New strategy for living and safe cities

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing the report on the government's new strategy for living and safe cities, CU16. Even though the Left Party has no reservation, we have views, which I intended to present from the rostrum to explain where we stand on the issue.

We stand today before a decisive question of the future. It is not just about how our cities should be built, but about who shall have a place in them. It is about which lives shall be accommodated in the urban spaces of the future, which voices shall be heard in urban planning, and what responsibility the state is prepared to take to ensure equal living conditions in every neighborhood, every square, and every stairwell.

The government has presented a strategy with grandiose words such as "living, safe and robust cities." They are beautiful words, but they become empty when they are not supported by a policy that makes these words real for all people and not just for those who already have resources, safety and freedom of movement.

Madam Speaker! Behind the rhetoric about the city of the future lies a clear ideological direction: the State takes a step back. Responsibility is placed on the municipalities. The market is allowed to continue to rule. And once again, those who have the least – families with children in the million program areas, young people renting in second-hand housing and elderly people with low pensions – are expected to stand first in line for a system that is no longer built for them.

Let us therefore be very clear. A fair urban development is not an aesthetic issue. It is not a decorative element in the construction of society. It is a democratic duty, a social right, and a political battle issue.

That is why we in Vänsterpartiet are strongly critical of the government having deleted the words equality and sustainability from the objective for urban development. Without these fundamental pillars, we cannot speak of the city of the future; we can only speak of continued inequality, continued segregation, and continued market dominance.

Madam Speaker! What is a living city if not a city where everyone can live? What is a safe city if people are evicted because rents are skyrocketing? What is a robust city if it rests on social divides, economic insecurity, and unequal access to social services?

We know that today's housing shortage is not a law of nature. It is the result of political choices – a policy where the state has sold out the common good, privatized public housing, unleashed the housing market and prioritized profit over welfare.

We know that when the state steps back, the vacuum is filled by real estate capital, developers, and investors. Then, it is not built for need, but for return. Then, exclusive condominiums are prioritized over rental apartments, the city center over the outskirts, and high-income earners over families with children on tight margins.

Madam Speaker! The Government speaks in its strategy on garden cities. But what do garden idylls help when people cannot afford to live in them? What does it help when resources are lacking for schools, youth activities, and public transport? What do beautiful words help when segregation is cemented in area after area?

A city does not become safe with more surveillance cameras. It becomes safe when people feel hope for the future. It becomes safe when children are not evicted from their homes. It becomes safe when no one is left behind. It becomes safe when we build bridges between people – not walls between residential areas.

Madam Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet say: Enough of the market's short-sightedness. Enough of unequal urban development. Now is the time for the state to step forward, take responsibility and build cities for people and not for the market. Therefore, we need a new national strategy where equality, sustainability and justice are fundamental principles – not empty phrases.

Large-scale investments in non-profit housing forms such as public housing, cooperative rental apartments, and collective housing must be strengthened. We want to see state support to municipalities to build mixed housing areas where people of different backgrounds live together and are not separated by class, ethnicity, or housing type. We want to see a child's perspective in urban development, where every neighborhood is planned with children's safety, freedom of movement, and future dreams at the center.

We want to see investments in public meeting places such as libraries, cultural centers, sports facilities and green areas and not more shopping centers and office complexes. We want the goal of sustainable cities to be reintroduced and the national goal reformulated so that it explicitly aims to reduce inequalities, break segregation and build social cohesion.

Madam Speaker! A city is not just a physical place. A city is a promise – a promise of safety, of community and of opportunities. A society that fails that promise does not only fail its inhabitants; it fails the future.

The Left Party will never accept that housing is reduced to a commodity, that urban planning becomes a business model, and that the public space is transformed into a place where only certain people feel at home.

We will continue to fight for a Sweden where every person, regardless of income, background, or place of residence, has the right to a secure, equal, and vibrant city. We demand urban development built on justice. We demand a society where no one is held back and no one is left behind. That is how we build the city of the future.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! We certainly need lively and safe urban environments throughout Sweden. But we Social Democrats believe that the strategy that has now been presented does not live up to these words.

The government has, on the contrary, removed the previous focus on sustainability and equality. It has replaced it with a policy where the state withdraws and places the responsibility on the municipalities. The result is that municipalities with a strong economy can continue to develop, while municipalities with a slightly weaker economy fall behind. The gaps risk widening, both between different municipalities and between districts in the same city. The government's new strategy is the opposite of keeping Sweden together.

Madam Speaker! The climate does not take into account municipal boundaries, county boundaries, or national boundaries. It affects us all, regardless of whether we live in a large city, a smaller urban area, or in the countryside. Therefore, we cannot leave the responsibility for climate adaptation and sustainable urban development solely to the municipalities or the regions. The state must take its share of the responsibility, not least to create equal conditions throughout the country.

During our time in government, we developed the urban environment agreements as a concrete tool. The urban environment agreements meant that municipalities and regions could apply for state co-financing for sustainable transport solutions, for example, public transport, cycling infrastructure, and climate-smart urban projects.

The consequences of the cuts are already being felt. In my hometown Örebro, the municipality and the region planned for a new rapid bus line to improve public transport. It was assumed that urban environment agreements would cover half of the costs; that was how the agreements were intended to work. But now that the government has stopped new urban environment agreements, the project is left without half of the funding. According to the transport planners, this means that Örebro can only carry out a third of the expansion that was planned. The rest they are forced to put on hold.

When the state withdraws and lets the market and individual municipalities alone bear the responsibility, the gaps increase. The result is that important investments in housing, parks, public transport, and meeting places do not happen. It is not responsible.

Research from among others KTH shows that state investments in among others public transport are of crucial importance for reducing inequality in access to work, education, and community services. When the government withdraws these resources, people in entire communities are let down. Living urban environments do not arise by themselves. They require long-term investments in housing, public transport, green spaces, and public meeting places. We know that such investments yield results.

Mr. Speaker! Climate changes are affecting our cities increasingly. We see how heavy rainfall causes flooding, how heatwaves hit people living in areas without greenery and how paved surfaces exacerbate the problems. To build robust cities, planning with a focus on the climate is required.

This is not just a climate issue – it is a question of safety and quality of life. Climate adaptation is a fundamental prerequisite for people to be able to feel safe in their everyday lives, and it requires long-term urban planning. That the government chooses not to include a clear climate perspective in the strategy is therefore a major betrayal. Previous strategies have clearly linked urban development to climate goals. Now it is almost entirely missing. It is as if the government does not understand what role our cities play in the climate transition.

Research from among others Boverket and the Swedish Environmental Research Institute shows that cities that actively work with green solutions, from climate-smart construction to green infrastructure, both reduce emissions and become more attractive to live in. Climate work in cities also creates jobs, innovation, and better health. Why is this being downplayed?

Mr. Speaker! We also see how climate change hits differently depending on where and how people live. Low-income earners more often live in areas with poorer ventilation, less greenery, and higher temperatures during heatwaves. Climate adaptation is therefore not just a technical issue but also a matter of justice. Therefore, climate work in cities needs to have a social perspective.

Research from among others the University of Gothenburg and SMHI shows that socially disadvantaged areas are often most vulnerable when extreme weather strikes. At the same time, it is these areas that often receive the fewest resources of all areas.

With a government that deprioritizes the climate issue in, among other things, urban policy, we lose both time, money and perhaps – most seriously – in the long run, human lives. A national leadership is needed that does not duck but shows the way for municipalities and regions.

Mr. Speaker! Another issue that, surprisingly, is conspicuous by its absence in the government's strategy is segregation. It is not possible to speak of safe and vibrant cities without also speaking about how we build away the gaps that are growing between different neighborhoods and different groups in society.

Segregation is one of the biggest societal problems in our cities today. It is about where people live, which school the children attend, what services are available in the area, and how easy it is to get to work and education. All of this is influenced by urban planning.

We know that urban planning can be used as a tool to reduce segregation. It can involve building mixed with different forms of tenure, connecting areas with public transport and pedestrian paths, and creating common meeting places and service points where people from different parts of the city can meet.

But none of this is raised in the government's strategy. The word segregation is not even mentioned. Research from the Delegation against Segregation shows that where you grow up in Sweden has a decisive significance for your future – for education, job opportunities, health, and safety. Segregation is increasing, and it must be met with active politics, not with silence.

Physical urban planning is one of the most powerful tools we have to turn the development around. To ignore this connection is not just passive but directly harmful. It shows that the government has no ambition to use urban planning as a tool to reduce inequalities. I believe it is a serious mistake.

The Social Democrats, instead, want to see a city policy that contributes to increasing cohesion in society. We know that insecurity, exclusion, and a lack of faith in the future can be combated if we invest in residential areas, build away barriers, and create equal living conditions regardless of postcode. That is how we build a society that truly holds together.

We also know that segregation is not a natural state – it is a result of the choices we have made, of passivity and of a lack of resources in certain parts of the country and certain areas. When we let certain neighborhoods decay while others are renovated and when schools are closed down in vulnerable areas but built somewhere else, we cement the inequality.

It is possible to do it differently. Research shows that mixed residential areas, good access to public transport, green public spaces, and proximity to schools and workplaces increase the chances of equality. It is not about solving everything with concrete and asphalt. It is about understanding that how we build our cities affects how we hold the entire society together.

Therefore, it is serious that the government does not raise these issues in the strategy. It is not only a missed opportunity but also an expression of a policy that does not see segregation as a collective responsibility.

We Social Democrats believe that it is a collective responsibility. We see the need for long-term investments, not just in safety packages but in creating equal and vibrant environments where people from different backgrounds meet in everyday life.

Mr. Speaker! The government's strategy is neither clear, responsible nor ambitious. It fails in its support for the municipalities, it ignores the climate challenges and it denies the segregation. Sweden needs a city policy that holds the country together, not one that increases the differences.

We naturally stand behind all our reservations. I move, however, for approval only of reservations 1 and 3.

Mr. Speaker! I am aware that I have exceeded my reported speaking time. This is, in fact, the last debate I have in CU before the summer break, and perhaps that is exactly the problem. It is too quiet from the government. Ideas are lacking. Initiatives are lacking. Accountability is lacking for the real problems we face: the housing shortage, segregation, the climate, and the gaps between the municipalities. The problems grow when the proposals do not arrive.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden deserves better. Our municipalities deserve support. Our children deserve an equal future. Our cities deserve to be developed sustainably and for everyone in the entire country.

(Applause)

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's communication New strategy for living and safe cities. I am pleased that we see this communication on the Riksdag's table. Housing policy has for a long time created a society and a housing environment that is anything but something one can be proud of.

We have had a lack of foresight, a lack of safety adaptation of our residential areas, a one-sided focus on the construction of apartment buildings and a lack of creating conditions for small house construction in Sweden.

We have seen million program areas built between 1965 and 1975. These are areas that totally lack aesthetic design, which prevents us from having beautiful residential areas. These are areas that have created great insecurity for those who live there. We saw an EBO legislation that created overcrowding and vulnerability, caused in part by the unregulated immigration and the multicultural ideology.

Mr. Speaker! I am, therefore, pleased to see this report on the Riksdag's table. It is one of many parts in the work of replacing previous housing policy. The report harmonizes well with the Sweden Democrats' policy in the area. With it and further creative solutions that we have put forward beyond those introduced in the report, we could achieve a good society to be proud of. We see the opportunity to, after the report is adopted, be able to implement more proposals, which I will go into, in practical handling moving forward.

We need a national action plan for the municipalities to provide support on how to create safer residential areas. We need support for area planning of existing environments in order to build in safer residential areas so that people can experience safety but also obtain actual safety in their residential areas.

We need to stimulate cultural environment competence in the countryside to take a larger share of the culture we have in our municipalities and highlight it in future housing construction. We need to enable a clearer citizen dialogue and citizen influence, which means that citizens can be involved and express their opinions on how housing environments and urban environments are designed. In this way, conditions are created for more permissive construction in the future, where people feel a harmony in their society.

Mr. Speaker! This document takes up a broader perspective than the previous document, which the previous government submitted. I think that is a good starting point. One talks here about building living cities and inviting community and togetherness. It is crucial for Swedish society today and something that is truly missing. That can be built in through housing policy.

We involve our historical heritage, which is an important part of building community. One incorporates it into housing construction and the construction of our urban environments. The future construction shall be characterized by an aesthetically appealing design in order to create a future good public health. How our residential areas are designed, built, and shaped affects, in the long run, our health. We need to highlight the need to create beauty and harmony in our residential areas. This is also clearly addressed in this document.

We need to shape the identity and cohesion of our cities. It is something that makes us recognize ourselves in the city we live in. We need to shape the cities to a greater extent than today based on our historical perspectives. It also contributes strongly to creating cohesion in our country. The cultural perspective needs to become an integrated part of urban development issues from the very beginning and until the end.

Furthermore, we need to create attractive centers in our cities. We see today, and have seen for a long time, how business areas outside the cities are being built and that the central parts do not become as attractive to be part of. It is of course not a desirable development that we get depleted city cores. We need to work on what conditions we can create to get a lively society in the central parts again. We need long-term planning. We need to create a dialogue with the representatives of trade and a strategy that works for trade. We also need to create conditions for parking so that those who do not live in the central parts can easily connect to the city core. In that way, we can get more people moving in the central parts.

We need to have regional planning for the coordination of infrastructure, so that the planning that is done harmonizes with how we build our societies. One should easily be able to transport oneself both to other municipalities' town centers and to the town centers in the municipality one lives in.

We need an architecture that can bridge parts of the conflicts that exist and are sometimes perceived in society. We need an architecture that creates harmony in our residential areas.

We need a continued investment in research and development to create – also importantly – sustainable societies adapted to climate change but also in light of crisis and war situations.

We need secure housing. We know that a large proportion of the population feels unsafe being out at night. We can read about this, among other things, in the national safety survey from 2024. We need integrated work with crime-preventive and safety-promoting measures in the social process already in the planning and construction stages. It is also about the areas we have today and which can be redesigned, i.e., regarding area planning in the existing environments. This needs to be included. We also see this in the letter that now replaces the old letter from the previous government. It is something I am very happy and pleased to see.

We need to cooperate with property owners, the business community, civil society, and the police among others to create safe areas and remove the insecurity that unfortunately has taken root in many of our vulnerable areas. We need a local cooperation, and for that, we will soon have new legislation in place. We need to create increased mobility to provide the conditions for both good perceived as well as actual safety in our residential areas. With that, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am extremely happy to see that yet another part of the old housing policy is being replaced with a new one.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I listened to what Member Hedlund said. He spoke about cohesion, and that was roughly what I also spoke about. Cohesion, of course, goes in different directions. It is also about integration and that segregation should be combated. There is nothing about this in the letter.

Furthermore, it is said that one should do one thing after another, but one has removed almost all the money in the budget for, for example, urban environment agreements, development of public transport, and development of city districts. How does Member Hedlund intend for all these measures that are to be taken to be financed? Does everything we are talking about here lie with the municipalities and regions, or does the state have a part of the responsibility for us to achieve an integration that works?

Does Member Hedlund intend for the state to be part of the solution, or should the state just wash its hands of everything and send a lot of things to municipalities and regions? It is, above all, about municipalities and regions that are not economically strong and have great needs for state grants to solve some of the problems. Or does the Member see some other solution that I did not hear about in his speech?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Denis Begic, for your question!

The Sweden Democrats and the government are, of course, making a total reversal from much of the policy that the Social Democrats have pursued for a very long time. I describe in my speech how we are changing the EBO legislation. We are introducing an opportunity for property owners to counteract overcrowding, something that they previously, legally speaking, could not counteract. People could have as many as they wanted in their residence.

This, together with a series of measures in the area of criminal justice policy, means that we can once again counteract and remove the vulnerable areas in Sweden. Through the new legislation, Mr. Speaker, which means that we can, for example, evict criminals and in this way remove many of the elements that create unsafe residential areas, we can move in the direction indicated in the letter.

In the government's communication, a focus is placed on creating safe residential areas but also the conditions for obtaining aesthetically beautiful areas. Here, the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have several measures to create opportunities to once again obtain safe, beautiful, and harmonious residential areas.

I think that from our side we are very clear about what we are spending money on in the budget and what consequences it will have in the end, namely increased safety and increased cohesion in our residential areas and among our citizens. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, where such money and resources are found among the Social Democrats. What were they thinking when they created a situation that the Sweden Democrats and the government are addressing and resolving today?

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I asked a question but received no answer. One billion has been removed from the urban environment agreements, and one does not know how to solve the problems.

Let me take an example, Mr. Speaker. Not so long ago – two, three months ago – I organized, together with Fastighetsägarna, a seminar here in the Riksdag on safer residential areas. Not a single person from the government or the Sverigedemokraterna came to the seminar to listen to what Fastighetsägarna and those who own these areas say and what they think is important to prioritize so that we can build safer cities.

It is mentioned here that a bill is on the way. That is very good, and we can discuss the bill. But we also need to incorporate knowledge about safer housing in these areas.

I know what Fastighetsägarna think right now about the report that is about to be submitted. Does Roger Hedlund know what Fastighetsägarna, the public sector, and others are saying about this issue? The member did not want to participate in the seminar and listen to them.

A lot of talk is happening and fine words are being used, but when it comes to doing something, there is absolutely no thought or follow-up discussion and nothing that makes our cities safer. Above all, they are not becoming climate-adapted, which is what we are looking for. We know that climate change will eventually become one of Sweden's biggest problems.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Does the member expect an answer, perhaps he should also answer the questions that I am asking, and I heard no answer at all from Denis Begic.

I am surprised that it is the first time the member meets Fastighetsägarna and discusses these issues. Obviously, it was the first time. I can state that I have met Fastighetsägarna and talked about safety issues very, very many times, Mr. Speaker, so I had no need to attend exactly that seminar that the member arranged.

Property owners may have their views, but it is not always convenient to implement new policies. However, measures must be taken to achieve a change in Swedish society. We are prepared to take many measures to create safety in our residential areas. Place cooperation is one of several measures. I am completely convinced that place cooperation is one of several important tools for municipalities and other actors to be able to act to create safety in residential areas. If we do not have any tools, or if we refrain from using them because some do not find them desirable, we will also have no opportunity to create a safe society. We need to act in several areas.

One example is the visitation zones that we have created. It is something that can create safety. We have talked about this for a long time, but the Social Democrats have not wanted to see such in our residential areas.

Mr. Speaker! Now the member can no longer answer questions, but what was the intention of the Social Democrats when they created this insecure society?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In October 2022, one could read a large report in Dagens Nyheter about Malmvägen in Sollentuna. There, it was told how a criminal gang had more or less taken over the residential area. The newspaper wrote about how the gang criminals had occupied a basement and converted it into their headquarters, complete with a shooting range and bullet holes in the doors. At night, gang members moved on the streets armed with automatic rifles. One of the properties was owned by a housing cooperative that was almost hijacked and looted by the criminals.

When the police struck and arrested the men who were operating in the basement areas, they found both quantities of weapons and traces of large-scale narcotics trafficking.

Mr. Speaker! Last Wednesday, I and my Moderate colleagues in the Committee on Civil Affairs visited Sollentuna and met, among others, the Moderate municipal board chairman Henrik Thunes. We did that to hear how Sollentuna, together with the police and other actors, have in recent years step by step won back the residential area around Malmvägen from the criminal gangs.

The most important contribution in the crime-fighting work is, of course, provided by the police and the justice system. But in addition to that, Sollentuna, together with both municipal and private property owners, has worked strategically and long-term to uplift the area. Through this, they have pushed back the criminal forces and created safety for the residents. By physically reclaiming spaces that have been occupied by criminals, creating proper shell protection in the buildings, and renovating stairwells and facades, one creates concrete change.

The site has also been activated with various cultural and leisure activities, especially during the summer. And work has been done strategically with urban development to make the streetscape more lively, with shops and businesses that create movement and activity.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's communication New strategy for living and safe cities. It is a subject that can feel both dry and somewhat abstract.

But when you stand on Malmvägen in Sollentuna and see the change, it is far from either dry or abstract. It is highly present and concrete. The work of the Moderate-led government in Sollentuna is precisely what the government's letter is about: how one can create lively and safe cities through urban development – and perhaps in particular how one can use a site's physical conditions to turn a negative development into a positive development.

But working to create safety through urban development is not just a phenomenon of large cities. In January this year, I visited Patric Åberg, the Moderate municipal board chairman in Östra Göinge. He told me about how they in Östra Göinge successfully use urban development to make different village centers more lively and safe, both by demolishing dilapidated properties and by building new ones.

Across the country, municipalities are proactive and use urban development to create safety. With this letter, the government also formalizes this work at the state level and takes a national holistic approach to urban planning.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, everyone should be able to live a secure life without fear of being subjected to crime, regardless of who they are and where they live. Unfortunately, that is not the case today. Many experience insecurity in their residential areas. Almost one in four Swedes feels insecure where they live, according to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council.

But the insecurity differs between groups. Young people and the elderly feel the most insecure. Women feel more insecure than men. Foreign-born people feel more insecure than Swedish-born people. That is why we particularly emphasize the crime prevention and safety-promoting work in this strategy.

Mr. Speaker! An important aspect of safety, and attractiveness in general, is that the city is alive. The more people and the more eyes, the more life and also safety. The life and movement, the city's pulse, is one of the main reasons why so many seek out the city.

For us Moderates, it is a priority that the city shall have a high quality of life. There shall be a varied range of activities that invite community and togetherness, where people thrive and want to be. The urban environment should be characterized by thoughtful and aesthetically appealing design in several dimensions. It concerns both construction, nature and urban greenery, as well as high-quality architecture. The city shall be a place where the opportunities of culture and the creative industries are utilized and managed.

This is something that has been neglected in recent decades, when architecture has primarily been about functionalist modernism and a focus on individual plots rather than on coherent urban construction. We want to see cities where functions are mixed for lively streets both during the day and in the evening, not just in the center but in the entire city. Extra focus is placed in the strategy on creating conditions for modern garden cities.

Mr. Speaker! The city is a place where trade has a central function, together with hotels, cafes, restaurants and entertainment. It is a glue that holds the whole together. An early inclusion of representatives of trade and the tourism industry in the strategic planning is crucial for long-term and sustainable urban development.

A living city has well-functioning corridors and sustainable transport solutions that create good accessibility for everyone. A holistic, cross-modal perspective is necessary. To pit different modes of transport against each other is not sustainable urban development. Sustainable urban development, on the other hand, is to create good conditions for people to move in the city, regardless of the mode of transport.

Mr. Speaker! The strategy points out that cities, in addition to being lively and safe, should also be robust. This applies both in everyday life and with regard to preparedness for crisis and war. Specifically, it is about efficient transport and stable electricity, water, and heating supply, but also about shelters, the protection of drinking water sources, and how schools and healthcare facilities are affected by disruptions in the supply. It is also about building a city that can withstand extreme weather, everything from heavy rainfalls to extreme cold and extreme heat. The city shall be smart, green, and circular.

Mr. Speaker! The primary responsibility for urban development lies with the municipalities. That is how it is, and that is how it shall remain. Different municipalities and cities have different challenges, problems, and conditions. Citizens in different places also have different opinions and desires when it comes to how their specific city should look and develop. This strategy, however, points out how the national work shall be carried out to support and help the municipalities in creating vibrant and safe cities.

The primary work is carried out through the Council for Living Cities, which was previously called the Council for Sustainable Cities and consists of 14 agencies, SKR (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner), and the county administrative boards. The new name reflects the new and broader mandate to support the work for a living urban development.

Mr. Speaker! For far too long, insecurity has spread across Sweden while cities, centers, and villages across our elongated country have been depleted and quietly withered away. Through political leadership and a unified grip from both the municipality and the state, we can now change this. We can once again create vibrant and safe cities and neighborhoods in Sweden. More vulnerable streets should simply be able to make the same journey that Malmvägen in Sollentuna has made.

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

(Applause)

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, David Josefsson – very fine words! The Government has presented a strategy with grand headlines. As I mentioned, one speaks of living, safe and robust cities – beautiful words, but empty when they are not supported by a policy that makes these words real for all people who live in Sweden and not just for those who are rich.

People talk about thoughtful aesthetic architecture. Yes, it is important. But let us be very clear. A fair urban development is not an aesthetic issue concerning a decorative element in the construction of society. It is a democratic duty.

When one talks about safety, it is very interesting for me to know how the Moderaterna interpret what safety means. Is it only about the physical? I think: How can there be safety when one has collective punishment of families with children? How can one call it safety when one has legislation that results in children being evicted from their homes? How can one talk about safety when one makes poverty the norm in Sweden? Several hundred thousand people live in poverty and today cannot pay their bills and their rents; they are worried about whether they will be able to afford to stay next month. For me, that is not safety.

It is this policy that the Tidö parties are pursuing. With these beautiful words, one conducts a policy that goes against the beautiful words. How are you going to have it? Are you going to do as you say you will do, or are you going to say one thing and then do something completely different? Poverty is increasing. The pensioners do not even have medicine. Then we are talking about security. What does security mean for the Moderaterna?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, for the remark, which focuses very much on safety and on this matter of empty words.

I still have to make the reflection that it is quite obvious what safety is when one talks about urban development. Now the member is trying to mix in access to medicine and that one should not be allowed to evict criminals and so on.

I would like to say: Focus the debate on safe and lively cities, because that is what the strategy is about! In that case, it is interesting to bring up the discussion that the member usually conducts, where he defends that criminals should be allowed to stay despite committing crimes in residential areas. There we disagree. We think differently.

The Tidö parties are clear: If you commit a crime, deal drugs on a playground, store weapons in a storage room, or take over a basement space, as we saw in Sollentuna, you should not remain in the property. It is not a punishment. It is a way to protect those who live in the house. It is about protecting the law-abiding citizens, who have the right to let the children out on the playground or to be in their basement storage rooms and laundry rooms. They should not have to be worried about taking the elevator with gang criminals. The report in Dagens Nyheter 2022 is very telling. It shows there that people do not dare to take the elevator because armed gang criminals also ride there.

This is safety for me. It is safety in Sollentuna, and it is safety for this strategy. My question to Member Jallow is: What is the Left Party's answer – does the Left Party really think it is okay to deal drugs on a playground? Does the Member think it is okay to store weapons in a storage room? Does the Member think it is okay to threaten their neighbors?

If not, what is the member's answer? And what should one do as a landlord in that situation?

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! I answer directly. Vänsterpartiet thinks that people who break the legislation should be prosecuted in accordance with the law. That is the answer to the question. But Vänsterpartiet does not think, as the Moderaterna do, that people who are innocent – family members who have neither been part of any criminal environment nor committed any crime whatsoever – should be punished for crimes they have not committed. That is the difference between Vänsterpartiet and Moderaterna.

The Moderates want to punish innocent people. It is collective punishment. The Moderates want to make children homeless. It violates Swedish law and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Moderates make people poor.

It is 29 percent of the single low-income earners who do not get to eat their fill in Moderat Sweden. 27 percent cannot pay their rent in Moderat Sweden. 60 percent worry about not being able to cover the bills for next month and about not being able to stay in their apartments. For us in Vänsterpartiet, this is not security.

We want to create security, where people who work every day and struggle to survive shall have a secure home to go to. We want to create a society where children do not have to worry about whether they will have somewhere to sleep the next day or next month. We want to create a Sweden where retirees who have worked their whole lives to build Sweden do not have to choose between either buying food or paying for their medicine. This is security for us in Vänsterpartiet, in contrast to Moderaterna.

What the member says are just empty words. One talks about living cities. What is a living city if not a city where everyone can live? What is a safe city if people are evicted from their homes and cannot even afford to pay their rents? That is not what safety is. For me and for Vänsterpartiet, safety is much more than just this. It is much more than the physical as well. People should feel that they live in Sweden with security – economic, socioeconomic and political, in every possible way – so that they can feel like all other Swedish citizens. Today, most do not.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, for the contribution! I think it is very illuminating. It is a very good debate, because it is very illuminating regarding the perspectives surrounding these issues.

For the Tidö parties, the focus lies on people feeling safe in their own residential areas. Almost every fourth Swede feels unsafe in their residential area today. Young people and the elderly feel more unsafe than others. Women feel more unsafe than men. Foreign-born people feel more unsafe than Swedish-born people.

Who is it then that the left-wing bloc is fighting for? Well, one is fighting for the criminals' right to remain in their homes. It is clear and distinct what the focus looks like in these issues.

I am proud that we have been able to develop this program, because it is a shift in strategy. There, we are now focusing on safe and vibrant cities.

Last Wednesday, I was not only in Sollentuna, but I was also in Bagarmossen, where I went on a safety walk together with the chairman of the Tenants' Association. There, we talked, among other things, about this regarding the landlords' and property owners' responsibility and about mandatory site cooperation.

Then it is a bit interesting to look at a previous exchange. The Social Democrats are therefore taking a stand for the property owners who do not want to participate in paying for safety-creating work. The Tidö parties agree with the Tenants' Association that it is important to have a BID cooperation and BID legislation in Sweden where even unserious property owners shall participate in paying. It is an interesting political discussion.

When we talk about safety in Swedish residential areas, we stand on the side of the citizens for safer neighborhoods. Vänsterpartiet stands for the criminals' right to remain in their homes despite having committed crimes.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now that the Tidö government is presenting a new strategy for living cities, the city has been transformed into a backdrop for trade and commercial interests. The city is no longer a place for those who live there, but a backdrop where the residents are potential customers.

The government writes that they want to see an attractive city but strike out all formulations regarding equality. They say it should be appealing, but for the Tidö government, it is not a priority to break the segregation.

A living city is described as a place where trade flourishes, but that the air is clean enough to breathe, that the water is fresh enough to drink or clean enough to bathe in, or that the cities' climate emissions are decreasing is no longer included in the government's strategy.

The previous strategy for sustainable cities, which was developed under the leadership of Minister for the Environment Karolina Skog in 2017, involved a high level of ambition in all areas concerning life in the city. What the government is now presenting is instead a mutilated product that most resembles a pamphlet for a trade association. It is not sufficient.

Millions of Swedes live and work in our cities. They deserve a government that takes responsibility for investments in sustainable transport, for long-term sustainable air and water quality, so that children's perspectives permeate the entire city and that the city enables all its inhabitants to live a good life.

The strategy we are now debating will provide neither support nor guidance to the city's actors, and we want to urge the government to take it back to the drawing board and start over.

I move for the approval of reservations 1 and 2.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! "We humans are all different. What makes us feel safe or unsafe varies. It also varies over time. The image of safety and insecurity varies between different people." This is written by Hyresgästföreningen in the report Safe urban planning according to Hyresgästföreningen – LITA under the heading "Safety – what is it?". The report shows that 30 percent of women and 10 percent of men feel unsafe when they go out late at night. They refrain from going out for a walk simply because of the insecurity.

This is evidence that society is not designed for everyone but instead contributes to exclusion. A great deal needs to happen here for it to become an inclusive society and for more people to dare to move in the public space regardless of the time of day. This shows, I argue, that the strategy's work for safe cities, with clear focus areas, is an important work that takes its starting point in people's anxiety.

We all have a feeling for the local area where we live. A city should be a place where people thrive and feel at home. It is about creating environments where people want to be, where there is life and movement and green spaces, and where there is a wide range of restaurants, shops, and culture. The districts should be planned with a good mix of housing, workplaces, and meeting places. One must increase the opportunities for a vibrant city life, not only during the day but also in the evenings and on weekends. It creates safety. More people in motion makes streets and squares feel safer.

Safety is also a basic prerequisite for a functioning city. No one should have to feel fear when moving in their own residential area or on the way home in the evening. Therefore, urban planning must be designed with safety in mind. Lighting must be present. Open squares must be present. Parks where people spend time and clear walkways make a big difference in how a place is perceived by people.

It is also about taking care of the environments we already have. Declined or forgotten places can easily become unsafe and feel abandoned. By renovating, cleaning, and maintaining them and filling them with life, we can increase safety and well-being for everyone. Safe school routes, neighborhood cooperation, and close collaboration between the municipality, police, and property owners are crucial to creating a city where people actually feel safe.

We Christian Democrats believe that this strategy provides a good and broad palette to work towards safe and stable cities where people feel at home and secure. It lays the foundation for the business sector, civil society, and municipal activities, which can work hand in hand with the residents of the city.

The strategy being presented has three main areas: living cities, safe cities and robust cities.

The conditions for living, residing and working in all of Sweden shall be strengthened with such a strategy. All of Sweden shall function. Regardless of where you live in the country, you shall be able to create a good life for yourself. This strategy, I believe, will hopefully take us part of the way there. But more measures are needed. It is necessary that at the municipal level, the work continues and ensures that one practically works based on this, conducts safety walks and notes what is seen as safe and unsafe in one's city and works based on the local conditions as well as builds mixed and inviting areas.

Place cooperation is a task that exists all around Sweden – with cooperation between real estate companies, municipalities, the police, and civil society. It is an important part that is already being carried out and which in the future will be formalized and provide the municipalities with a greater basis when it comes to working with place cooperation.

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

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! Since I am last in this debate, I shall try not to repeat everything that has already been said about this fantastic strategy. Therefore, I will skip some of the introductory phrases that I had prepared.

I intend to dwell a little on safety, because safety is a specific focus area in this strategy – correctly. Safe urban environments are a prerequisite for freedom. Whoever you are, you should be able to walk through your neighborhood without fear. Parents should dare to let children walk or cycle to school. Therefore, I actually appreciate that the strategy specifically highlights traffic-safe school routes. It may sound a bit too concrete and perhaps even a bit trivial with safe school routes, but in practice, it is about children's safety and independence in everyday life. Every child who can safely get to school is a step towards a both safer and healthier city, where movement is encouraged.

The garden city is also advocated for in the strategy. These are, therefore, districts with green elements – trees and parks – where the buildings provide space for community and recreation. We Liberals know that a green and human scale in urban planning can increase well-being and reduce stress. It creates residential areas where people want to stay and engage in their neighborhood.

Lively urban environments contribute to safety. When streets and squares are filled with life, culture, and entrepreneurship, crime is pushed back. A well-lit park with activities and people in motion in the evening is a safe park. A deserted, vandalized pedestrian tunnel is the exact opposite. The role of urban planning in counteracting insecurity and exclusion cannot be overstated. How we design our residential areas directly affects how safe and included people feel.

Mr. Speaker! The fight against segregation is very close to my heart. In today's Sweden, there are vulnerable areas where unemployment is high, where school results are low, and where honor oppression has spread. Lifting these areas of exclusion is about lifting all of Sweden. Every child growing up in Hjällbo, Rosengård, or whatever district it may be, should feel the same faith in the future as a child in a wealthy villa suburb. Everyone – regardless of where they live – should have secure living conditions, good schools, and opportunities to support themselves and feel included in society.

That is why we Liberals always nag about the school. Education is, in fact, the key that can unlock the door so that one can get out of exclusion. That is why we talk about mixing tenure types in residential areas, so that rental apartments, condominiums, and terraced houses can exist side by side and create more mixed neighborhoods where people with different backgrounds meet as neighbors. And that is why we must take back control over areas that today are plagued by crime. Here, both a stronger presence of the rule of law and preventive social interventions are required.

I am proud that the government has already carried out perhaps the most extensive offensive against organized crime in history. But just as important is that we simultaneously dismantle the environments in which the gangs thrive and that we work more preventatively.

With the new strategy, we link crime fighting with urban renewal. We will stifle recruitment to gangs by making neighborhoods safer and more hopeful to grow up in.

Mr. Speaker! Our cities must be at the forefront of climate work. This means that we reduce emissions through smart urban planning – for example, fossil-free public transport, charging infrastructure and energy-efficient buildings – while simultaneously adapting the urban environment to the climate that is already changing.

In the strategy, emphasis is placed on reduced climate impact, increased climate adaptation, and secured ecosystem services. Let me translate that into more everyday language. It is about planning cities so that they can withstand both heavy rainfalls and heatwaves, and about ensuring that there are trees and green spaces that can mitigate heat and absorb water during rain. We saw examples this summer from other countries where cities were completely paralyzed. We must learn from that and stay one step ahead.

There is a great opportunity for innovation here. Swedish companies and universities can lead the development when it comes to new climate-smart technology and new solutions for urban planning.

Mr. Speaker! One aspect that I want to highlight from the strategy is the concept of robust cities. The Corona pandemic, climate crises, and the war in Ukraine have taught us that we must increase our preparedness. This can involve everything from plans to keep social services running during a pandemic to civil defense if the worst should happen. Our cities must be prepared for war and crisis – with shelters, crisis storage, and robust energy systems – so that citizens can be safe even in uncertain times.

One of the strengths that I see with this strategy is actually the emphasis on cooperation – several speakers before me here in the chamber have also highlighted this. The state alone cannot conjure up well-being on every street, but the state can set goals, provide resources, and change laws where needed to facilitate local work.

The municipalities have a key role. They know their cities best, and it is there that the most concrete work takes place. It concerns everything from comprehensive plans to how parks are maintained and schools are run. But the municipalities should not have to do the work alone. The business sector also needs to be involved. Entrepreneurs contribute investments, jobs, and ideas to the cityscape. Think about how a new shop or a café can liven up a neighborhood, or how property owners who renovate houses can increase the pride in an area!

Civil society – all those forces, the non-profit associations, the sports clubs and housing initiatives – creates community and trust between people. I personally believe very much in such things as night walk groups, neighborhood watch and local security guards.

I am pleased that the government, through the strategy, also strengthens the platform where different actors meet, for example by giving the Council for Sustainable Cities a broader mandate. The council has even been renamed to the Council for Living Cities. Now, the Crime Prevention Council and the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency are being brought in as new parties in the council. It also signals that crime prevention and crisis preparedness are integrated parts of urban development. It is precisely as cross-sectoral and comprehensive as we need to think.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden must hold together. The gap between the attractive inner city and the worn-down suburbs must be closed. Children shall breathe clean air, be educated in good schools, and play in safe neighborhoods. The elderly shall be able to walk through parks without worry. Entrepreneurs shall dare to invest in every district. Cultural and creative practitioners shall see the city as a stage, not as an obstacle. All of this presupposes that we shape cities that are precisely living, safe, and robust. That is exactly what this strategy aims for.

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)