Planning and construction

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today, the Committee on Civil Affairs will debate CU14 Planning and Construction. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report and the rejection of all motions.

Even in this area, the Tidö parties are united and working together around the clock to improve construction in Sweden. Opposing this is a divided opposition that actually does not have much in common.

Now the government is tackling the structural problems that are at the root of the problems in the housing market. When other politicians speak of housing shortages as a problem, they actually miss the mark, because the housing shortage is a symptom of a sick underlying housing market. Regulatory hurdles, lack of buildable land, and long lead times put a spoke in the wheel of a functioning housing production.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Tidö parties want to shift power from the state and municipality to the individual. Therefore, we are now making a major overhaul of the Planning and Building Act, with over 41 regulatory simplifications coming into force this autumn, so that homeowners can build more and larger attefallshus. When the Minister for Housing was in the Committee on Civil Affairs, he spoke about how up to 40 percent of all building permits will disappear; that is almost a revolution.

In area after area, we are improving Sweden.

We also want to remove the possibility for activists to appeal all plans in Sweden. We have given an additional directive to the Environmental Goals Commission, which shall investigate how the amount of appeals can be reduced so that only those who are truly affected by a specific issue may appeal. We are also not opposed to introducing a small fee for an appeal. We have done that regarding the National Board for Consumer Disputes, which has yielded very good results – now the National Board for Consumer Disputes can devote itself to the correct cases.

Mr. Speaker! In area after area, we are improving Sweden.

I move on to student housing. In the future, students will be able to get cheaper housing. We will change the accessibility requirements so that 20 percent of student housing shall be adapted. Today, Mr. Speaker, the situation is almost such that there are bathrooms and small sleeping alcoves. That is what we want to change. We want students to be able to get student rooms and toilets. However, there will be no danger for those with a disability, because in every corridor there will be an adapted toilet. Hopefully, the construction companies can also ensure in the future that the adapted student rooms are on the ground floor, which would mean that one does not need to use the elevator if a fire breaks out.

In area after area, Mr. Speaker, we are improving Sweden.

Today, there are several credit restrictions to reduce over-indebtedness and increase amortization for condominiums and small houses. The intentions were good, but the effect has been that many are shut out from owning their own home. We want to make it easier for young people to buy their first home. We have a completed investigation that reviews the mortgage ceiling and the amortization requirement and which proposes starter loans for first-time buyers. Hopefully, our proposals will be able to be sent out for consultation by the summer. The Tidö parties think it would be desirable that, for example, a police officer in Stockholm and a nurse in her 30s with two small children – two important pillars of society – can own their home. That is how they want to live.

Mr. Speaker! In area after area, we are improving Sweden.

The coastal protection is also being reformed. Today, there are many examples of the completely illogical consequences of the coastal protection. Decimeter-deep water barriers on golf courses have stopped villa constructions, and when the inspectors show up, you have to keep your fingers crossed that it hasn't rained so that water flows in the small stream. By exempting watercourses narrower than two meters and lakes under one hectare, it becomes easier to live and reside, especially in the countryside. The Government is investigating further simplifications to make it easier for more people to live near the water while the protected waterlines are protected.

Mr. Speaker! In area after area, we are improving Sweden.

We will this year increase the rotavdrag from 30 to 50 percent. It will therefore become cheaper to renovate one's home. To you who are watching this debate, I want to say that you can use the rotavdrag from now on, as long as you receive the invoice after May 12.

I was a bit surprised when the Social Democrats came out and almost raged against improvements to the rotavdrag. It is surprising, because if there is anything that is good for the construction workers, it is that we increase the rotavdrag. It is good for the property owners and for the construction industry. It has been a difficult recession, Mr. Speaker, and it is important to safeguard that every person who works in the construction industry remains there so that there are employees when the boom eventually arrives.

Mr. Speaker! In area after area, we are improving Sweden.

When it comes to water issues, the government and the Tidö parties are closely following the developments. Our ambition has been that municipalities should stop forcibly connecting households, but we see that this continues. Therefore, we must consider whether other resources are needed.

In the spring budget, we are adding resources to the Norrland Fund to facilitate construction in the north, which is indeed valuable.

In area after area, we are improving Sweden, Mr. Speaker.

While the government and the Tidö parties are in agreement and working around the clock to improve the construction market in Sweden, it is impossible to see any common thread in the opposition's policy. I believe it is important for the voters when they consider how they should vote in the next election. Do they want the Tidö parties, who work together to improve things for people, or a red opposition?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Tidö parties are therefore working around the clock to improve Sweden. Opposed to this is a divided opposition. I move, as I have said, for approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Allow me to begin my speech by wishing all Muslims Eid Mubarak. During Ramadan, one has fasted for a whole month, reflected, and prayed for justice and peace in the world.

Mr. Speaker! Now we are debating planning and construction, but we see neither planning nor construction in Sweden. When Vänsterpartiet talks about housing policy, planning and construction, we are not just talking about building houses but about building a society. But today's society, where some can afford to live while others have nowhere to go, is a society in crisis. Therefore, I intend to begin my speech by stating that the government has created crisis in area after area – in contrast to what we have just heard from the Moderate Lars Beckman.

After just a couple of years with this government, we have received a different Sweden. Planning and building for a better future has long since fallen into the shadows. Instead, the climate has hardened month by month. A one-sided focus on repressive politics has increased the gaps in society. Racism, exclusion, and poverty have increased. This is something that few in this chamber or in Rosenbad sense or understand. At the same time as the repressive politics strike mercilessly against society's most vulnerable, the most privileged are favored. Through lowered taxes and increased subsidies for meaningless kitchen renovations, it is the rich who are the winners in today's Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! A newly released report from Majblomman, Rädda Barnen, Hyresgästföreningen, and Röda Korset shows that 30 percent of single parents with an income under 30,000 kronor per month have difficulty eating enough to be full in today's Sweden. Just as many have had difficulty paying for their housing in the last six months, and 44 percent of tenants have been forced to borrow money to pay for rent, electricity, or food. This is, therefore, today's Sweden. Area after area is in crisis.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish Enforcement Authority delivers equally depressing figures. In just two years, evictions have increased by 21 percent. At the same time, the debts at the Swedish Enforcement Authority continue to increase in a completely uncontrollable way. Today, 437,000 private individuals have debts at the Swedish Enforcement Authority. In total, the debts amount to an unimaginable 138 billion kronor, and every day they increase by 50 million. Since the government took office, the indebtedness among private individuals has increased by 37 percent. It is a development that is, to say the least, frightening, which the government talks little or nothing about at all. In area after area, Sweden has become significantly worse.

Mr. Speaker! The government could start by increasing the housing allowance and stopping the evictions of children. In a situation where household finances are pressured by high interest rates, skyrocketing rents, and food prices that just keep rising, we need a policy that safeguards everyone's right to the most fundamental: a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. But instead, the government is phasing out the temporary housing allowance, and more and more children are evicted from their homes every year. The government justifies the phasing out of the housing allowance by stating that the economic development has turned and that the need for the support has therefore decreased. But that is a justification that is far from the truth, for many do not even have food to eat.

The government's policy is not only irresponsible; it is dangerous. When households lack money for such basic things as food and rent and when people are evicted from their homes, the risk of social unrest and crime increases, which is exactly what the government claims it wants to combat with its repressive policy.

Mr. Speaker! Today's housing market increasingly resembles a market for luxury products and investment objects. Anyone who dares to assert that a home is a fundamental human right is almost laughed at and called backward. When Vänsterpartiet considered that Sweden should also continue to build student housing that gives persons with disabilities the same rights as everyone else and the same opportunities to live their lives in a dignified way, the Christian Democrats' housing policy spokesperson mockingly called it ideological deadlocks and principle-mongering. When we talk about human rights for all, people laugh mockingly and say that it is backward and principle-mongering. Such is the social climate in today's Sweden. Anyone who talks about human rights or mentions words like solidarity and justice is now mocked and called backward.

This comes from a party that claims to rest on Christian values. But do Christian values really involve snickering at the rights of people with disabilities or a child's right to their own home? I refuse to believe that.

Mr. Speaker! The so-called housing market is now nothing but one big housing collapse. It is a crisis, at least for those who do not have much money. The collapse is a result of decades of deregulation and privatization, despite the fact that the market has repeatedly shown that it cannot manage to solve the housing shortage. But the collapse continues to be met with passivity from the government. The only thing they can manage is small house policy and subsidies for the rich – subsidies that, moreover, no one other than the government believes in. Not even the Riksdag's own auditing agency, the Swedish National Audit Office, believes in the root subsidies. All these billions that are invested in meaningless kitchen renovations could instead contribute to increased housing construction, because housing construction truly creates jobs in the construction industry. Furthermore, the result of this benefits the entire society, not just the ministers' own finances when they want to change their kitchens.

Mr. Speaker! The goal should be a state housing policy where planning and construction contribute to an equitable and sustainable social development, both economically, ecologically, and socially. But we are far from that. In today's report, the government had a chance to show leadership, to take responsibility for planning and construction and for the future, and to show that one truly wants to change and improve. But that chance was not taken. Instead, a helplessness is displayed in the face of the sad reality that affects more and more people every day: housing shortages, evicted children, housing segregation, inequality, and poverty. Furthermore, there is an enormous need for climate transition. This is what we have received with this government. Area by area, Sweden has become worse.

Vänsterpartiet has presented many concrete proposals that show that it is possible to do things differently and that there is a political will to change the situation for the better, especially for the weakest in society. If other parties think that defending justice, solidarity, and human rights is principled posturing, so be it.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet wants the government to adopt the proposals from the Byggrättsutredningen. It is about simplifying the regulatory framework without compromising legal certainty, the environment, or democratic influence. It is possible to build faster and better, but it requires a willingness to make the rigid structures of the Planning and Building Act more purposeful, without choosing profit interests over people's needs or rights. The government rejected the investigation but did not itself present any proposals to, for example, increase the number of building rights.

Vänsterpartiet also wants the municipalities to have better tools to control what type of housing is actually built. It must become possible to prescribe the form of tenure in detailed and comprehensive plans, for example, to require rental apartments in certain areas instead of having the market build even more condominiums that only the rich can afford to buy.

This is simply crucial for being able to break segregation, build equal cities and give all people the opportunity for a safe and stable home. We shall build housing based on need – housing that people can afford. The government, however, dismisses even this proposal, completely without justification.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, one does not hesitate to spend time and money on detailed development plans for small houses. Yesterday, the government increased the support level for municipalities that adopt detailed development plans that enable small house construction. They do not want to do the same when it comes to other types of construction, especially not of rental apartments. The government's priorities are clear as usual, but their romantic dream of so-called Sverigehus will not solve any housing crisis.

Mr. Speaker! The construction and real estate sector accounts for a very large part of energy consumption and environmental impact in society. It is therefore not possible to talk about housing, planning, and construction without also talking about the green transition. The energy consumption of the built environment must simply decrease, and the state must take the lead in this work. But Sweden's government refuses to take its share of the responsibility. Despite the fact that we are in a burning planetary crisis, the government continues with its climate-hostile policy.

It has gone so far that Naturskyddsföreningen and Miljöjuristerna have reported the government and want the EU Commission to review Sweden's national energy and climate plan. If the EU Commission were to judge that the plan violates EU legislation, Sweden risks fines.

Mr. Speaker! Can we really not do better than this? Without a strong government with a will to reduce climate change, it will continue to go downhill. Without a strong government, environmentally friendly rental apartments that ordinary people can afford to live in will also not be built.

Vänsterpartiet believes that it should already be possible in the detailed development plan to set requirements for energy efficiency, type of heating, and so on. This would provide better conditions for more sustainable construction. We want to change the Planning and Building Act so that this becomes possible. But the government is turning a blind eye here as well. How can one speak of climate ambitions while simultaneously refusing to give the municipalities more tools to build climate-smart? It is incomprehensible.

Vänsterpartiet also wants the renovation and energy efficiency of the existing multi-family housing stock to be seriously initiated. More than ever, state steering measures for energy efficiency of multi-family houses are needed. It would mean an enormous difference for the entire society. But not even that proposal receives support from our climate-hostile government.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party wants to see a strengthening of regional physical planning. Sweden is a country with different conditions. To believe that the same solutions work in Kiruna as in Malmö is naive. We need a regional planning that takes into account infrastructure, the labor market, services, and climate – a regional physical planning level that has a more governing and binding impact on municipal planning. This should be a self-evident matter, but it is not for the government. Here, both overview, strategy, and foresight are lacking.

A serious government should focus on ensuring that all municipalities take greater responsibility for the housing supply – for all residents, regardless of income. Even the wealthy municipalities must take this responsibility, but they do not do so today. Greater pressure must be put on all municipalities to ensure that more affordable rental apartments and housing for ordinary people are built. In this, the state has an enormously important role to play.

Vänsterpartiet wants the government to speed up the introduction of regional planning in Sweden's regions. Therefore, I move for approval of Vänsterpartiet's reservation 17 in the report.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Left Party knows that there is another way. We want the state to take back its role as guarantor of the housing supply. We want the public sector to take the lead in construction. We want to see new investments to build housing that people can afford, but it should not be housing of poor standard but housing of high quality, with climate and energy considerations, with mixed forms of tenure, and with the human being at the center. Both garden cities and larger residential areas play an important role in future planning.

As I said initially, we are not just building houses but communities, and a society where only certain people can afford to live is not something to strive for. A society where people with disabilities are excluded, where young people are forced to stay at home against their will, where the elderly cannot find adapted housing or housing they can afford to live in, and where people are forced to move time and again because the rents become too high is not a society in balance. It is a society in crisis. That is where we find ourselves today, with this incompetent government.

We demand political action. We demand a housing policy based on people's needs, not the market's logic. And we demand that the government takes its responsibility, now.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I began my speech by saying that we would see an opposition that painted a bleak picture of the situation in Sweden. That was before I had heard the member of the Left Party, who lived up to all expectations.

I would like to ask the member something. I share the concern that households with small margins are having a tough time in today's Sweden. I completely agree with that picture, but then I do not understand why Vänsterpartiet is not raging against its party friends in the capital region. There, they have raised both the municipal tax and the regional tax, which means that the households with the smallest margins have had less money left in their pockets. Tax increases are always the low-income earners' worst enemy. My question is: Why has the member not raged against Region Stockholm and the City of Stockholm, which have shock-raised the tax, which has hit the households with the smallest margins the most? That was the one question.

The second question is: Why does the Left Party not think that the rot deduction is good? I can tell you that already a couple of hours after the news was out, a contractor called me and said: This is absolutely fantastic. Customers have already called asking for quotes thanks to the rot deduction.

I also received an email from a flooring company in Bollnäs thanking that the rot deduction is coming now. They meant that it is a way to keep their employees busy during the recession. I do not understand why Vänsterpartiet is against the floor layer in Bollnäs getting to keep their job while pensioners who need help changing floors can get a slightly lower tax thanks to the rot deduction.

My question to Malcolm Momodou Jallow is: Why does the member not protest against the tax increases in Stockholm, which have resulted in households with low incomes having less money left in their wallets to buy food?

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

TALMANNEN

I remind that the debate concerns the Committee on Civil Affairs' report Planning and Building and that we are not in the assembly of either Region Stockholm or the Municipality of Stockholm.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Speaker took the words out of my mouth. We are in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag, and I represent the Swedish Riksdag, not the Stockholm municipality.

I can say something to Lars Beckman. It is a mockery of all those people – all single parents – who today cannot eat their fill when one stands here and says that area by area, one is making Sweden better.

It is a mockery of all pensioners who count pennies to be able to pay their rent and afford to live a dignified life after having worked their entire lives when Lars Beckman stands here and tells them that in area after area, one is making Sweden better.

It is a mockery of all the 437,000 private individuals who are struggling with loans they cannot pay and the families with children who are being evicted from their homes – two children every day – that one tells them that in area after area, one is making Sweden better.

It is a mockery that one stands here and snickers and laughs at all the people who struggle every single day to survive in the Sweden that we find ourselves in today. I and Vänsterpartiet stand on their side.

The second question, which concerns the rot deduction, is very strange. I met with Byggnads and their members. They think it is a mockery to put these funds into the rot deduction instead of investing so that people can build.

The floor layer in Bollnäs that Lars Beckman talks about cannot lay floors, because no housing is being built. In order to be able to lay floors, there must be conditions in place to build housing. If no housing is being built, this person can never lay floors. It is a mockery, once again.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now, it was the case that Member Malcolm Momodou Jallow in his speech took up that households have received lower incomes. In that case, it is natural that I ask whether tax increases mean that one gets more money in the wallet.

When it comes to the rotavdrag, which is not a subsidy, we have completely different views. I have noted that Byggnads did not welcome the rotavdrag. That is probably because they are part of the social democratic machinery, because when you talk to the members – those who work in the construction industry in Gävle, Bollnäs, and Hudiksvall, both business owners and employees – they say, of course, that they want to keep their jobs.

When the economy turns, it is extremely important that there are employees remaining in the construction industry. We know that Ukraine must be rebuilt, and then very many people who today may be here from Poland and working will go there. But I note that Vänsterpartiet is against the tax deduction.

I thought there was a slight brightening in the member's statement. It sounded as if Vänsterpartiet would support the 41 rule simplifications that we will make in the Planning and Building Act. Vänsterpartiet is welcome to clarify this. Do you stand behind the government's ambitions to shift power from state and municipality to individuals?

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is very inappropriate of a Member of Parliament from the Moderates, Lars Beckman, to stand here and say that Byggnads is a part of the Social Democrats.

(LARS BECKMAN (M): But they are.)

All members within Byggnads struggle every single day. Those who go to work are worried about their jobs. Many of them have been fired and are struggling today to provide for their families. To stand here and say that they are social democrats is not okay.

I hope that every member of Byggnads hears what the Moderates stand for and what the Moderates say about their concern: It is nothing. They are members of the Social Democrats, so it is perfectly okay.

I take it seriously. I think they are Swedish citizens just like everyone else, and I am here to pursue a policy that makes their lives better and creates employment so that they can work.

Over 2,000 construction companies have gone bankrupt, Lars Beckman. Over 2,000! We have an unemployment rate of over 10 percent. Over 600,000 people are unemployed. Many of them come from Byggnads, and Lars Beckman stands here and says that it is okay; they are Social Democrats.

I, as a member of the Left Party, can never accept that. I do everything I can with my party to create employment for those people. I pursue a policy that is about investing to build housing so that these 2,000 companies can return to work and employ all those people who have lost their incomes and are now considering changing paths and training for something else, which will lead to the loss of skills that are very important for nation-building. I take it seriously. That Lars Beckman and the Moderaterna do not take it seriously, you will have to answer for. It also shows that you do not care. That is why the entire society is in chaos today.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In the wake of a dysfunctional housing market and sharply increased interest rates, Sweden has seen low housing construction in recent years. Now, interest rates have decreased somewhat, but the calculations still do not add up given that it costs money to borrow today when it was practically free previously.

The housing shortage means that young adults are increasingly forced into involuntary living arrangements with their parents. At the same time, many seniors whose villas have become too large have difficulty finding a replacement home.

We do not focus on finding a variant that appeals to the elderly in both form, size, and cost. To achieve better functioning moving chains, a natural focus has been to review measures that primarily encourage a larger proportion of detached houses in the housing stock – this is because approximately 1 million households want to move from an apartment to a detached house but currently cannot do so.

We want to see more detached houses and condominiums. Sweden has for a long time had a one-sided housing policy that has favored rental apartments and large housing complexes. We know that many dream of owning their home to invest in their future and create security for their family. Therefore, we want to facilitate the construction of detached houses and introduce reforms that make it easier for more people to buy their home, for example through lowered requirements for down payments and more flexible amortization rules.

The government has appointed a small house commissioner who shall examine the obstacles, speak with municipalities and actors and ultimately come with improvement proposals so that we in Sweden can build more of what people desire: a self-owned home.

We also want to reduce the bureaucracy and the long processing times. It is unacceptable that in some municipalities it takes several years to get approval for a construction project. We must set a clear time limit for authorities' processing and limit the possibility of constant appeals that solely aim to delay housing construction. One way is to clarify that the municipalities should from the beginning state what they expect so that the person who wishes to build knows the conditions. Today, it can be compared to a river. The river becomes longer and longer, and it feels as if one as a housing builder never reaches the end of the river.

I believe that the municipalities have gotten off lightly in the form of them having the planning monopoly. That is where the longer processing times are, but also the rising costs for building permits.

Bygg i Tids lead time index for 2024 generally notes no improvement compared to last year's measurement. The lead times have increased from 4.5 to 4.7 years from the start of detailed planning work to the start notice – despite fewer cases to handle. The total lead times for detailed plans and building permits in the selection of municipalities lie between 3.1 and 6.5 years with a weighted average of 4.7 years, which can be compared with 4.5 years in the previous measurement in 2023.

Is it not a clear sign that we must demand more from our municipalities regarding lead times when these are increasing at a time when the number of applications is decreasing sharply or is at a significantly lower level than before?

We as the Riksdag should consider whether we should have a greater focus on facilitating for the municipalities to reduce the lead times in the processes. It costs time, effort, and money, but above all, the efficiency in building new homes is crucial in shorter processes.

In light of this, it is liberating that the government has good proposals for more flexible rules for building student housing – rules that mean one can build approximately 20 percent more student housing on the same area and thus at a lower cost. The cost of a home is burdensome for a student, and it is an important factor to keep the rent as low as possible.

The same applies to the Council on Legislation referral regarding the regulatory framework for building permits, where 41 relaxations are made. The proposals mean that the number of measures that can be carried out without a requirement for a building permit and that can be permitted without hindrance in detailed plans and area regulations are expanded in order to both create more housing and increase property owners' opportunities to decide how their own property shall be developed. These regulatory simplifications will mean that the building permit departments in our municipalities will have significantly fewer cases to handle, which should mean that they can concentrate on pure new construction and thereby increase the pace of construction in Sweden.

I think we have a government that shows that reforms are the way forward to achieve a more functional housing market where construction is based on people's needs and which functions more like a market where people can make choices based on their situation.

We in the committee have been visited by the Minister for Housing twice, on occasions where he has presented the measures that have been and are being taken. Unfortunately, the committee meetings have dragged on because there was so much to report, which has hampered the possibility of holding a dialogue about the proposals. But I believe that moving forward there will be time for both.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! In my speech, I mentioned that Larry Söder had responded to an article I had written about the government's proposal to remove the accessibility requirement for student housing. I think the proposal is unfortunate. People with disabilities have the same rights as everyone else to be able to educate themselves and live with dignity in Sweden.

When the proposal was presented, representatives of the construction and real estate industry stated that the regulatory easing was expected to be able to increase the construction of student housing and reduce production costs. On the other side are, among others, Sveriges förenade studentkårer, the Institute for Human Rights, the Agency for Participation, the Equality Ombudsman, the Social Services Agency, the Public Health Agency, the Tenants' Association, and all disability organizations.

Just today the disability rights parliament is being held, so there are very many from these organizations who are at the Riksdag today. This is therefore a very appropriate topic to discuss.

Larry Söder's answer to the concern of mine, the Left Party, and all the organizations I mentioned was that it is principle-riding and that we are backward-looking when we say that we must respect human rights and that people with disabilities should have the same opportunities as everyone else in society to participate in the education we have in Sweden and have a home where one feels comfortable, in accordance with the UN Convention and the disability rights conventions that we have signed.

I cannot translate this text because it does not contain a speech from the Swedish Riksdag. Please provide the text you would like me to translate.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Being a member of the Swedish Riksdag gives me the right and the duty to respond to debate items that I do not agree with. I would like to present my views on them.

I would like to assert that nowhere in the government's proposal is it said that we do not want people with disabilities to be able to receive an education. We want them to have the same opportunities as everyone else. On the other hand, we oppose that 100 percent of student housing should be adapted so that everyone can live in them. We think that 20 percent is sufficient. That means that more student housing can also be built.

The government's point is that we have too few student residences in Sweden. They are also too expensive to build. If one wants to make changes, it means that some will be happy and some will be sad. We consider it important for students to be able to afford a residence and access a residence in the city where they are to study. If we do not solve it, it is a crisis for Sweden as a nation, because we are a knowledge nation.

We must ensure that students can access the education they want, completely regardless of what disability they have or if they do not have any disability. We mean that we do it in this way. We ensure that 20 percent of student housing is adapted while 80 percent is not. Today, it is 1–2 percent of those who use student housing who need adapted housing. We therefore have a good margin to be able to meet the need that exists.

For an individual, it can become a problem – I can see that too. But I believe that it can be solved in every locality. I am convinced that this is good for Sweden and good for the students.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased to hear Larry Söder say that it can become a problem for an individual. Then he begins to understand the issues.

I can once again mention the organizations that have said that this is wrong, that it goes against the UN Convention and that it will affect very many people: Sveriges förenade studentkårer, Institutet för mänskliga rättigheter, Myndigheten för delaktighet, Diskrimineringsombudsmannen, Socialstyrelsen, Folkhälsomyndigheten, Hyresgästföreningen and all disability organizations.

What is the probability that all these organizations are wrong and Larry Söder, Kristdemokraterna and the Tidö parties are right? There is nothing that indicates that you are right and all these experts are wrong.

This will affect very many people. When Larry Söder calls me a reactionary and says that Vänsterpartiet engages in principle-riding, it is a mockery of all these people.

As I said: The one who dares to claim that housing is a fundamental human right is almost laughed at and called a reactionary. For me as a Left Party member, housing will remain a human right, regardless of what the other side says. As a Left Party member, I will strive and fight every day for everyone who lives in the country, regardless of whether one has any disability, a different background or whatever it may be, or whether one is poor or rich. I will fight so that we build a society that has room for everyone and create equal conditions so that everyone gets the conditions they need to become the best they can be.

It may be because I myself am not the norm in Sweden. Still, I stand here in Sweden's Riksdag. It is all the others who have fought to create that path for me who make this possible. I want to work so that everyone else can get the same opportunity I have received to a better and dignified life.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Among the finest things that exist in Sweden is that one is allowed to say what one thinks. This also applies to a Member of Parliament from Kristdemokraterna responding to a debate article from Vänsterpartiet. It also applies to the disability movement. It applies to any organization whatsoever in Sweden. Everyone is allowed to express their opinion.

We all have our own view of the world. We all have our own perspectives on different issues. I have never strived for there to be only one right and one wrong. It can be that everything is not black or white. Sometimes the possibilities lie somewhere in between, and that is what we have seen.

Not everyone is happy with the proposals coming from the government. I believe, however, that this is good for Sweden and good for the students. We get cheaper student housing. We can build more student housing. Everyone can also manage and get a student housing unit because we set the limit at 20 percent. Today, it is 2 percent that use adapted student housing. I cannot see that we need to set it higher than 20 percent. I believe it is more important that student housing exists, that it becomes cheaper for the students, and that we can continue as a knowledge nation.

And most importantly: We have freedom of speech and democracy in Sweden, which means that I, as a member of Parliament, am allowed to respond to a debate article.

(Applause)

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must quietly remind Member Momodou Jallow of the ban on props in the Riksdag, such as displaying articles and other items.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! After hearing the previous exchange, I can begin by regretting that this has become a student politics debate. We are actually debating something completely different today. A report will be presented later where these important issues will get their time in the spotlight.

Member of the Board Larry Söder spent approximately 70 percent of his speech directly and indirectly criticizing the municipalities for the shortcomings and challenges that exist when it comes to housing construction. There are certainly shortcomings and challenges, but at the same time, I believe, it is taking the easy way out to refer to a commission without any mandate to report on anything that no one knows in January 2027 and claim that precisely that commission is the solution to the problems we have.

If one wants to increase the proportion of small houses, one must remember that it is not the state that builds the small houses. It is not the municipalities either that build the small houses, but it is people who build them. We know that ultimately it is about financing.

I would like to hear why this debate has been framed in a way that criticizes the municipalities when it is the government that de facto is marked by its absence in the political arena.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I still think that the planning of student housing actually falls within this area, and therefore I think the debate is perfectly okay on that point.

When it comes to the municipalities' responsibilities, they get off a bit easily. We make decisions on the Planning and Building Act, and there are other rules for the municipalities to handle. Furthermore, we de facto have a planning monopoly in Sweden. It is the municipalities that plan the constructions in the municipalities, and it is they who for the most part manage the lead times for the planning process. It is also the municipalities that set the fees, which vary widely in different municipalities. There are surveys that show that the fee for a building permit on exactly the same house and the same plot size can vary from 10,000 to 74,000 kronor. I do not think that is reasonable because it is a question of the same service in all municipalities, and then I must be able to address the issue. I do so in the debate where I think it is reasonable to raise the issue.

I believe that the municipalities have a greater responsibility than we sometimes give them, and that question we should debate. Just as the representative from the Center Party says, we have a responsibility at the national level to facilitate as much as possible.

In my speech, I raised the issue of removing some requirements for building permits in 41 areas, which would make it easier for the municipalities to handle the actual new construction cases. In that way, we can help the municipalities, but they cannot escape the responsibility for what they are tasked to do.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! One must also be honest and say why the municipalities have a planning and building monopoly. It would be deeply unfortunate if we here in the chamber made decisions about individual projects all around our elongated country. There is a reason why that is so.

Centerpartiet and I have been critical of the high fees in the building permit processes. But one must also be honest and say that even that has its reasons. When the municipalities have the responsibility and do not receive enough state grants, they use those types of revenue sources to finance their operations. Right or wrong, but there are reasons why it is so.

What we here in the Riksdag can do is provide them with the framework. I am glad that after nearly three years, a government bill is finally coming that actually addresses the framework issues, that is to say, those that the municipalities have to comply with.

I am also pleased that the coastal protection investigation that the Center Party worked out during the previous parliamentary term is finally going to be presented, which will enable the municipalities to grant exemptions. At the same time, I can state, without raising my voice, that apart from the parts that were finished already during the previous parliamentary term, nothing has happened in the area of housing policy. I would like to hear from Larry Söder, who represents the Christian Democrats, why the responsibility is being pushed away.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! If one is still under the illusion that nothing is happening in the housing area, I would like to remind that the Minister for Housing has visited the committee twice. The first time, he took an hour to report on the proposals that were in the pipeline and those that have been implemented. At the most recent occasion, he took half an hour to report on what is in progress.

I mean that quite a lot is happening in the housing area. Then one can always think that more things should happen, but I would probably argue that it is a workshop. If one looks a bit objectively, one sees that things are happening. Then I have all the understanding that one in opposition wants more to happen.

I am clear that we do not want to remove the planning monopoly from the municipalities. It is obvious that it should remain, but we believe, as appears in some motions, that regional and physical planning should be tested in more places, just as it happens in Halland. I believe that it puts pressure on the municipalities to cooperate more and to produce a more overarching planning.

Just as the representative from the Center Party says, the coastal protection will facilitate planning for the municipalities. I do not believe that the investigation will go as far as I would wish, that is to say that the coastal protection actually disappears and that the municipalities themselves get to decide which areas shall be subject to coastal protection – the county administrative board is removed entirely. That would be best in order to be able to plan the housing construction in a good and efficient way. But one probably will not go that far in that issue – unfortunately.

I believe that we underestimate the municipalities' opportunities to influence lead times and fees. The building permit fee should not be a source of income for other activities; it should only exist for planning and construction. I mean, therefore, that the municipal councils should review the fee to ensure that it is being used in the right way.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservation 1 in report CU14.

Planning and construction, which is what the committee report is about, is fundamental to how our society should look in the future. But all too often, individual cases form the basis for the discussion on how our society should be developed and built. All too often, the problem is someone else's, and all too often, the discussions are conducted starting from some form of trench warfare between different actors and interests. It is not sufficient!

Planning and construction are much more important than that. The Planning and Building Act is a form of coordination between all stakeholders within community construction. Order and tidiness must be balanced with the requirements for fast processes with minimal hassle. To achieve this, an understanding of each other's inputs in the different planning processes is required.

Review of the regulatory framework is an ongoing process. Simplifications that can enable faster processes are good both for the individual and for society. But it is also important to take into account the need for order and clarity in the planning stage in order to be able to build a socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable society.

Laws and rules are created to ensure that errors and deficiencies are not built into society. Based on these principles, we Social Democrats have worked in both government and opposition to constantly develop the regulatory framework for planning and construction. Rules that cannot be justified should be removed, and processes that can be carried out faster should naturally be conducted on that premise. But the rules and processes must also ensure that our future Sweden does not become a fraudulent construction. At the same time, it is important to point out, especially for the SD-led government, that regulatory simplifications are not a panacea for housing construction. No one can live in a regulatory simplification.

The housing shortage is something that must be built away, and that requires a housing policy that makes it possible for ordinary people to afford a home. The government has, with SD's support, often underlined that simplifying regulations is the most important housing policy initiative that they intend to continue working with. There is political agreement on trying to formulate rules as simple as possible. But it has, as expected, proven to be easier said than done.

The government will likely, eventually in the spring, present a bill on a new regulatory framework for building permits. Given the Housing Minister's grand words about structural changes that are to solve housing construction, a good deal in the pending proposal has met strong criticism from virtually all referral bodies, ranging from Villaägarna and Bostadsrätterna to Boverket, Sveriges Arkitekter and others.

If the Minister for Housing's intention is that errors and deficiencies in housing construction shall be rectified ex post facto, through supervision, instead of solving them before they are made, we will have a heated debate here in the chamber during the spring.

During the spring, we will also debate the government's proposal regarding poorer student housing, which several have commented on. More cramped student housing with worsened accessibility are not improvements. There are other, better proposals to achieve 10,000 new rental or student apartments without building poorer apartments. We will return to that when that debate is to be taken.

Regarding housing construction, the government has failed completely. Construction of only 28,000 new homes was started last year. That is barely half of the 52,000 homes that need to be built annually. As a clear consequence of this, nearly 5,000 companies within the construction sector have gone bankrupt during this parliamentary term. In 2024, the highest number of bankruptcies since 1993 occurred.

Construction unemployment has reached over 10 percent, which other members have mentioned earlier. Just from September last year until February, the number of unemployed in Byggnads akassa had increased by 2,500. In Byggnads akassa, there are therefore a total of over 14,000 unemployed today. Naturally, there are more who are unemployed beyond that. Not everyone is in the fund. These are frightening figures.

Not even the government's initiative to increase small house construction has yielded any visible result, likely because it was misdirected and because the amount was negligible. Only 5,500 new small houses began to be built during 2024. These are record-low figures, which resemble the bottom levels of the 90s crisis.

No, the SD-led government's policy is not sufficient. According to the most positive forecast I have read, housing construction will reach 40,000 homes at the earliest in 2027. That is still far below the annual need of 52,000 new homes every year. One can be nothing other than strongly critical of this failure.

Mr. Speaker! Many detailed plans are appealed across Sweden. In addition to the construction being delayed, the long periods of waiting in the end can also affect housing prices. The problem is, of course, not that people appeal. It is a right in a democracy to have the opportunity to point out problems and to have one's case examined. And a proper assessment of detailed plans must be made. The problem is that there are no time limits on how long an appeal can take.

Despite changes having been made to shorten processing times, appeals continue to take far too long. We Social Democrats believe that time limits should be set. Among other things, there should be a limit for service, that is, for how long it should be allowed to take before a decision can be collected.

There are also clear examples of municipalities having to wait so long for a government decision in an appeal case that the entire process in large has had to be redone. It is very irresponsible of the sitting government. Limitations were needed. It is completely obvious.

Furthermore, a limited right of appeal can be ensured through, for example, a narrower circle of co-owners, limited possibilities to appeal building permits when they comply with the detailed plan, and limited possibilities to appeal further to higher instances.

All this must, of course, be weighed against the requirements for legal certainty and the individual's right to object to decisions made. We Social Democrats therefore see a need for a review of the issues with a clear focus on limiting the possibilities for appeals, in order to facilitate a sustainable societal development.

Mr. Speaker! I have had quite high expectations for this debate on planning and construction during the entire parliamentary term. I believe there is a consensus on many issues. I am looking specifically at Larry, whose speech I appreciated. You raised issues that I am also raising here.

We have, at the request of several actors in the construction sector, proposed cross-bloc talks to create long-term conditions for planning and construction. This has, however, been decided against by the government and SD. The government has been and is very satisfied with its work. People have spoken of a rough start to the housing policy, but it has instead led to a standstill in new construction. Few, if any, signs are visible of a recovery in housing construction.

Industry partners, housing developers with several speak of a need to kickstart housing construction through economic incentives of various kinds. But very little of this is being implemented. People talk about potential relaxations regarding mortgage caps and other parts. But we have not even seen that a referral has been issued. Possibly in the summer, it has been said. When will the proposal be on the table?

I want to look back a couple of years to when we debated the same issues. Then Jakob Olofsgård from Liberalerna said: We are resting on our laurels, and when inflation goes down we need to be prepared.

Now inflation has gone down. How many more years will we have to wait while the government rests on its laurels? More than half of the mandate period has passed. When we look at the government's list of propositions, that is, at the actual proposals that are on our table to be discussed, we can state that it is soon three lost years.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by underlining that the housing shortage is something that must be built away. But it requires housing that ordinary people can demand. Housing construction has collapsed, and according to many assessors, it is set to be seven difficult years. This was pointed out already a couple of years ago, but the fact remains.

Increased housing construction is a matter of the financing issue. It is conspicuously absent. It therefore requires more measures than just regulatory simplifications. And with this SD-led government's structural changes, the Swedish folkhemmet risks becoming a sham construction.

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

(Applause)

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with much of what Leif Nysmed from the Social Democrats said in his speech. I can perhaps mostly agree that when one makes changes, it is always a trade-off between different interests. Housing policy works somewhat in that way; we have slightly different starting points and views on how it should be. But it is not only we in this chamber who have views, but organizations and companies out in Sweden do as well.

I noted that Leif Nysmed was advocating for simplifications and that everyone actually benefits from regulatory simplifications that make it possible to build faster. My question to Leif Nysmed is whether it can be imagined that when one rule is added, two must be removed. This is used in a corporate context. Can it be done in a construction context as well? In that way, we can take on the role of reducing the number of rules ourselves.

Leif Nysmed was also involved in the Government Reference on changed rules for building permits, which would mean the largest change to those rules since 2014. The person who was Housing Minister then was a Christian Democrat. We can say that I, as a Christian Democrat, want to honor that history by wanting to make a major change also during this mandate period.

The assessment is that the number of cases at the building permit departments in the municipalities would decrease by up to 40 percent.

My questions to Leif Nysmed are: Is that not a simplification of the rules? Can it be imagined that it makes a difference in the processes, so that housing is actually produced in a shorter time?

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member asks me first and foremost: If one introduces a rule, should one then remove two? I think it is a foolish proposal. If there are two rules that are not needed and no longer fulfill their purpose, they should be removed, regardless of whether new rules are introduced. But just because one introduces a rule, two other good rules should not be removed; instead, one must of course always look at what the purpose of a rule is. Is it there to annoy people? I do not think so. Forgive me for swearing! If one introduces a new rule that can replace two others, it is reasonable to remove them. But one must look at that. To generally say "if we introduce a rule, we remove another" is purely quasi-intellectual.

When it comes to building permits: That the reporting requirement is removed for, for example, accessory residential buildings is, firstly, a chimera; there are still a number of reporting requirements remaining if one, for example, is to build an accessory residential building. Secondly, the entire risk is shifted onto the individual property owner. If one builds in an error in one's house, one will have to redo it and take the entire financial hit oneself. That is the major criticism from, for example, the villa owners, who are those who should be most affected by this change. I think that one should look at the referral statements and reflect a bit on this.

Regarding the question of a reduced number of cases concerning reports and building permits, I can say that supervision will instead increase dramatically, which affects the taxpayers in the respective municipalities. You have not been so very skilled on the government's side at providing funds to the municipalities to handle the increased costs. We shall have to see where it lands.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This was a textbook example of how the Social Democrats conduct housing policy. People talk about simplifying regulations and that it should become easier to build. You are to remove as many rules as possible. My question to Leif Nysmed is: How many rules did you remove during eight years in government? If you can provide that figure, if it even exists at all, I would be grateful. It is easy to complain about someone else and say that they should do something. But when the government then comes forward with simplifications of regulations and actually removes things from the building permit departments – up to 40 percent, a figure that Leif Nysmed did not attack – what do the Social Democrats do then? Well, then you are not involved in making those simplifications.

I can state that the Social Democrats only want to make rule simplifications that mean that one does not need to make any trade-offs between different interests, because no one should get annoyed. Nothing else shall happen. That means that no rule simplifications will occur when a Social Democrat sits as housing minister. It may be lucky that it was an Environment Party member who was housing minister in the previous government. Then perhaps it happens a little bit.

The majority in this chamber must drive the housing policy forward. The Social Democrats talk very much about consensus and that we should find simplifications of regulations. But when a proposal arrives, nothing is good enough. I would have wished that Leif Nysmed had said: "These proposals in the building permit section are good, these we can think about, and these we will oppose." But he does not do that. The Social Democrats reject the entire concept, which is very unfortunate. That is not how a cooperative opposition conducts policy. I wonder how Leif Nysmed imagines that a cooperation would work between the government and the opposition if one acted that way every time a proposal is presented.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member of the committee is somewhat mocking the fact that I question precisely that part of the Building Permit Investigation's report which is harshly criticized by almost all referral bodies. I think one should consider why everyone is against the proposal and take that into account. That is why we have referral rounds.

Larry Söder asks how many rules we have removed. For the first point, this is to be read in the statement itself. I believe it was 16 propositions that we implemented during the last mandate period. How many propositions have you submitted, Larry Söder? They can be counted on one hand, I can tell you. It has been almost three years. You have one year if you want to reach half.

Secondly, it was we who appointed the Building Permit Inquiry, whose proposal you have dragged out for three years. I expect that we will finally receive a government bill on the table. Then we will look at which parts we consider feasible. There are actually quite a few good points from the Council on Legislation that I think we should look at more closely. But in this specific part, it is about completely removing the notification and placing all the risk on the individual villa owner, who would have to take the financial hit.

Is it a big problem? Yes, it is a big problem. In the newspaper Altinget, you can read a text by Annie Östlund, elected representative for Centerpartiet. She points out that in 68 percent of all applications for Attefallshus made in 2023, start notices were denied because the applications contained errors. This suggests that there is a purpose in submitting something to the municipality that helps one do it correctly from the start. It is always better to correct an error before it is made. Next time, it is the individual person who has to take the financial hit. It won't be Larry Söder who takes it.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report Planning and Building.

Imagine a Sweden where families, regardless of income and where they live, are given the opportunity to build their own small house, live there, and settle down. It is a place where you greet the neighbors over the fence, where you see your children running around and playing in the own garden, and where you yourself, face completely red, run out in only your bathrobe to chase away the crows from the strawberry patch. Small houses are, in my opinion, not just a form of housing but also a symbol for so much more than that. Just this is actually a reason to build more small houses, but the most important reason of all is that the dream for a large proportion of Swedes is precisely to live in a small house.

But unfortunately, all too often it remains merely a pipe dream for many. Those who want to buy today have it significantly harder than just ten years ago. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get a foot in the housing market. Politics simply does not deliver according to how people want to live.

At the end of the 1800s, the home ownership movement was formed, a popular movement with the goal of giving the working class their own housing, as well as the idea of the garden city, which with its small-scale, mixed housing became a kind of counter-movement to what was then regarded as the dark and unhealthy 1800s city.

I do not believe it was a coincidence that Elias Sehlstedt wrote the following verse during this period, which I must admit I had not heard myself until I recently had it sent to me:

A small home I wish to have: A farm with a garden path too, A small field to cultivate I wish to have up in the country: The house without flaw or defect – Four rooms and a front porch.

Today, over a hundred years later, this vision is still just as relevant. We need to continue the work of establishing a new, modern cottage movement to enable more people to make their dream home a reality.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish housing market remains in crisis. The investment calculations do not hold due to the rising interest rates of recent years, increased material costs, and consequently reduced profitability. This reduces the willingness to invest in both new rental apartments as well as condominiums and small houses. End customers, both buyers and tenants, have simply found it harder to afford new homes.

In the longer term, this will of course have serious consequences. When new production slows down, it is primarily housing in attractive locations for strong groups that continues to be built. It is unfortunately the households that already stand furthest away from the housing market that are hit hardest. Their opportunities to find a secure place to call their home shrink further.

At the same time, we must also learn the art of quickly moving towards more sustainable, smart, and energy-efficient buildings without, in doing so, destroying the social and cultural values that have been built up over decades. When we renovate or adapt our existing stock, both the climate impact and our common cultural heritage must be weighed.

Mr. Speaker! Today, for example, many offices and retail premises stand empty. If one looks at people's changed purchasing behaviors, where more and more products are bought online, and how the pandemic fundamentally changed how we work and what we expect from our work environment, these vacancies will surely increase even more in the future.

But sometimes something good can come from the bad. From a resource and climate perspective, it is efficient, for example, to convert offices and retail premises into housing. It is about the fact that one can utilize frames and materials that are already on site. This does not contribute to an increased climate footprint but provides the same utility. Another advantage is that no new land is claimed. An additional reason is that, as a rule, infrastructure already exists on site in the form of services and public transport around the existing buildings.

The changed use of premises obviously does not solve the housing need that exists. One must be honest and say that. But it would be foolish to waste the potential that already exists in our existing property stock. To create more housing in the short term, the government has made a decision on a stimulus to municipalities that adopt detailed plans that enable the conversion of premises into housing. That is good. But that work needs to be further developed to provide a better outcome.

Mr. Speaker! Do you dream of building something new, or perhaps someone else here in the chamber does? Then it is perhaps more important than ever to be on good terms with those who live in the area. The opportunity to put a stop to someone else's construction plans has perhaps never been greater than it is now. This was recently noted in an editorial in my local newspaper at home.

A specific case was taken up where an objection regarding the presence of bats or any other protected species in a development area was sufficient to delay, increase the cost of, and in the worst case, stop a project. This judgment from the Land and Environment Court of Appeal was commented on by the lawyer Lisa Kylenfelt. She explained that the person seeking a preliminary permit can now simply be forced to pay for an investigation when someone claims that a protected species may be present in the area, even if that claim is vague in itself.

For both individuals and companies, it raises the threshold further for new construction. The path from the first application to an actual start of construction risks becoming both more expensive, longer, and more uncertain. Not least, it could cause more construction projects to fall through already in the planning phase.

What one recoils at is not the possibility of being able to appeal – which is, on the contrary, something that must exist in order to be able to protect endangered species – but rather the marked imbalance that is described in the case. It is simply a matter of that who wants to stop a project principally only needs to refer to the fact that a protected species has been observed. On the other hand, an extensive investigation is required by that who wants to build to prove the opposite.

Now that even vague claims can force expensive and time-consuming investigations to protect a species, it unfortunately increases the risk that the tool will be used for completely different purposes, and thereby perhaps erode trust for environmental work in general. Housing projects are fundamentally often conflict-ridden in many cases. For those who want to put a spoke in the wheels, there is now a simpler method, regardless of whether there actually are species worthy of protection on the site or not.

Now it is a matter of us trying to find solutions where we have a balance in this process and ensure that we protect our peaceful species at the same time as it is not used as a tool solely to oppose people during a construction.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating planning and construction in the chamber. Housing policy affects several areas of our society. When we work with housing policy issues, we have the opportunity to influence and create conditions for development and improvement in many places, and not only when it comes to building houses.

Mr. Speaker! Here we have, for example, the planning process. There, we mean that the crime-preventive and safety-creating perspective needs to be included already in the planning phase. It is a matter of having consultations and discussions there together with the police and other experienced authorities.

It is about getting all the pieces together at an early stage to create the conditions so that the areas and residential environments that are added from the beginning include crime-preventive and safety-creating measures.

We also need to continue working with the municipal support to plan areas in such a way that we can create conditions for safer residential areas, something that there is a great need for in Sweden today.

We have several vulnerable areas. We want to ensure that conditions are created so that fewer vulnerable areas exist in the country and that no new ones are added. A national action plan is needed here that the municipalities can use as support in this work.

In the cooperation that the Sverigedemokraterna have with the Tidö parties, we also have a delivery of a bill to strengthen safety in the built environment through area cooperation. It is a bill that I look forward to the government being able to present here in the chamber to create the conditions to be able to cooperate to create safe residential areas.

Mr. Speaker! These are some of the parts that are extremely important in the housing policy area and which concern the safety of our citizens out in society.

Furthermore, the Sweden Democrats argue that we need to work with citizen influence in the design of public art and new construction. This could create conditions to avoid officials, architects, and politicians using their own subjective assessments of what are beautiful areas and housing.

We want to enable more citizens to be able to participate in the process. We also believe that such a process can create conditions for fewer appeals and better processes in housing construction.

We also need to investigate the introduction of a municipal architecture program where we can create conditions for architectural quality and aesthetics. It would be an intermediate step between the planning system's comprehensive plan and detailed plan, an alternative between the comprehensive plan process and the detailed plan process.

It is again part of what I believe can create the conditions for fewer appeals, a better understanding, and an involvement of the citizens in the process of building new homes and housing environments.

We need to strengthen the cultural environment competence that exists in the municipalities by introducing cultural planning. It focuses on the site's cultural and historical perspectives in order to counteract large-scale and uniform new construction.

We want to ensure that we preserve the cultural environments and the historical parts in the municipalities that are important for creating a national identity but also a local identity. When building in those areas, there need to be better conditions for cultural environment expertise.

We need to work with a mapping to avoid us demolishing historical buildings and destroying cultural environments. The municipality has a crucial role in preserving these areas. Support could be needed there. We want to see an investigation to enable better conditions for such support. We also need to have sanctions against developers who disregard sensitive cultural environments to ensure that cultural environments are not destroyed during new construction.

Planning and construction is a comprehensive area. It affects state, region, and municipality. All these parts interact with each other to create the conditions for new housing to be built. Ultimately, the planning responsibility lies with the municipalities. Sverigedemokraterna argues that more work is needed on processing issues to achieve a more efficient management of permits and housing construction. Work is also needed on the appeal processes to speed up housing planning.

We believe from the Sweden Democrats' side that a regional planning should be introduced in all of Sweden. Today, this is used in Skåne, Stockholm and Halland counties. We mean that one would need to proceed with that process and introduce this in all of Sweden so that the state, regions and municipalities can jointly plan for housing construction, infrastructure and public transport in a better way.

When it comes to simplifying regulations and creating better conditions for planning housing construction, a support for detailed plans for small house developments has, for example, been introduced. We have also continued the work with simplifying regulations and faster processes. The upcoming bill on a new building permit procedure is part of the large policy overhaul that is needed. The Government can today present and implement a number of changes to create good conditions for planning and construction in Sweden.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for approval of reservation 10.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is not a general political debate on housing policy. If that had been the case, I would have focused very much on financing issues in general, because if that very question is not addressed, there will be no housing – not even with political goodwill.

Today we are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report Planning and Construction. These are very interesting questions in general. It concerns a review of the Planning and Building Act, regional planning, noise, reuse and building permits, and naturally climate adaptation, which is an important part when it comes to climate issues in general.

These questions and this committee report are somewhat overshadowed given the investigation and the bill that were promised regarding more permit-exempt measures. We look forward to debating the committee report on this, as well as the committee report that will come regarding rule changes for student housing. These are two bills that we have looked forward to among the few bills that this government has de facto delivered.

Before I go into what Centerpartiet wants in these issues, I want to move for approval of reservation 30 in the committee report. We naturally stand behind all our motions, but we do not want to sit here and vote for 20–30 hours.

When I listened to my Left Party colleague, it sounded as if the heavens had fallen and that there was no one who had a roof over their head. I still want to remind that we have approximately 2 million rental apartments in this country. We also have 1.2 million housing cooperatives and 3.2 million properties, of which 2.5 million are small houses in the form of villas and terraced houses. So, it is quite a few who still have a roof over their heads. Then one must place this in the sociological context that we in Sweden, as an individualistic society, are accustomed to living alone, which affects needs and demand in a different way than in other countries.

One can still state that it has been three lost years, as my Social Democratic colleague said. We spoke before the debate about how it is quite a pity that the pace in the department governed by the Christian Democrats is so low. There are quite a few issues that this chamber could make decisions on in broad agreement if only some propositions arrived.

We could take on the promotion of innovative construction. We could handle the coastal protection issues in a good way. What I am rambling about now is the Center Party's proposal. Why is half of Sweden counted as a national interest? I believe that question is something Larry Söder and the Christian Democrats would be prepared to take on. We could take up the issue of even more building permit-exempt measures than the 41 that are promised and discuss it when such a proposal arrives.

There was a defense policy debate here in the chamber before this, where the total defense was discussed. Protecting farmland is included in our committee's area of responsibility. We could talk about that; it concerns the food supply as a part of the total defense. There is, therefore, quite a lot that we could handle if we wanted to.

What is concerning is the restless world around us in which we live. We have a gentleman on the other side of the Atlantic who has decided to do quite a few things lately. We will see what comes now tonight at 22:00. One might wonder what that has to do with this debate. Well, the housing sector accounts for 10 percent of Sweden's GDP and is a very important part of our society. It is clear that the decisions made somewhere else affect us and our opportunities to handle these issues in the long term.

The important thing about this specific report concerns what is stated quite clearly: These are very long processes. In order to be able to manage long processes, the market and all actors, both public and private, need long-term rules of the game.

I received a question from a journalist about which issues regarding housing policy should be debated in Almedalen this year. I answered that it is about how we ensure long-term perspective in the area of housing policy, especially when it comes to planning and construction, given the restless world we live in.

From beginning to end, it takes nine years, it is said, from the time one starts planning until one has a finished home. That is significantly longer than the four-year mandates that this chamber has to adhere to. Now we lost this mandate period. I think that is quite a shame, because we had an opportunity to address important issues for society.

I must nevertheless give Malcolm Momodou Jallow credit that there are many out there struggling to make ends meet. When interest rates soared, it affected very many, just like when inflation soared. We missed the chance to address the challenges of housing policy when company after company fell and very many in this sector lost their jobs.

We in the Center Party extended our hand. The Tidö group, however, did not want to take our outstretched hand, which I regret. I still want to address my colleagues in the committee: It is not too late yet! There are quite a few completed investigations at the ministry that could be fast-tracked and placed on the Riksdag's table so that a broad majority can provide the conditions required for us to get more housing in place.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Alireza Akhondi, for the speech, which was broad in its nature. That is how it usually is with Alireza Akhondi's speeches.

I noted that we at least have a common view that the lead times are far too long and that they must be reduced in one way or another. I also noted that the members, in their presentation, touched upon the shore protection, which is in progress ahead, both in the form of a bill and perhaps as a part where one moves forward and looks deeper at how one can review the shore protection as a whole.

In one of the exchanges, I spoke about perhaps completely leaving the management of the shore protection to the municipalities. Can the Center Party imagine going that far in those parts?

When it comes to regulatory simplifications, I noted that the new referral from the Council on Legislation was included in the report. It is therefore about 41 simplifications which would mean, I believe, that up to 40 percent of the cases to a building permit department will disappear. I would like to assert that this will enable shorter lead times.

Does the Centre Party have roughly the same view of this, that is, that part of the lead time problem is that there is so much to do in the building permit departments that there are structural problems with getting all cases through? It is both high and low, that is to say both quite large projects and small projects, and there the small projects have to give way to the larger ones. It would have been better if one could even it out in some way.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Larry Söder for the question!

The reason why the discussions become quite broad is that our structures are laid out in that way. There has been a lack of government bills, which means that the few opportunities we have at our disposal tend to run away and spread out, for better or worse. I would also have liked to discuss each individual issue separately, because I believe the issues deserve it.

When it comes to the coastal protection issue, which was a very concrete issue, I am very happy that this is finally happening. During the last parliamentary term, there were parties here in the chamber who did not think this was far-reaching enough. We argued then to push through what was there and work on the rest later, which you are finally doing.

If I am to take a stand for Centerpartiet in an exchange of remarks, I can say that we generally have the starting point that decisions should be made as close to people as possible. If I were therefore to be placed at the pillory and need to answer Larry Söder's question, I would say that it is reasonable that those decisions are made in the municipality. To me, it sounds quite reasonable given where we stand ideologically.

When it comes to the lead times, we will have to see if there will be 41 proposals. There has been quite a lot of criticism, something that Leif Nysmed also touched upon. It is very good that these issues are being addressed, but it is not the solution to everything, Larry Söder, as there are other parts that also need to be addressed so that more children are born.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thought it was housing and not children that were going to be created!

I think many of the 41 proposals are quite good. Many of the discussions are based on incorrect facts, I mean. The Attefall houses were introduced in 2014 when Stefan Attefall was Housing Minister, and the idea then was that there should only be a reporting obligation. Since then, the municipalities have turned it into something completely different, meaning that a building permit is required. But that was not the intention.

Then we can either make it more complicated for people to build an attefallshus and have a building permit process in a proper manner, or we take the other path, that is, make it exempt from a building permit, which we think is the right way to go. That was the spirit of the attefallshus, and that is how it should also be.

I am not surprised that there are people, both organizations and private individuals, who have criticism regarding that, but this was the spirit of the attefall houses from the beginning, and I think it would be good if that is honored.

Then there are many parts where one goes quite far. It concerns renovations, facades and so on that the municipality is not allowed to handle but which are placed on the individual, which I think is good. I realize that the municipalities do not think it is good, but it is also a trade-off that must be made.

All politics is about trade-offs. One must choose a path. If you do not want to do that, you should do nothing, and I mean that this shows which path one wants to take.

I am very interested in hearing how the Center Party intends to make regulatory simplifications that are not included here but which would reduce the building permit department's workload in a more concrete way, if one does not believe that this will result in 40 percent fewer cases. I am happy if it becomes 35 percent fewer!

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would also be happy if it becomes 35 percent. I do not intend to argue about 5 percent here or there.

One of the proposals that I have highlighted with Housing Minister Andreas Carlson is the glazing of balconies, and I showed how tricky it can be. Two apartments next to each other in the same property can receive different answers depending on something that has nothing to do with the matter. There are therefore things that could be further clarified in order to reduce the number of questions.

I received a question internally from someone from the local Center Party who was worried about the consequences and that things would need to be rectified afterwards. My answer is that one has to believe, somewhere, in the individual and the individual's will to do the right thing from the start. Sometimes, however, guidance is needed, and that is the balance that Larry Söder so wisely highlights. I have not seen the final product, and it is therefore difficult to say right now whether the government has succeeded in the feat of achieving a balance that can reconcile different interests in an appropriate way.

When it comes to other proposals on what could be devised, we have in various debates discussed that, given the economic situation, it is financing issues in large that need to be addressed. These questions are, however, not addressed in this report.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In the planning of our society's physical environments, the private and the collective meet. When we build our cities and our towns, we build for those of us who are to live and work there now. At the same time, we influence what choices our children and grandchildren will be able to make in the future.

Mr. Speaker! Climate change is no longer just a threat in the future but also a reality in our everyday lives. Floods and heatwaves cause great damage to assets and people. As extreme weather strikes more and more frequently, our societies need to be climate-adapted to meet the ongoing development.

Mr. Speaker! We often talk about conflicts of objectives of various kinds in the chamber. Later in our session, we will debate both building permits and functional rights as well as housing policy here. When we do that, I expect that we will both talk about conflicts and conflicts of objectives and perhaps also have some conflicts. But today I want to talk about synergies.

I want to talk about the great benefits we gain when we protect nature and plan cities and communities to make room for nature. When we plan for green spaces in built-up areas, we do not only protect animals and insects. With more and larger parks, we create space for recreation and movement for children and young people. When we protect the large trees and plan for many more trees to be able to grow large, we simultaneously protect our elderly from heatwaves. When we let more areas remain overgrown with plants instead of covering them with stone and asphalt, we also protect our homes from flooding. When we as individuals let the lawn remain instead of laying stone, we also protect the neighbor's basement.

Mr. Speaker! More nature in built-up areas is a fantastic opportunity. Miljöpartiet has a long series of proposals to create and protect more nature in our cities and in our built-up communities. Today, I therefore wish to move for the approval of reservation 12 in the report.

Europe's new nature restoration law entered into force in August 2024. The law contains requirements to implement restoration measures for important habitats, which also means that cities' green spaces are maintained and strengthened. National restoration plans will need to be developed, but the work will also need to be carried out at the local level. Already today, many municipalities are working with strengthened protection of existing valuable nature through the establishment of nature reserves and biotope protection, but also with measures to strengthen biodiversity and climate-adapt cities with the help of nature.

Protecting existing valuable nature is obviously easier than creating new natural values. That is precisely why it is of great importance that all municipalities work long-term to protect more of existing natural values. At the same time, the municipalities need to take a greater grip on how nature in the cities can best contribute with the ecosystem services we so much need now and in the future. In some cases, this applies in very limited areas.

When planning of climate adaptation measures, such as the management of water during heavy rainfall and shading and temperature reduction in schoolyards or at elderly care homes, occurs, recreational values and the strengthening of biodiversity must be included simultaneously. In many cases, these values can be strengthened through the same measure if only planning and coordination are carried out correctly from the beginning. We therefore believe that the municipalities need to be tasked with developing a unified plan for how to work with ecosystem services, climate adaptation, strengthened biodiversity, and recreational values, and how these can be coordinated through good and forward-looking planning for strengthened nature in the built environment.

At the same time as planning for biodiversity and ecosystem services, planning is needed to incorporate the recreational values that make people thrive and want to spend time in the natural environment. Nature should be close and accessible in people's everyday lives. Urban farming is a good example of ways to engage citizens in contributing to the work of strengthening natural values and biodiversity. It is also an engagement that strengthens the community in the area and can contribute to local food production – albeit on a small scale. Sometimes it is called edible parks. It is a nice expression, I think. We believe that the government would need to investigate how local initiatives for urban farming can be strengthened and better supported from a national level.

When previously undeveloped land is claimed for construction or other infrastructure, natural values and recreational values will need to be compensated in a much better way than what occurs today. We believe that the legislation needs to be adapted accordingly. We also want the green space factor to become a requirement for all new construction. It is a tool used by more and more municipalities and which means that requirements are set on what proportion of ecosystem services or natural values shall be established in a new development project. Boverket needs to be commissioned to develop a basic requirement for the green space factor and instructions on how to work with this, so that it becomes clear and predictable.

Mr. Speaker! The support that was previously available for green cities needs to be further developed so that cities can receive additional support and help in the work of maintaining and strengthening urban ecosystem services and biodiversity. Through these measures and by keeping our eyes fixed on the future, we can create more sustainable, healthy, and attractive cities for future generations while simultaneously achieving our environmental goals here and now.

Much in politics is about conflicts of objectives and difficult compromises. We need to handle those issues. But not everything is about that. Protecting more nature and adding more green spaces in built environments brings benefit and joy to us all.

Mr. Speaker! We face so many threats in our global environment. This chamber has to handle those threats and how we are to meet them, and we do that day after day. But it is a privilege to, as a member of the Swedish Riksdag, for a brief moment in this chamber, be able to speak about something that does good for us all: more nature, for the benefit of us all. I move for approval of reservation 12.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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