Rental housing etc.

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Almost to the day a year ago, I visited Stockholm Stadsmission's newly built apartment building in Farsta strand. At that time, the building was largely finished, and the craftsmen were doing the final touches. Actually, it is two building bodies, a slightly taller apartment building and a row with four terraced houses. A month later, the tenants moved in. Then, the building and the terraced houses also created increased life and increased safety in the small neighborhood square.

The house is aimed at people who have difficulty securing long-term housing on their own. These are people who, in more technical terms, can be called structurally homeless. They are homeless because the housing market today does not function.

The model is called the Kymmendö model after the plot on which the house is built: Kymmendö 4. Stockholms Stadsmission intends to use the house to develop a management model for socially sustainable housing that actors in the housing market can take forward and scale up.

But, Madam Speaker, a core part of the model is also that it is a cooperative rental. The reasons are two: one is more flattering than the other. The flattering reason is that a cooperative rental creates a sense of community and influence among the residents regarding the management of the building.

The less flattering part is that it is a legal prerequisite to be able to have differentiated rents, which the model is based on. The Kymmendö model is, in fact, not actually permitted according to Swedish rental legislation. Making apartments into cooperative rental units is a legal loophole for Stockholms Stadsmission to be able to succeed.

Madam Speaker! The housing researcher Linda Lövgren at KTH states when she is interviewed about her research on the Kymmendö model in the latest issue of Fastighetstidningen: ”And it is perhaps something many do not know, but the use-value system is not just a way to counteract high rents, it is also a barrier against setting rents that are too low.”

The interview with Linda Lövgren is one of several articles in the newspaper on the theme of visions for rental housing, where various industry representatives talk about how they see the rental housing as a form of housing could be developed. What is highlighted from the industry representatives concerns everything from additional services such as cleaning to climate-smart living and sharing services. But besides a strong will to change in order to create better housing, the answers are characterized by the fact that almost all ideas are difficult or impossible to implement as today's regulatory framework is designed.

As the architect Cord Siegel, who built the first apartment building without car parking, Cykelhotellet Ohboy in Malmö, expresses it: ”We are building in functions so that one can live completely without a car. Normally, a tenant pays 4,000 kronor a month for their car ownership. But we can create a product that is better than what the car industry produces. It would be a dream to be able to charge 3,000 kronor more in rent for that. But that is not possible with the rent-setting system.”

Or as the property owner Mikael Neuman in Gothenburg states a bit more succinctly: ”Today, a property owner can receive as much payment for a well-maintained apartment as for one with a significantly lower standard. You are therefore paid no matter how you do it, not for what you actually deliver.”

That is why we Moderates want to change the rules for rent setting in Sweden, Madam Speaker! There is probably not one country in the Western world that does not have regulated rents in some form. At the same time, we can observe that the Swedish regulatory framework creates exclusion and long housing queues.

It creates bad incentives to build new rental apartments. As the article series in Fastighetstidningen shows, it is also a barrier for landlords to develop the rental housing to become greener, more socially sustainable and better.

I hope that we can soon have a larger political discussion about the rent regulation and about how we can leave the current regulatory framework and create conditions for a better, more inclusive and innovative regulatory framework. But just today, Madam Speaker, there is no majority in this chamber for such changes.

Madam Speaker! If one leaves the larger discussion about the rules for rent setting, there are a number of other questions where the Moderate-led government is now delivering within the area covered in this committee report. This includes, among other things, restoring the presumption rent system as it is intended to function.

In two Court of Appeal judgments from 2022, a new case law was created that in practice undermined the production of new rental apartments, because the court in the judgments interpreted the legislation so that rents in the presumption rent system can in practice only be increased by an amount corresponding to half of the increases in the utility value system. The effect has been that the production of new rental apartments has dropped drastically.

An investigation presented in the autumn has submitted proposals on how rents can be adjusted again to correspond to the cost development, but also on how negotiations regarding presumption rents can be improved. The Government has announced that a bill will be submitted before the summer.

Madam Speaker! Another part of the same investigation, which will be presented later this year, concerns simplifying private rentals. Today, large parts of our housing stock are poorly utilized, because the person who owns the housing either does not live there at the moment or does not utilize the entire area. At the same time, complicated rules make people hesitate to rent out.

By making it easier to rent out a condominium that stands empty or a part of a larger villa that is not used, more homes can be made available or even created. These are homes that are needed for, for example, students who are going to study for a shorter period or people who are going to work in a location temporarily.

Madam Speaker! The same investigation has also received additional directives to review the regulatory framework for so-called company housing and shared housing. Company housing refers to housing that companies rent to their employees via intermediaries, something that, under current regulations and new judgments, has proven to be extremely complicated.

Shared housing is an innovation in the housing market that can most easily be described as a student dormitory for people who are not students, that is, one rents a private room and at the same time shares various common areas such as a TV room and kitchen. It is also a housing form that has proven difficult to reconcile with the Swedish regulatory framework.

To return to my introduction: current Swedish rental law regulations do not open many opportunities for innovation or new forms of housing.

Madam Speaker! Another matter that the report addresses, despite its name, is the introduction of a housing cooperative register. A number of actors, such as banks, brokers, and housing cooperatives, have long requested a state housing cooperative register to move past today's situation. Currently, each individual association is responsible for its own list of housing cooperative owners. It is administratively cumbersome and inconvenient for both the association and the resident, as well as for banks and brokers.

Despite the fact that the previous Social Democratic government appointed two inquiries, the first in 2015, they never managed to produce a bill and actually propose a central housing cooperative register. This government is now doing what others only talk about. A draft for a referral to the Council of Legislation was presented in March this year. The hope is that the Riksdag will be able to make a decision this autumn.

On the same theme, the Riksdag has twice submitted motions to investigate both the conversion of existing housing into condominiums as well as the introduction of a rent-to-own system. This occurred during both the previous and the period before that. But it is only now that the proposals have actually been investigated, within the framework of the inquiry *Fler vägar till att äga sitt boende* (More ways to own your home). The consultation period has just expired, and the responses are now being prepared in the Government Offices.

For us Moderates – obviously in contrast to the Social Democrats – it is important that more people are given the opportunity to own their home, and that is why there must also be more ways to get there. An owned home must not be reserved for those with high salaries or great wealth, as it was under the previous government.

Madam Speaker! As a Moderate, I want to see a greater breadth of housing and forms of living. Today's housing market is extremely standardized. You are expected to live in an apartment – and then a rental or a condominium – or own a small house. But that is not how society looks. We humans want to live both larger and smaller. We want to live in different ways during different parts of life. Sometimes we want to live for a long time. Sometimes we just want to live for a short time. We want to rent, own, or rent-to-buy depending on age, family situation, preference, and taste. Sometimes we want to be able to rent out all or parts of our housing.

We Moderates want to reform the regulatory framework to create more housing forms but also greater variation among the current forms. This opens up opportunities for innovation and development for landlords and property developers. Fastighetstidningen's article series, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, shows that there is enormous development potential. But there are also enormous obstacles in the legislation.

Madam Speaker! We could have a Sweden with more socially sustainable housing, like those in Farsta strand. We could have more housing with mobility services instead of parking garages. And we could have more landlords who simply go that extra mile in their management if they can be paid for it. But it requires political courage and a will for reform to dare to discuss a deregulation of the rental housing in this chamber.

Madam Speaker! 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! After a few dark years with the Tidö parties in power, I have realized that I will never be able to influence or speak reasonably with a government that so openly shows its contempt for ordinary people. Today, I choose instead to turn directly to the people, to all of you who struggle and pay taxes but still cannot make ends meet, to all of you who live in rented housing and wonder how much longer you will be able to afford to stay. I turn to all the children who are evicted from their homes because politics fails them. I hope and believe that most of you have already both seen and understood what is happening in our country, but to those who still hesitate, I turn to you today.

Madam Speaker! I am here today to speak about rental housing; it is today's theme. In Sweden, a total of 3 million people live in rental housing today. The poorest households live in rental housing, but not everyone who lives in rental housing is poor. It is ordinary workers, teachers, nurses and construction workers who live in rental housing, wall-to-wall with pensioners, students and the unemployed.

Rental housing is a form of housing for everyone and a secure form of housing surrounded by social protection legislation in favor of the residents – the tenants. It is a form of housing that does not require you to have saved capital or belong to a wealthy family. But the security is under attack, Madam Speaker, and the attack comes from Rosenbad. The government is tearing down and selling out. They blame and mock the most vulnerable. When people are evicted and children are forced to move around without a fixed point in their lives, the government chooses to protect the property owners' profits, not the tenants and their homes.

Madam Speaker! A new study shows that the rich in today's Sweden can live ten years longer than the poor. The gaps continue to increase, and they have increased for many years. In recent years, the high inflation has erased around ten years of real wage increases. The entire working class's progress over a decade has been thrown in the trash, with the government's good memory. Prices for electricity, housing, food, and fuel have skyrocketed, but wages stand still. More and more households can no longer manage their basic livelihood.

The Enforcement Authority continues to deliver new grim figures. The statistics remain figures without faces, but behind the figures are real people. Unfortunately, the representatives of the Tidö parties could not care less. Behind the figures regarding the constantly increasing number of evictions are real children, who grow up with an anxiety in their stomachs that the next move will not be to a new room – but to a shelter. There is also the single mother who can no longer pay for either rent or food. There are those in debt who have ended up with the Enforcement Authority because they have been forced to buy food on credit. Behind the figures are all these tragic human fates.

Madam Speaker! All of this hits directly into the world of rental housing. That is where the crisis is felt first. Today, more than 330,000 more people live in material and social poverty than three years ago. It is 170,000 more who live in serious poverty. More than ever before, people can no longer manage to pay the rent, buy clothes for the children, and eat their fill.

The Swedish Enforcement Authority argues that the development is worrying. I argue that it is terrifying. The reality around us is burning, but the government is closing its eyes. It is a failure. It is a gigantic betrayal. I hardly need to mention that all the derailed figures I just read out have accumulated during the time the Tidö parties have governed Sweden?

Madam Speaker! Among tenants, there is a group that is overrepresented, and that is single people with or without children. Within this group, women are overrepresented. The single men, in fact, live to a large extent in detached houses, according to SCB. When the policy chooses to rule out rental housing, it is, in other words, primarily women that are being ruled out. It is primarily those who are affected, and single women with children are affected extra hard. My guess is that there probably has never been a Swedish government that as clearly as the Tidö government despises rental housing and at the same time is completely obsessed with detached houses. Perhaps it won't get any clearer than this: A housing policy by men, for men.

Madam Speaker! The crisis we are living in is created by politicians who no longer care. Like mold on a berry, the Tidö parties removed the housing supplement that many needed to cover their rent. With SD as the driver, they also stopped the extra child benefit of 1,250 SEK which could at least slightly help the economy for the most vulnerable. Could it possibly be that SD were afraid that some immigrant would receive the benefit and therefore chose to stop it?

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties are lowering taxes and increasing subsidies for the richest and worsening the safety net for everyone else. To the people, I want to say: It is difficult to understand and impossible to accept. Let us gather our dissatisfaction next autumn and change the government!

Madam Speaker! In times of unemployment, increased poverty and more evicted children, it is only the landlords' incomes that the Tidö parties protect. Just like last year, the right wing today takes a stand against the rental housing and against ordinary people's opportunity to get their own home.

We have a government that does not mention the important role of public housing in society, which lacks the will to protect tenants against slum landlords, and which lacks reforms that can increase people's opportunities to have a home of their own. It is simply a lot that is missing, both in the government's policy and in today's report.

Madam Speaker! For years, property owners have extracted billion-dollar profits from the tenants' payments, and in many cases, they have neglected to maintain their buildings. When times get tougher over a couple of years, it is therefore the tenants who are to be punished and the landlords we are to feel sorry for. This cannot be serious.

Demanding enormous rent increases from tenants as soon as the cash flow diminishes is not only cheeky, but it is also poor management. How is it possible that all the money ran out on the same day the recession set in? One might think that at least some should have been saved for worse days.

It is not the role of politics to carry out rent negotiations, but there is a limit to everything. Households have suffered enough. The single women have suffered enough. The pensioners have suffered enough. After several years of unreasonable rent increases, it is high time that we begin to discuss a rent freeze, a breathing space for all those who truly deserve it.

Madam Speaker! In the report Lower the threshold to a good home, which the government often refers to when they try to make us believe that they care about ordinary people, there were several proposals regarding landlords' requirements for prospective tenants. Today, each individual landlord decides which requirements shall apply for a potential tenant.

All too often, completely unreasonable requirements are set. It is not just about extremely high income requirements, but also about other irrelevant requirements, such as that the work must not be too far from the residence. Income from, for example, unemployment insurance, sickness benefit, and housing allowance is also not counted by many landlords. I mean that this creates an incredibly high threshold to enter the housing market, but it is a threshold that can easily be broken down by a government that truly wants to.

Vänsterpartiet believes that no landlords, whether public or private, should be able to set unreasonable income requirements or other irrelevant requirements on incoming tenants. A serious government would understand how important such a reform is for those who today stand furthest away from the housing market.

Madam Speaker! In recent decades, a large number of rental apartments, both private and non-profit, have been converted into condominiums. The Tidö government has clarified through the investigation *Fler vägar till att äga sitt boende* that they want even more to be sold. This time, the rental apartments are to be converted into owner-occupied apartments. I have said it before, but I am happy to repeat it: the Tidö government's obsession with ownership is devastating for Swedish housing policy.

All policy from the Tidö parties seems to have the primary purpose of attacking the most economically vulnerable groups in society. But in their so-called housing policy, this becomes extremely clear. The conversions of rental apartments are justified by that "more people should be able to rent out in sublet."

Parallel to the eagerness for sales, another Tidö Inquiry is underway. It is to review the rules for private individuals' rental of owned housing. The focus in the latter inquiry is that the person who owns a home should be able to earn even more money than today on their rental. It is thus a proposal that is to provide even more generous tax deductions and provide even more profit through even higher secondary rentals.

Madam Speaker! How do they have the nerve to call this housing policy? It is one big mockery of everyone who today stands far from their own home.

Vänsterpartiet believes that the government should immediately throw these two investigations into the wastebasket, where they belong. Remember, good people, that private rental will never create any new homes and that fewer rental apartments will never solve the housing crisis.

Madam Speaker! The best interests of the child must be in focus. We have the Convention on the Rights of the Child as law in Sweden. Society has a responsibility to prevent children from becoming homeless, but despite this, children continue to be evicted in Sweden.

With a heavy heart, I read in the media about the family with multiple children in Malmö who were evicted after the Rent Tribunal established that during the years they lived in their apartment, they were late with two rent payments. Both rents reached the property owner's account two and four days late, respectively.

I read further on the Children's Ombudsman's website about evicted families with children in extremely vulnerable situations. Small children end up in temporary housing after eviction, shared with people who have substance abuse problems. These are temporary accommodations characterized by insecurity, violence, and drugs.

Then I read the Tidö parties' policy with the same sorrow in my heart. For while more and more children lose their homes and their security, the Tidö parties deliver reforms that will lead to even more unlawful evictions of children. With the legislative changes that followed the bill Measures for safer residential areas, the situation risks escalating even further.

Vänsterpartiet demands that the rental housing rules be changed so that it is not possible to evict a family with children before they have a full-fledged home to move to. It should also not be possible to evict households where children live without first urging the tenant to rectify the situation and notifying social services. The Government should also as soon as possible return with proposals on how a family who has lived together with someone who loses their contract due to a criminal act can stay, or alternatively can be helped to a new permanent home.

We will never give up the fight for a Sweden where everyone has the right to a home. A government that does not care about how people live is a government that does not care about people, period. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 12.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! The number of housing units being built in Sweden decreased when inflation soared and interest rates increased. Suddenly, it became expensive to finance housing construction, while the final cost was difficult to oversee. Since rental apartments already required state support to be built, that construction also plummeted.

The situation today is more favorable with an inflation that has been pushed back and interest rates that have been lowered, but they are still higher than before. To get housing construction started, far-reaching reforms are needed. But housing construction should not be boosted temporarily but must be able to remain at a higher level even in a recession.

Then it is pleasing that the construction of student housing is being streamlined, something we will debate next week.

It is therefore gratifying to see that the coastal protection issue is being reformed in a first step and facilitates housing construction.

Then it is pleasing that the regulatory framework for building permits is being reviewed to exempt more conversions and extensions from requiring a building permit.

It is pleasing that the noise levels and how they should be calculated are being reviewed in order to increase flexibility. The Government is commissioning Boverket to investigate and propose significant changes to the ordinance on traffic noise near residential buildings. This assignment was given today by the Government.

Then it is pleasing that, through Boverket, more modern rules are being drafted to get the industry to find new and more efficient ways to produce housing.

Then it is welcome to have an efficiency commission that will review the cost development within construction, which is far above the KPI development.

All these measures are being taken so that rental apartments can be built more efficiently and more cheaply. We believe that it is better to work on reducing the cost side than with subsidies to companies.

Then one must work with every individual's opportunity to demand the housing that exists. Part of that is that one must increase the housing allowance and broaden it so that it reaches more people, as was the intention when the housing allowance was first introduced. Today it is a narrow allowance. We believe in giving the individual the opportunity to make their choices, and economic opportunities create that opportunity.

The reform of the rent-setting system that was made in 2011 has not functioned as well as we all wished – each of us can state that. Conflict-ridden, protracted and unpredictable negotiations create an uncertainty regarding the rental apartment that actually affects construction.

The attraction of owning a rental property is greatly reduced, I mean to say. Many property owners sell for conversion to housing cooperatives. In new construction, when the choice stands between different forms of tenure, the developers prefer the more profitable housing cooperatives.

The housing shortage in general and the shortage of rental apartments in particular mean that people are forced to turn down study places and jobs. The housing shortage also hampers companies' ability to grow. The preferences that normally drive demand for housing and create mobility are not allowed to break through in the rent setting, which in reality reduces the availability of rental housing.

We believe that one must look at a different way to obtain financing for new rental apartments because the costs are skyrocketing. Free rent setting in new production is a way that we would gladly have seen us try, for example in the larger cities, where the queues are long and the need is greatest.

The Government sees the need for a high pace in housing construction and has been prepared to undertake extensive work to make the housing market function better over time.

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

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! A couple of weeks ago we debated housing policy and then also the temporary supplement to the housing allowance. I then greatly appreciated the deep commitment that I perceived from Member Larry Söder for the families with children with low incomes in our country who face a very tough situation this summer.

I will in no way hold the member responsible for the spring budget that was submitted, but I would instead like to ask the member what the Christian Democrats have to propose. I am well aware that the Christian Democrats do not sit in the government themselves. I am also well aware that there are parties that have shown extremely little interest in these families and who mock about changing contacts instead of putting food on the table. Therefore, I would rather like to hear what the Christian Democrats, if possible, would like to do for these families with children so that they do not now risk being affected by evictions and do not have to choose between paying the rent on time and eating real food.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is absolutely true that the situation for children living in families who are in economic hardship is something we as a party safeguard and consider very important. The temporarily increased housing allowance was a way to handle this for those families, which we thought was very accurate.

We believe that in the long run, the housing allowance itself should be reviewed in order to be able to increase and broaden it and thereby meet child-rearing families – as it was in the past. The housing allowance actually met child-rearing families in economically vulnerable situations, which it does not do today. For our party, this is an issue that we have prioritized to try to get forward – that the housing allowance should in some way be able to reach these.

Then it is not wrong if one finds other ways to help vulnerable families, but perhaps one also does that at a local level. Every municipality must also take its responsibility in one way or another. There I want to assert that we Christian Democrats try to help as much as possible.

But it is never good with a temporary solution. For families with children, it is always best with a solution that works over time. Should a family end up in a situation where eviction is a fact, they must receive help from the municipality to find, not a temporary housing, but a housing that works over time. It is never good for anyone to move several times, and it is never good to end up in that insecurity.

It is not the children's fault that the parents have financial worries. That must be our starting point, I mean.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer and share the view of the need to reform the housing allowance significantly, not least considering how few families with children are reached by the allowance today, as it has been eroded over the last decades in a way that is unworthy of a welfare state like Sweden.

It is not the only answer to families' weak disposable incomes, naturally. We see, however, not least in the National Audit Office's report, how the erosion of the housing allowance at the other end has resulted in more and more families becoming increasingly overcrowded because the rent is the last thing one neglects. That is what one prioritizes in the absolute broadest sense when one has low incomes; other things have to be cut. The children do not get new clothes. The children cannot participate in their friends' parties, for example. The children cannot join activities or go to the cinema. The children simply cannot participate in society on the same terms as others. This is what is sacrificed before one stops paying the rent, which is naturally good and worth praising the parents for.

But one should not have to choose between being able to have vegetables on the dinner table and being able to pay one's rent. One should not have to be in such small housing that the children do not have the opportunity to manage their schooling and do their homework in their homes, but instead are forced out onto the street.

I welcome the ambition, and I sincerely hope that this becomes a priority for the Christian Democrats in the government, that you can force down the parties that want to cut the grants and make life harder for vulnerable families with children, and that you achieve success in those negotiations.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! It can be stated that what must be done is to ensure that food prices do not increase as they have. We must keep inflation down as much as possible.

I think a good example of something we as a party would like to do is the leisure card. It affects all children, but it is for those children whose parents actually have to choose between paying for a leisure activity or putting food on the table. We want people to be able to do both. The leisure card may look like a small reform, but I believe it will have quite large effects for children who are right on the edge. All children should have the opportunity for a leisure time that also allows them to participate in the social part. Otherwise, there is a risk that they will have problems further ahead.

I believe the housing allowance is a priority issue for us as a party, and I believe we will continue to pursue it. With that, I wish you a pleasant debate!

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, the housing policy objective is good and secure housing for everyone. This presupposes a national and general housing policy that focuses on good housing for everyone, not a market that works for some.

Good housing means both more rental apartments and more mixed residential areas with villas, terraced houses and multi-family houses that break the growing residential segregation. We do not just build houses; we build communities.

We Social Democrats shall therefore continue to build, and we shall build housing that more people can afford to live in. We shall build and renovate for a modern, circular, climate-smart society.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Housing's report on rental housing.

I would like to initially emphasize that we Social Democrats safeguard the Swedish model of cooperation on the rental market and the rental negotiation system. We have been informed that the Moderates are showing interest in leaving that system, and from the Christian Democrats, we are reached with information that free rent setting in new production is on the table.

We Social Democrats have, of course, our eyes on the rental negotiations, on the investigation into the system of presumptive rents, where a bill was announced before the summer, and on the relatively recently established procedure with independent dispute resolution. The new system has been tested under difficult conditions with a high rate of cost increase and many economically pressured households, not least among tenants. It is important that the parties uphold the principle that the institute of independent arbitration shall be used restrictively.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want to support the construction of rental apartments with lower rent levels. That has been the single most important element in a well-functioning social housing policy. But as soon as they get the chance, the right, now with the Sweden Democrats at the forefront, phase out such support. The housing shortage and inequality increase. Construction workers lose their jobs. The economy is damaged. We have spoken about this throughout this entire parliamentary term. We will continue to do so.

Citizens! Do you want a policy where we continue to build rental apartments for ordinary people? Vote for the Social Democrats!

Madam Speaker! State co-financing of energy efficiency has many positive effects. Property owners and tenants reduce their costs for energy consumption and receive direct support to bear the investment costs for the measures. This, in turn, is good for the climate, for the energy system, and for maintaining professional competence in a sector where far too many have lost their jobs.

The state support for energy efficiency in multi-family housing should be maintained. Not least large parts of the so-called Million Programme, built in the 1960s and 1970s, are now in urgent need of comprehensive renovation measures. In addition to this, we also believe that it should be considered to establish complementary state loans for large-scale energy efficiency measures in connection with renovation.

Citizens! Do you want a policy where we renovate, energy-efficient, and climate-proof even rental apartments that people can afford to live in? Vote for the Social Democrats!

Madam Speaker! Rental housing is a form of housing that many prefer, and in Sweden there are 1.6 million rental apartments. Just under 3 million individuals live in rental housing.

The previous Social Democratic-led government did a lot to increase security for tenants. It involved measures against the black market for rental contracts, against unauthorized subletting, and against the extraction of excessive rents by sublet tenants. We have also introduced a possibility to intervene against deficiencies in the management of rental properties at an early stage by allowing the Rent Tribunal to impose fines on property owners to rectify the deficiencies. A tenant whose apartment is destroyed by fire or similar shall now also be offered a new rental agreement by the landlord, provided that it is reasonable.

We naturally see that more needs to be done. Quite recently, we could follow reporting about property owners in Stockholm's southern suburbs who are quite obviously neglecting their properties to such an extent that an elderly woman does not want to invite her grandchildren over because of how it looks in the home.

Madam Speaker! Renovations must be carried out in such a way that people can afford to stay. We want to see a slower and longer phase-in period for rent increases during renovation. Strengthened security of tenure in the rental of private homes would also be of great importance for the tenants' security. A ban on terminating fixed-term contracts prematurely should be introduced.

Luxury renovations aimed at replacing tenants in the existing rental housing must be stopped. One of the reasons why tenants are almost completely hopeless is that the courts use the concept of "not unreasonable" to assess the reasonableness of a renovation measure. Instead of "not unreasonable," we mean that the imbalances could have been managed if the concept of "reasonable" were introduced as a basis for assessment.

Citizens! Do you want increased security for tenants? Vote for the Social Democrats!

Madam Speaker! During the past year, legislative changes were implemented that expanded tenants' responsibilities for safety in the residential area. We Social Democrats have been fundamentally positive towards the changes, but we have also seen the need for a rapid and systematic evaluation of the new rules and certain protection mechanisms for children in households.

We Social Democrats further consider that the condominium act should be amended in a way that corresponds to the changes regarding rental housing concerning lack of proper maintenance and disturbances in the housing that have been introduced. I have myself repeatedly asked the Minister for Justice about this. When will the measures come – perhaps the colleagues in the Committee on Civil Affairs know?

Madam Speaker! The report also addresses issues regarding conversion from rental apartments to condominiums. Those who read Hem & Hyra can read countless reports about scandalous processes concerning how tenants, in connection with conversion to a condominium association, are deceived and left economically very vulnerable. We Social Democrats have for a long time worked to strengthen the protection for tenants in this context. During the previous parliamentary term, an extensive upgrade of the Condominium Act was also carried out. These legislative changes, which, among other things, concern the requirements for the economic plans that must exist for a condominium association, have recently entered into force.

But in the investigation report, Who Owns the Property, which is the result of an investigation that we Social Democrats commissioned, further measures are proposed to tighten control during the transfer of properties. We believe that the proposals presented in the investigation regarding conversion on the residents' terms and strengthened identity checks during property purchases should be implemented as soon as possible to protect the public interest, ensure order and stability, and increase security in the Swedish property sector.

We Social Democrats are open to the fact that even more measures may need to be taken. The least one could ask is that the Sweden Democrats and the government now implement already prepared investigation proposals to strengthen the protection for those tenants who end up very poorly off when, for example, Moderate municipal politicians initiate restructuring in public housing and so-called restructuring consultants move in. Why has this not happened yet – perhaps the colleagues in the Civil Affairs Committee know?

Madam Speaker! Of course, we Social Democrats stand behind all our reservations, but I move for the approval of reservation 22.

Finally: Right now, many households in our society are under economic pressure. Not least among the country's tenants, there are many who have seen rents rise along with food prices and unemployment. Rental housing issues, which we are addressing in this debate, are a smaller but significant part. We Social Democrats are working along a number of front lines for strengthened protection and improved conditions for tenants specifically. The Tidö majority, in large stretches, does precisely the opposite or not so much at all.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, the Social Democrats have, as they always do in opposition, pointed out the need for broad solutions in the housing area. The will for broad solutions tends to be in relation to how far from power and from a position of government the Social Democrats find themselves. When the Social Democrats were in a position of government, the will to invite the Sweden Democrats was very low, not to say non-existent. Now that the Social Democrats find themselves in opposition, they cannot help but want to sit together with the Sweden Democrats and talk about the future.

I believe there is much that we Sverigedemokrater and the Socialdemokrater could agree on. But a question that is perhaps more interesting is what the Socialdemokrater can agree on within their own base. It is, after all, that which challenges the government that sits today, and I find it difficult to see in this base what common thread binds the Socialdemokrater and Centerpartiet with Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet.

It is striking that the Sweden Democrats, overall, have more common reservations with the Centre Party than the Social Democrats do.

With 29 reservations in the report and not a single one that is common from the opposition, the question is how one is to arrive at a common policy moving forward – and the voters actually have a right to find out what it will contain. There is, after all, an enormous difference between what the Social Democrats think and what, for example, the Center Party thinks.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! It is strange; so it is a debate on rental housing and so on, and we are leaving this entire debate and all the substantive issues that are important for the country's 3 million people who live in rental housing. Instead, we are to devote this exchange of remarks to speculations about an election that is a year and a half away and what the potential election manifestos from different parties should look like.

I would like to point out the possibility that we all step forward as independent political parties in general elections, seek the people's mandate for our own policies, and subsequently negotiate with other parties in the Swedish Riksdag to form governments and shape policy. It is nothing strange; it is a fully accessible alternative.

I see major common lines on our side in politics that are about protecting tenants and protecting children's situation in housing. I see that there are tensions when it comes to thoughts on free rent setting in new production. It is well known; I see that.

I also see that on Mikael Eskilandersson's side in politics, there are, yes, not tensions but what we can call Marianergravendjupa abysses between the Moderates' declaration that the Swedish model of collective bargaining in the rental market should be removed and the Sweden Democrats' position on that issue.

The question, therefore, goes back to Mikael Eskilandersson. What is the situation regarding the cohesion within the Tidö majority on the area of rental housing and such?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I think the voters have every right to find out already how the Social Democrats will take a stand on part of what others in the opposition are proposing.

Markus Kallifatides points out that there is an abyss between SD and the Moderates. In that case, it is the same abyss, if not an even greater one, between the Social Democrats and the Center Party. The Center Party is very clear about being in favor of free rent setting. And we have the experience from the last election campaign and the last government agreement. Then, the Social Democrats were suddenly not so concerned about safeguarding the Swedish model. On the contrary, they made an agreement that was far from what the party stands for. So far, my party has not made any such agreement.

Other issues were raised, such as safety issues. Also there, the Social Democrats stand quite alone. At the same time, one perhaps does not have a very good reputation since the last parliamentary term, considering that for eight years one let crime run rampant. One stood passive. One gave away a housing minister post, which the Green Party appointed with an Islamist – who subsequently had to resign, but that says a lot about how one works with safety in the Social Democratic Party.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! This contribution from Mikael Eskilandersson well illustrates why it is so unthinkable for us Social Democrats to seek cooperation in various ways with precisely the Sweden Democrats. It is argumentation that leaves this world in favor of free fantasies about our politics, Swedish society, and our recent history.

Now, here in the Swedish Riksdag within the framework of this debate, we move forward with our positions on the area of rental housing and such. We Social Democrats safeguard the Swedish model of cooperation on the rental market, the rental negotiation system. The voter who wants to secure that system should vote for us. The more who vote for us, the more secure that system becomes.

I see it as a very big problem that on Mikael Eskilandersson's side in politics and between the two large parties on your side in the chamber, there are such fundamentally different starting points in the portal issue, so to speak, in this policy area. Shall we have a tenants' association that negotiates with the property owners, or shall we have something completely different that is supposed to create some fantastic innovation or whatever it may be?

Vote for the Social Democrats! We stand up for the Swedish model of collective bargaining in the rental market.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Markus Kallifatides, for the speech! Much of it can be agreed with, that is to say that there is a shortage of rental apartments in Sweden and that we need to build more.

If one were to take what Markus Kallifatides said to the extreme, one could think that the property owners are carving gold out of the properties at the tenants' expense. That is not the case in any way; we all know that. It is difficult for them to make it add up so that it covers the costs.

That we are not building more rental apartments is also due to the fact that the costs in construction have increased so significantly. They have increased considerably more than CPI, and in some way we must look at the cost side and not just at the revenue side.

I would like to ask the Social Democrats what they think when they hear that the costs are rising so much, far beyond the KPI. What measures do they want to take to bring down the costs?

Another part I would like to ask about is that Markus Kallifatides in the speech spoke about building rental apartments for ordinary people. Then I wonder a bit who are ordinary people. It is obviously not low-income earners who are ordinary people, because even if one adds an investment subsidy to the rental apartments that were built with the investment subsidy, the rent was approximately 9,800 kronor on average in 2021 figures. That means that a low-income earner could never rent such an apartment. Ordinary people are obviously not low-income earners, but I would like to know who are ordinary people for Markus Kallifatides.

I have one more question, but I will have to take that in the next round.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Larry Söder for the questions.

Ordinary people are, for me, broad wage-earning groups – those groups in society that we Social Democrats have represented in Swedish politics since 1889, if I remember correctly.

When it comes to construction costs, it is very important to work with the whole picture. What has happened in the recent past is that construction costs have skyrocketed due to a sharp increase in interest rates. It is also the case that land prices have increased most of all over a long period. The land price, together with the capital cost, both for acquired land and in the construction process, has contributed strongly to the situation we have had for a number of years.

I will not speculate too much, but I do not believe we will return to the zero-interest-rate environment we lived in. But among other reasons, we see a need moving forward to invest public funds in keeping housing construction going, achieving a more even pace of construction, providing people with housing, retaining competence in the construction sector, and keeping construction workers employed, even in a strained economic situation. That is our policy. On the other side, one is prepared to invest 300 or perhaps 600 billion in state credits for nuclear power but 0 billion on housing construction. We all make our choices.

Owners of rental properties are probably one of the groups we should worry about the least when it comes to how people live and have lived in Sweden. There are really large fortunes here, billionaires and very large listed companies that have done very well.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats want to build rental apartments for the people they have represented throughout the entire 20th century. In that case, it is obviously not low-income earners, because they actually cannot get the rental apartments that the Social Democrats want to build. A low-income earner cannot pay 9,800 kronor in rent. It is that simple. My party and my government want to go the other way. We must ensure that it is possible to build cheaper. Flexibility is needed so that apartments can be built in cheaper ways, so that everyone can be able to demand them. Perhaps it is we who are the party for the low-income earners who are not given the opportunity for a home when the Social Democrats put the investment support in check.

It is quite interesting to hear that it is the property owners who are making a killing. Many of those who own rental properties are made up of municipal public housing. Markus Kallifatides wants to reinvest in the Million Programme areas. Many of those who own properties in the Million Programme areas belong to public housing. If public housing is making a killing at the tenants' expense, I do not understand why it should receive grants from the state to reinvest in its properties.

It shows on the other side, as I am speaking about, that it is actually not a gold mine to own a rental property in Sweden. One has to scrape on different parts to be able to reinvest in one's properties. Yes, we need to reinvest in the million program areas. But the rents are actually so low because one has not reinvested sufficiently. If Kallifatides can say that it is the public housing with his apartments that is a gold mine, I am, however, prepared to change my mind.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Larry Söder for the opportunity to continue my first contribution. To the owners of rental properties who are not making a killing in Sweden, especially not right now, for example municipal public housing companies. Many of them are in a pressured economic situation all over the country. On that, we are in complete agreement. But unlike Larry Söder's government and the parliamentary majority, we Social Democrats are putting concrete proposals on the table regarding state funds for energy efficiency in multi-family dwellings, a green tax deduction, and an investment grant. We believe that the Parliament and the government should also consider state loans for energy efficiency measures, which de facto mean renovation measures, so that the rent level can be kept down.

When public housing companies or other property owners build rental apartments with something like investment support, the positive thing is that housing construction increases and the number of rental apartments added to the housing market increases. This frees up other apartments, which also helps the one with the very smallest wallet. Because then, perhaps apartments with the very lowest rent levels will be made available. That is one of the effects.

In other respects, it is we who have presented concrete proposals to strengthen the disposable income for those in our society with the least, that is to say, to make it possible for them to manage to pay their rent. It is not Larry Söder's government that has done that.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has one of Europe's most sluggish housing markets. This is not only a problem for young people who cannot get in or for families who want to move up to something larger. It is also a barrier to growth and integration. Too little is being built, it takes too long, and it costs too much. The reasons for this are several. The lead times to produce a home are on average ten years. The planning processes are slow, detail-oriented, and hindering. The municipal planning monopoly must be adjusted, and we simply need fewer regulations that put spokes in the wheels and more incentives to actually build.

Sweden does not have a shortage of land – we have a shortage of buildable land. A lack of transparency regarding land allocations is one of the factors that makes it difficult for construction projects to be realized. Every delayed construction project is a family that cannot be formed, a person who cannot say yes to a job, or a student who simply has to postpone their university dream. How the system for land allocations works is difficult to predict. Even in hindsight, it is difficult to understand on what criteria one developer was chosen over another. The foundation for every construction project is the land on which the building is to stand, and the foundation for more construction is a transparent system for land allocations.

As I said, we must shorten the planning processes. We must reduce the appeal rate and review the building regulations, so that they do not become obstacles to functional, affordable housing. We need to unleash the creative force so that ideas and initiatives are not stifled under the burden of regulations.

Madam Speaker! Once upon a time, today's rent-setting system, the so-called utility value system, was well-intentioned. But today it leads to unreasonable consequences. The housing queues are long. In Stockholm, one has to wait an average of nine years for a rental apartment. For the most attractive addresses, the waiting time can be upwards of 30–40 years – 30 years, Madam Speaker, is an entire adult life. Young people simply run out of time and give up on the dream of their own home before they have even had the chance. It is not reasonable.

The current rent regulation has actually created an A-team and a B-team in the housing market: on one hand, insiders, who have had the luck or connections to obtain a first-hand contract, and on the other hand, outsiders, such as young people, newcomers, and newly arrived people – all of them without thousands of queue days, who are instead referred to a second-hand market with insecure short-term contracts or no housing at all.

The system also unfortunately leads to inefficient use of our housing stock. When rents do not quite reflect reality, it locks people in. Older, well-off tenants often remain in large, central apartments with low rent long after their children have moved out, while families with children with fewer resources are forced to commute long distances to find space. It is neither fair nor efficient.

That is why reforms were needed, and as several others have spoken about previously, one of the proposals is free rent setting in new production. What does that actually mean in concrete terms? Well, it means that the landlord and the tenant shall be allowed to freely agree on the rent when an apartment in a newly built house is rented out for the first time. Instead of as in today's system, where the regulation sets a ceiling, let supply and demand meet.

As I said, it is not about shock-raising any rents for existing tenants. It is about the fact that the new housing, those that have not yet been built and that no one lives in yet, should be able to be rented out on a different market.

A well-functioning rental market is also an important key to mobility and efficiency in our entire economy. People must be able to move to where the jobs are, and companies must be able to recruit labor without the housing issue putting a spoke in the wheels. When visiting companies today, many state that they have difficulty hiring because potential employees unfortunately cannot find anywhere to live. This hampers Sweden's competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! I will also briefly touch upon the social dimension of the housing policy. I mentioned free rent setting and market reforms, but that does not mean we turn a blind eye to the most vulnerable. At the same time as we carry out these reforms to build away the housing shortage, we must ensure that no one is left behind. On this, we are crystal clear.

General regulations have not been able to solve the social problems that the utility value system has, so we need to try new tools. That is why we have put forward a new form of social housing solution that we call need-based housing.

Housing for those in need are simply rental apartments aimed at those who have the greatest difficulty entering the housing market – those who risk homelessness, those who need to flee from domestic violence, as well as the elderly or young people in acute housing need. Instead of many, as is the case today, being referred to temporary emergency solutions or being forced to live in address hotels and in already vulnerable areas, we want to give them real homes with their very own contracts.

Unlike the concepts that exist today, we do not isolate these people in any vulnerable special housing or so-called slums. We are, therefore, not talking about the type of poorhouses that existed at the turn of the last century. No one wants to go back there, and certainly not us. In our model, this shall instead simply be integrated into the ordinary housing stock and spread out across different districts.

The idea is simple: Mix instead of separating! If a new block is built, a small proportion of the apartments can be set aside as social housing, and if a private or municipal property owner has vacant apartments, some of these can be included in the system. It becomes a social quota in the middle of the ordinary, regular housing stock – not alongside it.

Madam Speaker! A secure home is the foundation for being able to take a job, start a family, start a company, or get an education. Without housing, life stands still. That is why housing policy is so incredibly important. I conclude by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Speaker of the House! Today we are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report CU9 Rental Housing etc. This is yet another area where we Sverigedemokrater are forced to clean up after the Socialdemokrater. I will return to that later.

Today, approximately every third Swede lives in rented accommodation. It is a figure that places us somewhere in the middle in a comparison within the EU. Within housing policy, we in the Sverigedemokraterna are perhaps most noticed for our proposals regarding owned housing in general and our proposal regarding Sverigehuset in particular. This has given a false impression of my party as a party that only represents homeowners. Nothing could be more wrong. Rental apartments will always be needed. Not everyone can or even wants to live in their own house, and the rental apartment has many advantages.

For those who are more familiar with the Sweden Democrats' housing policy, it is however clearly evident that we are the party that truly protects the tenants. Something that is perceived as a major problem for the tenants is security, and when it comes to pushing through proposals that increase security, we have been very fortunate in our cooperation within the framework of the Tidö Agreement.

Feeling safe in one's home is extremely important, both for the individual's well-being and for the development of society as a whole. Unfortunately, the previous government allowed crime to escalate during its eight years without taking sufficient measures. We are therefore forced to clean up after the Social Democrats' failure. It was not only a record-high inflation and a diesel price of over 28 kronor that the previous government left behind, but it was also violence, crime, and insecurity in our residential areas.

When one listens to the opposition now, one easily gets the impression that all problems with lack of safety, segregation, and escalating violence have arisen in recent years. That is obviously not the case. When I myself became a member of the Sverigedemokraterna in 2006, I did so largely because I saw how society had become less safe then, with enormous segregation and a clear trend towards all more violent crime. There is, therefore, hardly anything new about the problems that we see.

What is new is that we now have a government that is, at least to some extent, prepared to act against the destructive social development that we Sverigedemokrater have for so long warned against.

Often we hear in the debate that everything starts with a good school, but I would like to assert that it is debatable whether that is the whole truth. I want to assert that everything starts with a safe home. It is precisely only with a safe home that children can take in what is conveyed and taught in school. It is also for that reason that so much of the Sverigedemokraterna's policy is directed precisely towards creating safe homes and safe upbringing conditions for everyone in Sweden.

Much has already been done to increase safety in residential areas across our country. We have seen harsher penalties and increased resources for the police, and that camera surveillance has been facilitated. These are just a few examples of concrete policies that provide increased safety for real.

Specifically in the housing area, we have increased property owners' possibilities to intervene and actually evict persons who create insecurity and problems in their local area. It is a measure that has been welcomed by most property owners as a good tool to have in the toolbox when it is really needed, but perhaps not the first one one resorts to when someone disturbs the order.

We will also proceed with mandatory participation in cooperation, so-called BID cooperation. It is something that I believe will have a positive impact on safety, especially where there have previously been bad property owners who have rejected all forms of voluntary cooperation for safety. For me, it is obvious that the safety in our homes is too important for us to let any single property owner unilaterally opt out of all cooperation regarding safety.

Even though the police have the ultimate responsibility for combating violence and crime, there is indeed much that the property owner can contribute, not least when it comes to the more long-term combating of insecurity. It is the property owner who can assist by planning the area closest to the property and ensuring that the area around a property looks well-kept and tidy. It is also the property owner who can install more lighting, set up cameras, or change the placement of the bicycle shed so that unnecessary insecurity does not arise. Safety is so much more than just police, even though they are also part of our toolbox.

We can state that in this area we have been forced to clean up thoroughly after the previous Social Democratic government, which completely neglected the safety in our residential areas.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to building new rental apartments, it is now clear that the previous subsidies for rental apartments have created a considerable amount of problems in the market. The market itself describes it as being lucky that the subsidies ceased when they did, because otherwise we would be left with even more empty apartments today. In large parts of Sweden, we see a surplus of newly built apartments today. Many small and medium-sized towns have apartments today that no one wants to move into, because they simply have too high a rent and are built in less attractive areas.

Another negative effect of the subsidies is that they have negatively affected the market value in areas where rental buildings have been constructed. When a property is built with many millions in subsidies, it becomes very difficult for someone else to build a house next to it without subsidies. It also reduces the value of existing buildings that were built earlier – these will then compete for the same tenants but with completely different conditions.

It is also very difficult to defend why poor pensioners in my municipality, Örkelljunga, through their taxes should be involved in paying for new construction at attractive addresses in Stockholm, where people who have substantial salaries can then move in with somewhat lower rents. Poor pensioners in Örkelljunga are forced to travel to the neighboring municipality to come into contact with state authorities, dental care, or medical care. In that case, it can appear even more unjust that Stockholmers in need of an apartment cannot be expected to commute for half an hour from Södertälje, or some other suburb, where there are actually hundreds of vacant apartments today.

I find it difficult to defend, or even understand, that prioritization, especially when even the Swedish National Audit Office notes that most of the apartments built with subsidies would have been built anyway and would have fared excellently with a slightly higher rent. Therefore, housing subsidies should not be used as a broad solution.

Here too, we are now forced to clean up after the Social Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats is also a party that protects the individual and the little person. We know that many who rent today want to own their home, and unlike the Social Democrats, we do not think it should be a privilege for venture capitalists to own and make money from housing in Sweden. Instead, it is good with more rent-to-own and more conversions of rental apartments to owner-occupied apartments where it is appropriate, not to push out existing tenants but to invite them into the owner-occupied market.

Home ownership is good both for the individual and for society as a whole. In a comparison between the Nordic countries, Sweden has significantly higher housing costs than Norway, which has more owner-occupied housing. At the same time, Sweden has lower housing costs than both Denmark and Finland, which have more rented housing. There is a clear connection between owning one's home and having low housing costs.

In the area of creating conditions for more people to own their homes, work is underway on several new pieces of legislation, and I look forward to us being able to present these before the parliamentary term is over. In order for people to actually be able to afford to own their homes, the Sverigedemokraterna, together with the government, are making several initiatives and improving the conditions for people to move from rented housing to owned housing. We are lowering taxes so that an ordinary family consisting of a nurse and a police officer now has 9,000 kronor more to live on. We have also made it tax-free to start saving for one's home in an ISK account. Above all, we have fought the extreme inflation that made us all poorer. Now, people's purchasing power is finally increasing again. This area also had to be cleaned up after the Socialdemokraterna.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the figures regarding the need for housing that are often mentioned in the debate. Boverket's figures regarding the need for housing in the coming years are high. They are, for example, much higher than our major banks' calculations for the same year, which rather lie around 30,000 homes per year. This is largely due to the fact that Boverket has not taken into account the changed immigration and refugee policy that the new government is pursuing. Therefore, one should take Boverket's figures with a certain caution.

The difference regarding the need for housing in the future is enormous depending on how many people come to our country and how many choose to leave Sweden. Even if one does not take the catastrophe years of 2015 and 2016 as a starting point, when enormously many people came to Sweden, the figures now are clear. We see how the population exchange with countries such as Iraq and Somalia now shows that more people move out of Sweden than to Sweden.

Those who look at the figures for citizenship see that we went from 7,908 new citizenships in April 2022, when the Social Democratic government was in power, to 1,229 new citizenships in April 2025. That was, therefore, a difference of over 6,500 issued citizenships in the previous month alone. We will therefore need many thousands fewer apartments going forward compared to how the development looked under Social Democratic rule. This also makes a significant difference for how Sweden develops going forward.

We are cleaning up where the Social Democrats have completely failed.

We stand by all our reservations, but in order to shorten the voting time, I move for approval only of reservation 18 regarding illegal trading of rental contracts.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that all children have the right to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral, and social development. The article clarifies that the responsibility lies with the parents, but that the States Parties undertake to assist the parents in this so that the child's rights are ensured.

The year 2023 was a record year for evictions of children, but already in 2024 the record was broken again. We see an increasingly clear trend with an increasing number of child evictions, often after rent disputes or that the parents have fallen behind on the rent, sometimes by as little as a few days. The increase also points to that more and more families are having difficulty coping in the tough economic times.

When children are evicted, the consequence all too often is that they need to leave their social environment, such as school, friends, and day and evening activities, when they are uprooted from their home. We have, not least in my own home municipality, seen horrific examples where children after eviction have been shuttled from shelter to shelter and spent a week at each place.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden must live up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and it is the task of politics to reverse today's negative development. Children need a long-term and secure home as they grow up. Living under insecure housing conditions has a very negative impact on a child's life and affects both health and schooling.

It is our conviction that families with children should not be evicted into homelessness. Instead, measures must be taken in a timely manner. When it comes to preventive measures to arrange long-term housing for families with children, working preventively so that evictions of families with children are prevented, and providing support and help when families lose their permanent housing, the municipalities and their social services have a very large role to play. Much can and needs to be done to support families toward a secure housing situation.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Services Act is interpreted today as meaning that one can only help a completely homeless person with special difficulties, but that does not reflect today's situation. On the contrary, we see how more and more households, completely without social problems and with income from work, have difficulty putting food on the table and difficulty meeting basic expenses such as rent. The social services must therefore be given expanded opportunities and an expanded responsibility to grant interventions to all families with children, regardless of social problems. Unfortunately, we see how the government instead goes in the opposite direction and has completely exempted financial assistance from the considerations of the child's best interests, while simultaneously increasing the pressure on newcomers in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! While waiting for a stop to evictions of families with children, housing solutions for families with children in homelessness must be put in place. It is completely unacceptable that children are moved around between different temporary accommodations without any possibility of settling down.

The Children's Ombudsman has previously proposed a 14-day limit for the placement of children in emergency shelters. We want to see a defined and narrow time limit for the placement of children in emergency shelters in line with the Children's Ombudsman's proposal. More long-term housing solutions must then be provided to avoid children being affected by constant moves.

It must be established in the legislation that housing solutions for families with children shall be safe and suitable for children. It may sound like a self-evident matter, but that is not the case today. Today, it is sufficient to have a roof over one's head, and a consequence of that is that children all over the country can live in environments that are directly unsuitable for them. In that case, Sweden does not fulfill the requirements that the Convention on the Rights of the Child sets regarding children's opportunity for positive development.

We want housing agencies to receive clearer guidelines and greater room to give priority in the housing queue to prioritized groups. This could involve families with children and those affected by violence, as the consequences of a long-term insecure housing situation hit these groups very hard. There are examples of women who stay in violent relationships because it is so difficult to find a home. It is a completely unacceptable and undignified situation for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Many families who find themselves in an insecure housing situation have ended up there because, for various reasons, they have not succeeded in entering the regular housing market. This may be due to a housing shortage with long queues or to low incomes that make it difficult to afford the offered supply of housing in the local area. It can also have to do with the fact that they have not been approved in the regular housing market because they do not meet the landlords' requirements.

Landlords have the right to set different types of requirements for their tenants in order for them to qualify for an apartment. In some cases, the requirements can be justified. But all too often, the requirements are unreasonably high. The requirements are intended to be a security for the property owner and reduce the economic risk. But instead, the requirements are used to keep certain people out despite them having sufficient income to cover the rent. The consequence is that many housing seekers become second- or third-hand tenants in insecure housing at higher costs. It is therefore not about them not being able to afford the rent, but about them not meeting the requirements, which in some cases are purely bizarre. We therefore believe that a regulation is needed regarding which requirements landlords can set for a new tenant.

We also consider that grants must be counted as income when it comes to meeting the requirements a landlord can set. In Sweden, we have chosen to let the market take care of the housing supply. To cover the gap between the housing market and household incomes, we have a system of housing grants, child allowance, and financial assistance. We also have insurance such as accident insurance and sickness benefit. But how are these systems supposed to help if this money is not counted as income? We mean that these grants must, of course, be included in the disposable income when the ability to pay is to be assessed. It should be impossible to disregard the money that is intended to be the bridge over to independent housing.

Instead of unjustifiably high and artificial requirements, it should be mandatory for municipalities to provide rental guarantees to those families with children who have difficulty entering the housing market in other ways. Municipal rental guarantees mean that the municipality acts as a guarantor for a tenant who has a sufficiently good economy to have their own housing but who, for various reasons, for example unreasonable requirements, still has difficulty obtaining a rental apartment with security of tenure. It is also high time to investigate the possibility of expanding the rental guarantees to other prioritized groups, not least those exposed to violence.

Mr. Speaker! In order to be able to support people in need of a home, the housing allowance must be reformed. There is much regarding the housing allowance that needs to be addressed, but since evictions of children in particular have catastrophic consequences and have increased in recent years, we believe that the housing allowance for children's families in particular needs to be addressed urgently.

But instead, the government has just removed the temporary supplement to the housing allowance. It is a financial catastrophe for many single parents who will lose an average of 700 kronor a month in the middle of summer. This is happening at the same time as food prices are skyrocketing and rents are being raised significantly. We do not know yet how this will affect the children's accounts, but we can guess that many families will eat even worse, that mothers will completely stop picking up medicine for themselves, and that the last possibility for children to participate in their friends' activities on equal terms will be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker! Children have a right to a stable home. Children have a right to a home to grow up in, to be safe in, and to do their homework in. Children have a right to be spared the worry of being evicted, and no child should be shuffled between different shelters. This is a collective responsibility for all of us. No children should be evicted in Sweden.

I move for the approval of reservations 8 and 12.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 14 May.)

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