrats detest injustices. In our folkhem, there shall be neither pampered children nor stepchildren. The Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals want to continue to play with owned housing. In the right's folkhem, it teems with stepchildren, and they live almost without exception in rental housing.

And it might get even worse! Now there is talk again about market rents in the entire rental housing stock. Who knows, maybe there is something beyond all our Social Democratic proposals to actually debate in next year's report on rental housing and more from the Committee on Civil Affairs here in Sweden's Riksdag? We shall see, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Finally, it is my turn at the rostrum! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 17 in the report.

More measures are needed for better control of the housing market. We see that in large stocks in Sweden today, we have problems with the sale of registered addresses. We have black rental contracts. This is a market that is incredibly large and which is also one of several reasons why we have serious organized crime today. This is part of how they find their money for their organization.

Money laundering, black market work, tax crimes, fraud, and benefit fraud are occurring. People maintain their residence permits to have access to Swedish healthcare by being registered at an address. The links to the sale of registered addresses and black rental contracts are very numerous. Therefore, it is also so important that we address this area immediately.

The authorities need to tighten supervision today and cooperate with one another to detect these individuals who use the Swedish system through registered addresses and black rental contracts. Information needs to be shared, and registers between authorities need to be cross-referenced to better detect this criminal activity. Landlords need opportunities to check for any irregularities regarding the population registration. It needs to become mandatory for tenants to report subtenants to the landlords. These measures are needed to gain better control over the Swedish housing market, to once again ensure safety in our residential areas.

Part of this is to improve the population registration through the census that is to be carried out. The hope is that the work will yield such a result that one can move forward and jointly operate registers between the authorities, that landlords shall receive greater powers to check irregularities in the population registration, and that all these points shall be addressed so that we get a system where we can counteract organized crime in Sweden today.

The Sweden Democrats have a number of proposals in the report, and I am pleased that parts of them have been implemented, which we are talking about here today. Investigations have also been proposed, and investigations are also ongoing regarding the proposals. We also have announcements that go as far back as 2016. Together with the government parties, we have sent announcements to the then government on issues that are included in the report.

It is immensely pleasant now, after the election, to stand here and be able to tick off question after question that the Sverigedemokraterna have driven in opposition during all these years, with the knowledge that we can now implement all the measures we have proposed in order to once again be able to get powerful measures to counter the insecurity in our residential areas and to counter crime.

The lack of property management and maintenance of properties is one of the issues that we know we have great support for. It is argued that one is awaiting the new legislation in this area to see the effect of it. If it is not sufficient, we know that we have previously had the government parties behind us to drive the issue.

Counteracting overcrowding, which has spread under the previous government, is something that the inquiry is looking at today. There, we can obtain concrete proposals from the government to counteract overcrowding.

We also have an ongoing investigation regarding evicting criminals and terminating their lease agreements. It is an incredibly important proposal to tackle crime in our Swedish society.

Madam Speaker! Powerful measures are required in Sweden today to recreate a safe, prosperous society. Measures are needed. And then one needs to use the iron fist. The old government has not dared to tackle these issues. Now we have a government with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna that is implementing a number of different proposals and measures that will roll on during the mandate period and that will ensure that we can get Sweden back on its feet and recreate a safe society.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that Member Roger Hedlund places great emphasis on various types of security-creating measures in the housing policy area and also regarding the rental housing. There have been a number of investigations for quite some time now that the government will now have on its table as a result of the previous government's initiation of these investigations. I assume that there will be a debate on concrete proposals further ahead, when such actually exist.

I want to raise another safety issue that is very large and important for the country's tenants, namely how much money one should pay every month in rent. I note that it has been possible to see in the press that it is being reported clearly on and that voices are being raised to once again raise the issue of market rents, perhaps not only in new production but in the entire stock.

I will pose a question to the member regarding the Sweden Democrats' position on these issues. I shall quote from an article from March 31 in Dagens Arena, where the question is raised and where Roger Hedlund's party colleague Mikael Eskilandersson states: "We definitely say no to free rent setting. The government can seek support from us for a change of the system for presumptive rents, but not such a change." Dagens Arena asks: "Do you have any proposal for another change?" "We have started to look at the question but have not landed on a fixed position," says Mikael Eskilandersson.

My question to Roger Hedlund, Madam Speaker, is: Can the tenants in the country feel secure that the SD-led government will not return with proposals on market rents?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Markus Kallifatides, for your question in the debate!

The voters should be worried about the Social Democrats' incredibly great thirst to rule this country. Those who have chosen to compromise on what they claim to stand for are the Social Democrats. In the 2018 election campaign, they went incredibly hard against the Sweden Democrats and said that with the Sweden Democrats in government after the election, one would get market rents in Sweden. What happened? Well, instead we got a January agreement where the Social Democrats agreed to introduce market rents in Sweden.

The voters should be worried about the Social Democrats. The voters should be worried that the Social Democrats will win the next election, because then we will get market rents in Sweden. One has been prepared to compromise on that issue to gain power in Sweden. What says that one would not do it again? Absolutely nothing.

Madam Speaker! I can provide an answer to the question when it comes to the Sweden Democrats. With the Sweden Democrats' influence, market rents will not be introduced in Sweden. We have been clear about this from the very beginning on this issue. We have been clear all the way. It is not we who have sold out on this issue. For us, it has been important, and when we say that something is important to us, we mean it. One only has to look at the migration policy debate - we do not give up.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! It will be exciting to follow the developments regarding this, especially for the country's tenants.

A small correction: As far as I know, market rents have never been introduced, neither in new production nor anywhere else under any government, and I can assure Roger Hedlund that we Social Democrats will not advocate for anything such. This I can guarantee to the country's tenants.

But I appreciate the answer to the question so far and thank you for this evening, Madam Speaker.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats thank the Sweden Democrats for the fact that market rents were not implemented in this country. It was the Sweden Democrats who raised the motion of no confidence against the government and ensured that market rents could not be implemented.

In the January agreement, the Social Democrats signed on to implementing market rents. It is not possible to get out of that matter.

Regarding the situation we see in Sweden today, it is the Social Democrats who have ensured that our tenants have a tough situation. After many years of heavy migration to Sweden, we see an enormous housing shortage today, Madam Speaker. There is only one party that has the primary responsibility for this, and that is the Social Democrats.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I just had a déjà vu feeling when I listened to the latest exchange of remarks. It felt as if I were here in the chamber in the summer of 2021 and heard very strange arguments about whether free rent setting in new production de facto meant market rents or not. Let me be crystal clear, and I turn in particular to the Sverigedemokratierna member who obviously needs to read up on how rent setting de facto works in Sweden. Free rent setting in new production does not mean the introduction of market rents.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's housing market has obvious and serious systemic flaws that will not be resolved on their own or as long as politics does not have the courage to address the whole. The truth is that the owner-occupied market and the rental market are two sides of the same coin. One cannot address one without addressing the other.

The result of the political reluctance to act has created the segregation and the social problems whose consequences can be read about in the media almost daily.

Madam Speaker! I grew up in the marginalized area of Tensta. Now I live in another marginalized area, namely Danderyd.

Ola Rosling sometimes speaks about the happiness paradox. It means, in short, that if we succeed in moving ourselves out of segregation, exclusion, or whatever we choose to call it, our place is filled by people with even worse circumstances than those who do not move out. So on one level, my happiness becomes the area's unhappiness, if one were to put it bluntly.

The solution is not, as some naively believe, to collectively punish families for individual ruffians. For I do not believe that collective punishment will apply to rental apartments in the better-off areas. No, no one is likely that naive. The solution is more difficult than that, and it requires that this assembly works, compromises, and sees the forest for all the trees.

Madam Speaker! There is a great deal of research that should be taken seriously when we discuss housing policy in general and the rental market in particular. On one level, I am quite saddened that this debate is becoming so fragmented. Yesterday, we stood in this chamber and discussed other reports concerning housing policy. But it is only when one puts the whole together that one actually sees the forest for all the trees.

For example, SNS presented a report a few years ago in which they state that rent regulation is the cause of the long housing queues, the unauthorized trade of rental contracts, and that many rental apartments are converted into condominiums. With the help of statistics on Stockholm's housing queue and the number of newly produced homes, the researchers have mapped out that there is no clear connection between the length of the housing queues and housing construction. They also show, with the help of data from Bostadsförmedlingen, that rent regulation is a poor means of helping the housing market's weak actors, i.e., households with low incomes. That is what the research says.

No, that's not true, the Left Party members mutter and surely demand a rebuttal, which I hope for. But facts are facts. But I told the Tenants' Association, whom I met today, that they also have many good points that must also be addressed in their entirety.

Our taxation model disadvantages rental housing as a form of residence. It is a trend that has been ongoing for three decades. The political rhetoric about failure if one does not own their home, as my Moderate colleague was pointing out, also creates a stigmatization that admittedly leaves invisible but very painful scars for many.

Madam Speaker! As a liberal member of the Center Party, I want to see competition neutrality between different forms of housing. We should not have a system where I, as a resident of Danderyd, de facto get paid to have a roof over my head, while the younger Alireza had to pay the lion's share of his disposable income for the same need. It is unreasonable, and that is not how a liberal society should function.

To solve the problems, many different measures need to be taken. It is about reforming the utility value principle and reforming the tax system. Both interest deductions, capital gains taxation, and other taxation tools must be synchronized so that we create fair models between different forms of housing and so that we achieve mobility in the housing market and get the move chains started.

Yesterday, I raised a number of other issues regarding the utilization of all vacant properties throughout Sweden. We talked about how we stimulate construction in the countryside to initiate a chain that makes the whole thing hold together.

But today I still want to emphasize that all the problems we see in the housing market, but also in the real estate market, can be addressed if one truly dares to start using some of the 62 public inquiries that have been conducted since 2006 within the housing market area. Everything has been investigated.

Madam Speaker! I naturally support all of the Center Party's motions in this report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 2.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 19 April.)

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