Urban planning, housing supply and construction, and consumer policy

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We now have before us the Civil Affairs Committee's major budget debate, and it can usually be summarized as being about housing, housing, housing, and then concluded with a few short remarks on consumer policy. The Civil Affairs Committee has a significantly broader area of responsibility than that – for example, insolvency law, family law, and land and water issues are included. But since the large items in the budget revolve around precisely housing construction and housing, that is also where the debate usually ends up.

For my part, it actually feels absolutely fantastic to finally be able to stand here this year and demand an unreserved approval of the budget.

I have been a member of the Housing Committee since 2014 and have stood by while the housing ministers have succeeded one another in a rather turbulent stream, one more disengaged than the other, unfortunately. Few can even count up which housing ministers we have had, and housing minister seems to have been something one should have but no one really wanted to be.

The worst thing, however, has been the lack of concrete policy. Actually, the last eight years have only been about injecting money from the tax collective, and now that the war in Europe has created crisis and inflation, it is extra concerning to inherit the poor policy that has been pursued during all my eight years in the Civil Affairs Committee and which has not solved the housing shortage. The new government is now presenting a well-balanced budget where we phase out the harmful parts of the previous policy.

Mr. Speaker! I suspect that the investment support will be mentioned a few times today. My party went to the election on the basis that the investment support should be phased out as soon as possible. The reason is simple. The investment support is costly, distorts competition and favors the wrong people to a very large extent. It is extremely bad distribution policy to give support to those who have stood longest in the housing queue and to companies that distribute profits.

Since the previous government lacked solutions, this was the lifeline that was constantly returned to without ever mentioning how much the companies in this industry distribute to the shareholders. I want to assert that it is double standards compared to tax money for school and healthcare.

The investment support has also tended to grow every year and the negative effects on the market likewise. This makes me think of the tale of the Fenris wolf in the old Norse mythology, which constantly grew and was constantly fed even though everyone saw that it was not good.

The investment support has grown so much that when we now phase out the support, there are applications totaling around 16 billion that will not be handled. These are extremely high sums that would have risked eroding other much better distribution-efficient measures.

Hopefully, no one literally needs to lose their arm like in the myth of the binding of Fenrisulven, but it will sting for many who counted on receiving a support that will not materialize. I regret this, but it is the previous government's poor policy that has created this situation.

It is interesting that none of the previous government parties have contributed enough to actually proceed with the investment support. No one wants to continue feeding the Fenris wolf. The unity on the fact that the investment support should be phased out therefore seems to be total. No one is contributing the funds that would be needed, not even to conclude all the applications that are already pending.

Mr. Speaker! For me, it is strange that it is assumed that everyone who rents their housing needs support and that everyone who owns their housing is rich. It is often brought up that the interest deduction is an advantage for those who own, but it can only be utilized by the one who hires labor.

Far from everyone who owns their home utilizes the rot deduction. In my own circle of acquaintances, there are many who do not consider themselves able to hire labor and therefore can never take advantage of the rot deduction and thus never utilize the enormous advantage that is always emphasized that owned housing has with the rot deduction. On the other hand, they pay in full for the materials during renovation.

Furthermore, those who own now are affected by all the increases caused by inflation, and they receive higher interest rates on their home loans - interest rates that have been raised to double compared to before.

I think it is wrong to set owned housing against rented housing in the way that is often done in the debate. Most people have different needs during different parts of life, and then different forms of housing are needed. But during the past eight years, the focus has solely been on creating more rental apartments.

Something very positive about the new government's and the Sweden Democrats' cooperation is that we are now getting a completely different view on owned housing. Finally, we can achieve reforms to increase the proportion of owned housing, and that is what we shall do, not because rented housing is worse but because people to a very large extent want to own their housing. Even among those who today live in rented apartments, there are many who want to live in owned housing and not least in villas.

Of what is being built in Europe, about 40 percent are small houses, while the figure in Sweden has long been around 20 percent. It is a problem. We are one of Europe's least densely populated countries, so a shortage of land should not prevail.

There is also no contradiction between building many rental apartments and building many villas. During the 70s, up to 30,000 villas were built annually while an extremely large number of apartment buildings were also being built, whereas the average during the previous government was around 10,000 villas and terraced houses per year.

Mr. Speaker! Housing is not just buildings. They are also something we call a home, and home should be something one associates with security. A home is more than four walls and a roof. Therefore, it is extra pleasing that the Minister for Housing so naturally also spoke about insecurity when he visited our committee. That security in society shall be re-established is something the Sweden Democrats and the government are completely in agreement on. Everything begins, in fact, with a secure home.

This insight has not existed previously, but now at least I see the light at the end of the tunnel. Now there is a new way of thinking, and I am convinced that we hereby lay the foundation for a new era in Swedish housing policy.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I shall briefly mention the initiatives being made in the consumer area. The Consumer Agency receives extra funds to manage the supervision of new rules on nicotine products. We are adding funds to the National Board for Consumer Disputes to maintain the board's important tasks. We are adding an extra 1 million to the Estate Agents Inspection to ensure it combats money laundering and terrorist financing. It is a very important initiative to maintain law and order. Curiously, the Center Party has opposed this. Support for associations and environmental labeling of products is also provided in our budget for 2023.

I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the reservation.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Mikael Eskilandersson for his opening remarks in this debate.

I note that Mikael Eskilandersson begins by stating that he is very satisfied with the budget that has been presented and happy to be able to move for its approval. This prompts a long series of questions about what it is he is actually moving for approval for and what active measures he refers to, since he does not mention these with a single word in the speech that follows.

But I will instead ask about construction during 2023. Boverket's and the construction industry's forecasts are that it will come to a standstill. During the record year 2021, 71,000 homes were built, and during 2022, 60,000 homes were started. Boverket believes it will drop further to 45,000 homes during 2023. The construction companies make a more pessimistic assessment and say 40,000 homes.

At the same time, we are heading towards a recession, and the industry predicts that unemployment will increase. The construction companies warn that the number of employed people could decrease by 22,000 during 2023. It is noteworthy that this figure is from October, i.e., before the government announced that it would cut the ceiling for the investment support.

That the investment support is being phased out is, therefore, a double blow to the construction sector. I naturally turn to Mikael Esklandersson's description of the investment support, and my question is: What answer do the members give to the construction workers who are now laid off and risk becoming unemployed during the next year? What measures do you have to secure and save their jobs?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, it looks like we are heading towards a very gloomy future when it comes to housing construction, but it is primarily a result of the very high interest rates combined with the fact that we have high inflation and a war that is driving up the prices of virtually all materials used. It is not our budget here today that has caused the halt in housing construction, and I regret that it looks like it will be as it is.

There is not a single krona in the Social Democrats' budget that would solve this. The investment support itself does not solve it. This support is also fully rolling at the moment, and yet it looks like there will be a complete halt in construction.

I do not really know what the Social Democrats mean that we should do that would in some way counteract this in the current situation. The Social Democrats also completely lack proposals for such a thing. We cannot fuel so much that we counteract the Riksbank's interest rate hike, because this hike is intended to result in reduced demand and that we should bring down inflation. If we do not succeed in bringing down inflation in Sweden, we will probably face an even gloomier future.

It is a precarious and troublesome situation. I note that the Social Democrats themselves have completely removed the investment support for the time being. There are no funds that would offset it, so I do not quite know what they mean by that the criticism should be against the government, because the criticism is, in that case, directed at all of us politicians who stand behind the proposals that are here today.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Eskilandersson, for the answer, even though I must state that the member probably deliberately chooses to misunderstand our proposal. I will return in my speech to what we do and what we advocate for.

I can state that Mikael Eskilandersson and the Sverigedemokraterna in their response here do not want to take responsibility for the situation at all, but instead they refer to external circumstances. It is obviously not the case that anyone is arguing against the fact that we have both inflation, war, increased interest rates, and so on. What the criticism is about is that regardless of whether one likes or dislikes the investment support – I can have respect for both – it is unusually bad timing to remove it in a situation where the economy is just turning, at least if one does so without having any proposals for other active measures.

Now we are debating expenditure area 18, but the budget must be seen as a whole. Throughout all policy areas, it is noted that one notes something, that one shifts the blame, and that one has no policy to mitigate the effects.

I can only state that if Mikael Eskilandersson does not elaborate on his answer in the next reply, the answer to the construction workers who are now laid off or risk being laid off and losing their jobs will be that he has no answers to the question of how he will secure their jobs. This is regrettable.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jennie Nilsson, for the question, even though it is actually extremely interesting to note that Member Jennie Nilsson is either poorly informed on what our budget actually contains or is standing here and lying through her teeth.

We have, for example, a strengthened unemployment insurance, but these are parts that we are not debating here today because they do not belong to this area. They are, however, things that would or will mitigate the effect - we truly hope so - of the poorer times that we seem to be heading into.

Then Member of Parliament Jennie Nilsson wants us to take responsibility now. Well, no one heard the Social Democrats talk about Putin prices and that the war would have had an impact during the election campaign – is that how I am to interpret the post? It is clear that the outside world has an impact. It was very much the case that the Socialdemokrater blamed all the impact on coming from the outside, while we, on the other hand, argued that the government could have mitigated the effects somewhat.

It is clear that we will do what we can to mitigate the effects. Part of this is obviously a strengthened unemployment insurance, but there are several areas. We have continued strengthened housing allowance, so there are a number of things in our budget that contribute and strengthen in the slightly longer term as well.

It is very little we can do from the Civil Affairs Committee's side when it comes to the investment support, because it is such a bad support that not even the Social Democrats have added money so that it is sufficient. There are no 16 billion in the Social Democrats' budget. It is actually a blatant lie to stand here and claim that.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Member Mikael Eskilandersson began his speech by saying that we usually talk a lot about housing and that consumer issues come a bit at the end, so I thought I would take the opportunity to highlight consumer issues a bit extra.

Now that we, in the wake of the war in Ukraine, have the highest inflation in a long time, with high electricity prices and price increases on both interest rates, housing, and food, there is a risk that more and more people will need to borrow for running expenses, with both over-indebtedness and, ultimately, a risk of increased social exclusion as a consequence.

According to Sveriges Konsumenter, marketing for loans and quick purchases to economically particularly vulnerable people is increasing at the same time. In the current situation, many municipalities are simultaneously scaling back their counseling, while more people are seeking help.

Miljöpartiet wants to allocate extra money to consumer and debt counseling. But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Mikael Eskilandersson: Do the Sverigedemokraterna think that the current situation means that extra measures in the consumer area should be taken in the future? Do you see any problems with the increased indebtedness, and if so, what measures do you see that may need to be taken in the future?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks, Katarina Luhr, for the question! There are many problems that we need to address. Sverigedemokraterna has a very extensive motion regarding precisely over-indebtedness, where we have a long series of proposals. These are proposals that we will continue to push forward. They are not included in the budget, because overall they are not budget-driving proposals. They are also not included in the Tidö Agreement, so we have every right to push them against the government as hard as we want, so to speak. This is what we will do as well.

In addition to this, I note with pleasure that Miljöpartiet has allocated money to precisely consumer advice in its budget, and that very part is something that we in Sverigedemokraterna have budgeted for over a number of years previously. Now we have to sit and negotiate about what should be included and what should not be included, and it is not always possible to get in exactly everything one wants to include during the first year one sits in a negotiation.

I believe, however, that we will have reason to return to consumer advice specifically. It has been a part of our policy for a long time, and we will probably point out that we still want to strengthen consumer advice in some way.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I think it was interesting because the member says that one gives an unreserved approval to the submitted budget. Miljöpartiet thinks that an important part of consumer advice is to make it easier for the consumer to make assessments of what is the right and best choice. It can be anything from choosing the right energy-saving measures or the best energy efficiency to choosing which meat one wants and where it comes from.

Last week, the Minister for Rural Affairs, Peter Kullgren, announced that the government is not proceeding with origin labeling for meat in restaurants. I find this very strange. It feels as though the Sverigedemokraterna have had a major influence on the budget, and I have also perceived that this has been a heart issue for the Sverigedemokraterna, also for the member himself.

I therefore want to ask: How has this happened? You say that you can push things as hard as you want against the government, Mikael Eskilandersson. Is this something that you have pushed or something that you lost track of?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not want to say that this matter of labeling of meat is something that we have lost sight of. I want to remember that the EU is also somewhat involved in this matter of labeling of meat and has begun to look at the possibilities for mandatory labeling. It is clear that it is still an issue that is important for us, and it is obviously an issue that we continue to drive and want to implement.

Since then, it is the case that what we have said is what we want to implement during the mandate period. One cannot expect that everything happens in the first year. And we will not get everything through in the negotiations. Perhaps I may be honest and say that. Even though there is a lot that comes from the Sverigedemokraterna, it is not only the Sverigedemokraterna who are sitting and negotiating. There are three other parties that also have a little bit to say. But even when it comes to meat and labeling of meat, it is probably a bit like with the advice to our consumers, that it is something that we will continue to press and drive from our side. How far we will get during the mandate period remains to be seen. I do not dare to give any promises.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to highlight two areas, housing policy and consumer policy. Vänsterpartiet considers them to be equally important political areas.

The Sweden Democrats highlighted owner-occupied housing and that it has been a priority in this budget. It shows in some way that the people one addresses with their politics are primarily those who perhaps were born with a down payment or who actually have a sufficiently strong economy to be able to own their own home. But unfortunately, reality does not look like that. Inequality is growing in Sweden compared to other OECD countries. It is therefore very strange that not even the Sweden Democrats follow this alarming social situation.

My first question is: How have the Sweden Democrats, together with the rest of the right-nationalist government, intended to build rental apartments and student housing when we see that young people living at home, students, and low-income earners are in a very poor position on the housing market?

The second area I want to bring up is consumer policy. I think it is very strange that consumer policy is very absent in the Palace Agreement. In a debate article in January 2022, the Sverigedemokraterna said that over-indebtedness is a ticking bomb. The same thing has been said in the Sverigedemokraterna's interpellations, written questions, and motions. There, for example, they have highlighted the possibility of consumer counseling as a pre-filter to budget and debt counseling and that it should be made available to more people.

Then one thinks that the Sweden Democrats will budget for exactly this, as they did in the previous budget motion. But that is not done in this year's budget bill. Other points from the Sweden Democrats' previous action program are also missing.

Therefore, my question is: How is it that consumer policy is absent from the budget bill?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I just want to say that I am grateful for that type of epithet where one is called a right-wing nationalist, or whatever it was. I have never described myself as that, possibly as a conservative.

Apart from this, I think the Left Party has a somewhat strange view on this matter of home ownership, and the member begins to talk about how one should have been born with a down payment. It is probably no one who is born with a down payment.

I was not a high-income earner until I became a member of Parliament. I was an ordinary worker, and I have always owned my home. My children have also always owned their homes. They have saved themselves, practically, since they started working.

An image is created that some are born with a down payment and others are not. I would rather say that during different parts of life, different types of housing are needed. The rental apartment is great for those who need a flexible housing, are somewhat younger and do not have money for a down payment. But for the vast majority of Sweden's population, owned housing is not unattainable.

The question is rather about what we did regarding over-indebtedness. We had about twenty points on over-indebtedness, and I believe practically all points that do not concern the budget remain. The only thing that is not remaining there is something for which a committee motion has been raised. Nadja Awad is welcome to stand behind it when it is handled in the Committee on Civil Affairs. We handle over-indebtedness in a separate report because it is not linked to the budget. Over-indebtedness is also not something that is included in the Tidö Agreement. It actually concerns a long series of points that I do not have time to bring up now.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! I can see that people are being addressed based on their different life stages, but they are definitely not being addressed as those who are extra vulnerable on the housing market. As I mentioned, it is about young people living at home, students, and low-income earners. Owned housing is highlighted almost as if it were a right according to the UN conventions on human rights. But that is not actually the case. It is stipulated there that a roof over one's head is a human right.

Actually, we all want to become rich. But it is not the case that politics is arranged so that everyone will become rich. In fact, this government has arranged to increase the incomes for high-income earners by 13 billion kronor by raising the tax threshold for those who earn over 50,000 kronor per month.

I think it is a very strange approach that one actually does not highlight the extra vulnerable in this budget bill when it comes to housing policy.

When it comes to consumer policy, I did not feel that I received answers to my questions. Many are saying that the Sweden Democrats are the biggest winner in this election. And the largest part of the Tidö agreement actually concerns your core issue, which is migration. The Sweden Democrats have also actually ensured that a liberal drives their migration policy.

I therefore want concrete answers. Why is the local consumer guidance not sufficiently budgeted? Why has one not planned to increase the normal amount with extra supplements due to the high inflation? And why is the support to civil society, which can provide support and information on consumption, not being strengthened? What happened to the Sverigedemokraternas 20 proposals from their action program to solve the issue of over-indebtedness?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the question of housing. It is actually the case that approximately 80 percent want their own owned home. There is then a reason why one might be meeting them halfway. It becomes problematic if 80 percent of what is built is rental apartments when that is not what is in demand.

Something fantastic happens when villas and small houses are built that are sought after by those who live in rental apartments today. Those who live in rental apartments can then move and leave behind apartments. And the apartments that they leave behind are much cheaper than the apartments that are being built today, no matter how much investment support we pump in. Now I note that Vänsterpartiet wants to pump money into the investment support, but not so much that it is enough.

When it comes to the 20 proposals concerning over-indebtedness, most of them are such that they do not actually cost money. It concerns, for example, moving the threshold for when it should be counted as a high-cost credit. It concerns not providing loan opportunities on weekend nights and so on. These proposals remain and will be taken up for consideration in the Committee on Civil Affairs during the spring. I hope that I receive the Left Party's support then. It feels good that you seem to be on that line that you are sticking to it.

We wanted to allocate money to the local consumer advice earlier. But we do not have much money at all, and we do not do what Vänsterpartiet does by borrowing a lot of money and then throwing it into the budget. One can do that. But then one passes this on to our children and grandchildren, who have to pay it back at some point in the future. That was not what we were willing to do during the first year we are part of the government, and I can guarantee that we are not willing to do it later either. We would like to balance the budget with the money that actually exists and not just indebt the next generation.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! The need for investments in urban planning, housing supply, and housing construction is extensive. The housing shortage is great, and the need for rental apartments with reasonable rents is enormous.

Mr. Speaker! So much is skewed today. There must be a shift in politics so that the focus is no longer on pouring billions of tax funds every year on those who are best off in our society. Sweden is a wealthy country. We can afford to build the housing that is needed, and we can afford to renovate when it is needed. But we cannot afford exclusion and letting people live on the street.

We should continue to safeguard our unique general housing policy. We shall not build gated communities for the rich, and we shall not build poor-houses - so-called need-based housing - for those who are poor. We shall build for everyone. And if we build a lot, we also unerringly eliminate the housing shortage that is the root of most of the problems we see today.

Of Sweden's 290 municipalities, 204 report that they have a housing shortage. But in the midst of the economically uncertain situation we find ourselves in right now, where all prices are rising while landlords demand unreasonable rent increases, the Moderate-led and SD-supported government chooses to dismantle one of the few parts of the housing policy that truly has the possibility of maintaining the construction pace and simultaneously keeping rents down, namely the investment support. This is done without introducing anything new that can contribute to the same.

Mr. Speaker! This is done despite the fact that the industry has repeatedly reported on projects that would not have been carried out without the support. All now cancelled construction projects also testify to exactly the same thing. The only ones who still seem to believe that the investment support has not contributed to increased construction are actually the Sweden Democrats and the parties in the government.

The support has not only de facto given us very many new homes, but these homes also have rents that are on average 2,000 kronor lower per month for 70 square meters than the homes that have been built without support. It may not be much money for a housing minister or for members of parliament, but the sum is of even greater significance for an ordinary wage earner.

Mr. Speaker! Several of the major actors in the industry argue that the investment support is absolutely crucial for the construction pace to be maintained in an increasingly uncertain economy. In Dagens industri, among others, a number of representatives for the construction industry wrote the following: "Without the investment support, housing construction will decrease sharply across the entire country. Sweden's politicians, regardless of party affiliation, must realize that the investment support is absolutely crucial to building away the housing shortage."

It was not the Left Party that said this, but it was actors within the construction sector – but the Left Party agrees.

Mr. Speaker! According to the National Board of Housing, the housing shortage is extra acute in the large cities. What is the Minister for Housing's and the government's answer to this? More people should own small houses.

Household debt continues to increase. Swedish households are the second most indebted in the EU, and Swedes are also one of the world's most indebted peoples. Debts have increased from 44 percent of GDP in 1995 to now being close to 100 percent. These are debts that primarily consist of mortgage loans. What is the housing minister's and the government's answer? More people should own small houses.

Last year, 572 children were evicted from their homes. During the first half of 2022, the number of evicted children was 269. Poverty is the cause of the evictions in almost all of these cases. The Housing Minister's and the government's answer? More people should own small houses.

In Sweden, homelessness is increasing, both acute and structural. In one of the world's richest countries, people lack a home of their own, and more and more people are even sleeping on the street. Tonight it will be minus 13 degrees here in Stockholm, I believe, and there will be people sleeping out on the street in the cold. The Housing Minister's and the government's answer to this? More people should own small houses.

The Housing Minister's only statement concerning housing policy is essentially this: More people should own, and preferably they should own small houses. How can this be more important than people having somewhere to live? In what world do the Housing Minister and this government live? The evicted children are real. They are not numbers in the statistics. There must be a minimum standard of decency even in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! No matter how you turn and twist this budget, it is the tenants who are hit hardest, and this applies above all to those with the lowest incomes. What Sweden needs instead is a housing policy for all homeless people, for all families with children who are evicted due to poverty, for all young people who cannot move out of their parents' homes, and for all pensioners who find it increasingly difficult to stay in their homes due to ever more expensive rents.

A housing policy is needed that dares to question the landlords' right to make a 10-percent rent increase in the middle of a burning crisis. A housing policy is needed that dares to invest in those who have it toughest in society, instead of in a policy that continues to unilaterally favor those who own their homes and who have the strongest finances.

Vänsterpartiet wants something else, Mr. Speaker. Our message is short and simple: that housing should be a human right for everyone, not just for the rich.

Mr. Speaker! Between 2007 and 2014, Sweden was governed by Moderate-led governments. We know what happened then: It was a total lack of interest in the housing issue. Around 25,000 homes were started. They dismantled the entire housing policy and quickly abolished the investment support of the time.

Today, history repeats itself. The government chooses to phase out both the investment support for energy efficiency and the investment support for the construction of rental apartments. This means that the figures we see in the government's budget will drop like a stone in the coming years. In the housing policy area, virtually nothing remains in economic terms.

The attitude that the market solves everything has always dominated the blue parties' non-housing policy, even though not least the last three decades have very clearly shown that this so-called solution - the market - does not work, but on the contrary is the main reason for why it looks the way it does today. A dysfunctional housing market with a housing shortage in a majority of the municipalities is the result of the right's market-oriented housing policy.

Mr. Speaker! What can we then expect from Sweden's new government? The only thing we have heard so far from the government's Minister for Housing is, as mentioned, the mantra that more people should own their housing. One is at their best if one owns a small house. The Minister for Housing seems to believe that the 3 million people who live in rental housing, which is almost a third of the country's inhabitants, cannot feel responsibility for their housing if they do not own it. Only those who own can feel responsibility—those who rent are uninterested in their housing environment.

The new blue-brown right continues to marginalize and stigmatize the rental apartment. This enormous contempt for the rental apartment as a form of housing is actually clearer than ever in the budget presented by the new government. It is a budget that continues to prioritize the housing of the rich over homelessness and exclusion. No reforms in this budget are aimed at the people who are furthest from their own home today – those who will never be able to buy that small house whether they want to or not.

Mr. Speaker! To solve the housing crisis, it is not only required to change rules that simplify construction, even if such measures are always both good and welcome when they are needed. For example, more buildable land was needed, something that, among other things, a national overview plan for Sweden could contribute to.

Vänsterpartiet considers that a national housing policy that ensures housing at a reasonable cost is necessary. But that is not enough; the policy must also dare to allocate economic resources where they are necessary. However, there is nothing of this in the government's budget. Not a single investment that can truly contribute to increased construction can be found. In the Tidö Agreement, it was empty on housing, and in the budget as well.

Mr. Speaker! Poverty is spreading in an increasingly unequal Sweden. At the same time as more and more people can no longer afford the most basic necessities, such as electricity, food, and rent, the number of billionaires in our country has increased by 1,700 percent over the last 25 years. Their wealth has increased by 3,000 percent during the same period. This has been possible because Sweden, unlike almost all other countries, no longer has any property tax, wealth tax, inheritance tax, or gift tax. During the pandemic years, Sweden received 14 new billionaires - every month!

Inequality is spiraling out of control, and society is being torn apart more and more. The economic journalist Andreas Cervenka, who wrote the book Girig-Sverige: Så blev folkhemmet ett paradis för de superrika, compares Sweden to a monopoly game: We ordinary people follow the rules of the game, but those who are already rich get twice as much money both at the start and when they pass "go".

At the same time as the rich are becoming ever richer, the poor are becoming ever poorer. In the media, Sweden's economic inequalities today are compared with countries like Nigeria and the Philippines. At the same time, the Swedish Enforcement Authority says that they have never seen such large levels of debt among the people as they do now. We should, of course, be ashamed.

The current sky-high inflation and the recession we are entering mean that more people will be exposed and that poverty will increase. In my home municipality Malmö, as many as 14 percent lived in great economic vulnerability in 2020.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: In the society the Left Party wants, no one lives on the street. In our society, people shall have their own, secure homes, and in what form of tenure one lives shall not be a burden.

This is not a fantasy. It is a reality that can be achieved as long as there is a political will - and we have that in Vänsterpartiet.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Committee on Civil Affairs and, above all, our administrative staff, who provide us with fantastic support and make one feel secure. I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! On Norrviksgatan in Hisingen in Gothenburg, my grandparents did their class trip. There, grandfather built, in his spare evenings and weekends in 1946, his own house for his family.

And grandmother and grandfather were not alone. All around Sweden, thousands of families were given their own little house with their own little garden in this way. The recipe consisted of their own work, a municipal plot, and support from the municipal Egnahemsbolaget.

The so-called home ownership movement was a fantastic political reform, embraced by both conservatives and liberals as well as social democrats. What had previously been an impossibility now became possible. Workers and civil servants could obtain their own home - their own house with a roof.

The cottage movement (egnahemsrörelsen) emerged in Sweden after inspiration from Great Britain around the turn of the century. It culminated during the years after the Second World War, when grandmother and grandfather built their house on Norrviksgatan. Even today, many of the cottage movement's areas are among the most sought-after villa areas in our cities. In Gothenburg, they are called, for example, Lundby, Bräcke, and Fräntorp.

The municipal Egnahemsbolaget remains in Gothenburg. Last year, 449 affordable homes were delivered, of which several were terraced houses but also condominiums. During the period 2025-2030, the company aims to produce 500 small houses in some of Gothenburg's more vulnerable areas.

It, Mr. Speaker, is the result of a political vision from the previous right-wing government in Gothenburg to increase the construction of small houses, a vision that is, among other things, based on the fact that there is a large demand for small houses among the population. But it is also a vision based on that more mixed housing and a broadened ownership are an important tool against segregation and an enabler for housing careers. The vision is that more people also in today's Gothenburg should be able to have their dream of a house with its own lawn fulfilled, just as when Egnahemsbolaget was formed in 1933.

But that vision, Mr. Speaker, shall not only be implemented in Gothenburg. By the government now shifting the housing policy, the vision also becomes national.

For the last eight years, housing policy in Sweden has been characterized by a planned economy mindset, where money is pumped into the developers' accounts through investment grants and housing targets are set in thousands of homes. The directors in the construction industry have earned large sums of money, and Sweden has had a housing construction characterized more by quantity than by quality. It has been square boxes rather than living neighborhoods or pleasant garden cities that have been built.

The new government's housing policy is instead characterized by structural reforms for a functioning housing market, reforms that facilitate housing construction for ordinary people. But we are also moving from a housing policy that focuses on what politicians want to be built to a housing policy that focuses on how people actually want to live.

Mr. Speaker! For the vast majority of Swedes, the dream home is a house of their own. When Trä- och Möbelföretagen asked the question in a Sifo survey in 2019, 75 percent answered that they wanted to live in a small house. This is perhaps not so surprising given that TMF is a trade organization for, among other things, small house builders. More surprising is that when Hyresgästföreningen conducts a survey on housing preferences, the answer is similar: 61 percent of the population state that they would prefer to live in a small house with its own plot. In that case, they have also taken into account, among other things, housing costs and travel times. Those who live in a house of their own with a garden are also those who are most satisfied with their housing situation, according to Hyresgästföreningen.

The people's dream of their own home should truly not be underestimated. It is just as large today as it was at the beginning of the century and in the 40s. That is also why the reorganization of housing policy matters for ordinary people.

Mr. Speaker! However, changing the housing policy is unfortunately not something that happens in a heartbeat. The red-green government sat for eight years. The new government has sat for eight weeks. The difference is that there is now a reformer and a will that has not existed before.

What did the red-green government actually manage to achieve during those eight years, Mr. Speaker? The answer is: very little. If one wants to be mean, one could describe previous housing ministers as lazy cats. They rode on an economic boom where the market wanted to build despite all obstacles and problems, because low interest rates and relatively stable returns on properties were attractive. Consequently, the ministers did not exert themselves to get the structural problems on the housing market in order.

I do not think anyone in this chamber thinks that the housing market in Sweden functions particularly well. The queues for a rental apartment are long. Until the recession hit, housing prices for owned housing skyrocketed. Structural homelessness has spiraled out of control.

Yesterday I met with Stockholm City Mission. Their message was clear: A typical homeless person no longer needs to be the alcoholic Pelle sleeping on a park bench. A typical homeless person can just as easily be eight-year-old Pelle whose family has never managed to get a foot in the Swedish housing market.

The economic boom should have been a golden opportunity for the red-green government to implement necessary reforms to address the structural problems in the housing market. That did not happen.

Mr. Speaker! If one summarizes the previous government's reforms to facilitate construction, it amounts at most to increased permit-free building for balconies. Mark my words: It was good that the permit-free building for balconies increased. But one cannot live on a balcony, not even in the Social Democrats' Sweden.

The difference between the previous government and the current one is also that the government base is now in agreement, both on the problem picture in the housing market and on how we solve the problems.

The previous government's support parties could not even agree on what the problem was. Some parties thought it would become easier to build, others that it would become harder. Some parties demanded that the rent-setting rules be reformed; other parties felled the government when it tried to do just that.

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates, Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals may dress the politics in slightly different words, but fundamentally we agree on both the problems and the solutions.

It is about simplifying regulations and shortening construction times. We do this, among other things, by moving from detailed requirements to functional requirements and by increasing the availability of buildable land.

It is about strengthening property rights by, among other things, enabling more people to fulfill the dream of a small house. But it is also about allowing conversion to owner-occupied apartments.

It is about increasing freedom of choice in the housing market through more housing forms and lower thresholds, such as rent-to-buy.

I believe that everyone in here can state that the Swedish housing market is not functioning today. The previous government and its supporting parties bear a heavy responsibility for this.

Therefore, we are now shifting the policy from a planned economy mindset to methodically working away the structural problems and letting the market function again.

Mr. Speaker! The goal of our policy is that more Swedes today should be able to pursue the housing career that my grandmother and grandfather did on Norrviksgatan in 1946. With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, David Josefsson!

When the right-wing parties' budget was passed in November 2021, a decision was made regarding the phasing out of the investment support. It was a pity, but that is how it turned out. That must be respected. The Moderates, Christian Democrats, Liberals, and Sweden Democrats established after this that all applications that had been received before December 31, 2021, would be processed.

When the budget bill is now presented, it is from the same parties. At that time, they were in opposition, now they sit in government. They are presenting the current budget. In that case, something completely different applies. It became a complete turnaround. The announcement now reads instead that money will still be paid out for applications that have been granted support before December 31, 2022.

When you are in opposition, you win a budget vote. It passed. Then you promised everyone who is working and building that all applications received before December 31, 2021, would be processed. Then you win the election. It is the same parties and not any other parties. The same parties that promised these people and companies this do a complete U-turn.

There are many construction companies that have planned based on the promise that the politicians had given. Now they are facing major problems. They have invested a huge amount of money, and the government does not want to take responsibility for it.

What do the Moderates and David Josefsson have to say about this? Should business owners not be able to trust the decisions made in the Riksdag?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I too have been contacted by both large construction companies and their lobbyists. It is in some way telling for our contemporary time when it is a member of the Left Party who speaks on behalf of big capital in this chamber.

I think that one should go back and reflect on the investment support. It was an extremely criticized support. It received criticism from the National Audit Office and from various independent studies. One can state that it had extremely poor accuracy. One can actually say that the only ones who were really satisfied were a number of developers who received money into their accounts.

What was built, we then had somewhat lower rents for. But they were not distributed to those who had the greatest need. If you look at the studies, you see that it often went by waiting time. Most often it was those who had long waiting times who received the apartments, while those who stood further away from the housing market received unsubsidized apartments. There are even figures that show that those who live in subsidized apartments earn more than those who live in unsubsidized ones.

Only there do I think one should consider what one does with tax money. We are in a difficult economic situation. We have a limited scope for reform. What is the political prioritization? Is it more money for the construction companies and the construction directors, or is it money for the justice system, the defense, or lower fuel taxes?

I can, as a Moderate, be proud and say: No, the construction directors have already earned their money. They shall not get more billions. We are investing money in more police, a strong defense, and lowering the fuel taxes. It is a political prioritization.

Then I can note that Vänsterpartiet is not providing those funds either. My question in return is: How is Vänsterpartiet going to save the construction companies?

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if the member was asleep when we went through the Left Party's budget during the preparation process of the budget. The Left Party has a clear explanation. We want to reintroduce the investment support, and we have allocated much more money. That was the first thing.

The second thing is that it is not about the construction directors. It is the only subsidy that helps with the construction of rental apartments, and so it is being removed. David Josefsson stands and says that these are difficult economic times in these days. But that does not mean that one cuts back on precisely those subsidies that go to the wealthy, people who own their homes.

There are still subsidies that go to them. They are ten times more expensive than the investment support. They are also inefficient. There are several reports that have shown that all these deductions are very inefficient. They favor a certain group, namely the rich.

I do not hear the Moderates standing and saying: These are difficult economic times, and therefore we must prioritize it away. There is a hypocrisy in this. When it comes to providing support to low-income earners and tenants for rental apartments, they say no. We should not use taxpayers' funds to subsidize rental apartments. But when it comes to subsidizing owned homes, the Moderates do not say a single word.

There is a very clear hypocrisy in that. They want to favor the rich. That is what the entire right's budget is about and nothing else. What I am saying is that there are companies that have planned to build. They have planned to build housing that people can afford by receiving this support.

Now they are removing the support. Everyone in the construction industry says that it will affect construction. What is the Moderaterna government doing to ensure that more rental apartments are built when it has removed the only support that goes towards construction?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The member says that this is a support that, if it had not existed, would have led to rental apartments not being built. He says that it goes to those in most need and those who are most vulnerable. That is well and good, if it were actually true.

There are two things that are the problem with the support. One is that it can be stated that the housing probably would have been built anyway even if they had not received subsidies. Alternatively, other housing would have been built instead. Then, the support does not go to those who actually need it. It is a support that goes to high-income earners and to people with long waiting times.

We say that we will not spend money on it. What we do instead with the housing policy is that we restructure it. We take a structured approach to solve the problems that exist. It is expensive to build housing today. It is difficult to build affordable housing. We review regulations. We produce more buildable land and so on.

We can observe that the situation we have today, I do not believe that neither the member nor I is particularly satisfied with, with structural homelessness increasing and so on. It is the result of eight years of policy by Social Democratic and Green Party housing ministers where Vänsterpartiet has been a supporting party.

It is not the new government, which has been in power for eight weeks, that is responsible for that. It is the previous government that, over eight years, has not addressed the reforms and has not solved the housing market's problems.

That is why we are now changing the policy. It is not subsidies to construction directors that are what is important. What is important is to make reforms so that we get a functioning housing market.

I do not want a homeless person to be eight-year-old Pelle. I want it to be easy to get a home in Sweden. Then we must get the housing market to work. It has not worked for eight years. Vänsterpartiet bears a heavy responsibility for the situation looking the way it does.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank David Josefsson for a very infectious declaration of love for small houses.

I intend to speak about something else. On Friday, the government held a press conference on the importance of us Swedes saving electricity. Fundamentally, it is a very important message. Taking measures to save electricity is of course important to reduce Sweden's electricity consumption, also to protect people from the skyrocketing electricity prices in the long term and to lower electricity prices overall.

It is clear that inflation is now being driven by the rising electricity prices, which result in increasing housing costs. Energy-saving measures are obviously important for many reasons. I believe we also agree on this across party lines.

Exactly one year ago, the current government parties voted down the then-government's budget and simultaneously cut 1.5 billion for energy efficiency measures for multi-family dwellings. In retrospect, I suspect that the Moderaterna also think the decision was ill-considered.

When this year's budget was being planned, it was already clear that rising electricity prices due to the crisis and Russia's war in Ukraine would become a challenge during the winter, not least for all those who live in multi-family dwellings and themselves find it difficult to take any measures.

Investing money in reducing energy consumption instead of paying people's electricity bills is both socially and economically good and better in the long term. However, there is also no money for Boverket's budget for this coming year in the government's budget. On the other hand, 55 billion shall be used to broadly pay electricity bills. But the 1.5 billion for preventive measures does not remain.

I would very much like to know how the Moderates have thought about this and why no money has been invested in energy-efficientizing multi-family buildings in this year's budget, when it is obvious to everyone that it is a measure that helps people's finances but also reduces inflation.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I think we should start by talking about why we are in the situation that we are in.

We had a red-green government where the member's party was one of the driving forces in that we should shut down one of the absolutely most important fossil-free energy sources that we had. I honestly believe that when my daughter, who is two years old, becomes an adult, she will say: But the climate is burning. We need to reduce emissions. We are going to electrify. Then politics shuts down the energy source that is fossil-free.

It is that situation, together with the fact that Germany has done precisely the same thing, that makes us now find ourselves in a situation with skyrocketing electricity prices and a volatile electricity market. It is a precarious situation.

What the Prime Minister and the Minister for Energy said, that we must save electricity, is very important. What one must remember is that with increased electricity prices, it is not subsidies that are needed to get companies and landlords to make energy savings. It pays off for them precisely because electricity prices are as high as they are. The big problem now for the real estate companies and the energy companies is not to make the investments economical, but it is to get hold of components and the competence that can carry out the renovations. To plow down billions for energy efficiencies that anyway pay off is therefore not a sound use of taxpayers' money.

Therefore, we say that in the situation we are in now, it is important to help individual households with an electricity price subsidy. But to plow billions into energy savings that already pay off because electricity prices are so high is not an efficient use of our public funds or our general funds. That is the answer.

The most important thing is that we get our energy policy in order, and that is not what this debate is about. The problem is if one does not try to solve the symptoms.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! With the risk of deviating from the subject, I want to emphasize that in 1980 we had a referendum, where the people decided that we would, in the long run, dismantle our nuclear power. Since then, different governments have together built up an electricity system in Sweden that actually gives Sweden the most stable electricity system we have ever had. We export more electricity than ever. I just want to emphasize that.

But we still have a challenge with skyrocketing energy prices due to an ongoing war, Russia's war in Ukraine. Therefore, we need to reduce our electricity consumption, as it looks now, in order to support people there.

I do not see that there are any solutions in the government's budget today to help property owners and private individuals, apart from a smaller support that goes to villa owners. I think that is a big problem. If it becomes just as cold and the war continues next year, is the intention that we should also then pump in an additional 55 billion to pay the Swedes' electricity bills?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now, the electricity price support lies outside this budget debate. But what can be stated at the outset is that Sweden clearly does not have the most stable electricity system, because we are in the situation that we are. It is only to ask which household, but also which industry whatsoever, is struggling with the electricity bills. For the battery factory, which has already established itself in Gothenburg, it is a major concern whether there is even electricity available.

As I said in my previous turn, it is not property owners who need billions to carry out energy-saving measures, because with the energy prices we have today, it already pays to make such investments. The bottleneck in the sector is therefore not making the economics work, but obtaining components and tradespeople who can do the work. In that case, I and our government are not prepared to spend billions of public funds there, when the money is actually needed elsewhere. In that case, the most important thing is to focus on solving the energy issue again.

We had a referendum in 1980. I do not think that in 1980 one truly understood the enormous climate problems we would face today. And we cannot turn a blind eye to the climate.

We must have a fossil-free and carbon-free energy production where we can transition to electrification. It is our greatest challenge for the future. That Miljöpartiet does not take it seriously but instead wants to plow billions into property owners is actually surprising. As I said in a previous exchange of remarks with Vänsterpartiet, it is surprising that it is Miljöpartiet that thinks property owners should receive billions to do something that they are already making money from. That they would stand on the side of big capital is symptomatic of the debate we have ended up in.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank David Josefsson for the speech and for the interesting exchanges of remarks.

I note that David Josefsson mixes and moves quite briskly between different types of arguments. It is almost a bit difficult to keep up. I will nevertheless comment on the historiography very briefly.

Given what is presented in the debate, it should nevertheless be pointed out that the previous bourgeois government, i.e., the Moderate-led government, managed to produce 200,000 homes during its eight years, while the previous Social Democratic government produced 450,000 homes in the same amount of time. This despite the fact that they lost a budget in this chamber twice and Moderate budgets removed the support that existed and created turmoil in the finances. This should nevertheless be taken into account in that type of discussion.

What made me request the floor to speak is that my impression is that the Moderaterna are usually proud of being a business-friendly party, and I want to know how that is consistent with changing the rules of the game for an entire industry overnight.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Jennie Nilsson for the question.

I will start by commenting on what Jennie Nilsson highlights, and now we are back to the planning economy in terms of the number of thousands of housing units being built. It was, therefore, during a booming boom that housing was built during the previous parliamentary term. Despite that, or perhaps precisely because of it, housing policy is not taken seriously. The necessary reforms are not being implemented. One is a lazy cat, because the boom solves the problems for you.

To answer the question that the member posed, the Moderaterna, unlike the Socialdemokraterna or Vänsterpartiet, is not a party that protects the construction companies or the construction directors. We safeguard the taxpayers' money. We do not intend to give it to companies because they are skilled lobbyists and sell in a certain reform.

What can be stated is that these construction companies would probably have built housing anyway. Both the National Audit Office and other studies have concluded this. Having a good business policy is to ensure that regulatory frameworks work and that the conditions exist to build housing. But pumping billions into subsidies is not the definition of good business policy.

What can be stated is that we face a stark economic situation. In that case, we Moderates take pride in safeguarding the economy and sometimes making some difficult decisions. There are some developers who get angry, but we protect the taxpayers' money. We do not plow billions into reforms that actually do not yield results. That is something I am extremely proud to be able to tell in this chamber.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is somewhat provocative to hear a member stand in this chamber and be proud that the state is breaking entered agreements, because that is exactly what is happening right now.

I have respect for the fact that the Moderates and other right-wing parties do not like investment support and want to do something else. I have respect for the fact that the debate was a year ago and that we lost that debate. It has been known that the support was to be phased out. But the way it is being done – changing the rules of the game overnight and providing completely new conditions for companies that, in some cases, have already started building – is remarkable. It is dishonest, and it does not meet basic hygiene factors.

I receive tons of emails, just as the member said that he also receives. I thought I would quote an email from last night:

"With great disappointment and despair, I now see that the Committee on Civil Affairs is proposed to support the government's budget bill regarding the investment support for rental apartments. There are several hundred cases in the queue, and I am one of those who applied for the support before 31/12 2021. The County Administrative Board has demanded money for my project, and I have been informed of a preliminary support amount. Furthermore, I belong to those who have already started. My project is in full swing. I have followed everything to the letter. I have signed agreements with Hyresgästföreningen regarding the rent compensation, agreements with the municipality regarding the leasing, built more energy-efficiently, and so on and so forth. I have done everything I can and now receive this as an answer. It is a slap in the face. I hope you can do something."

I was going to answer this tonight, and then I thought I would let David Josefsson give me a co-signature. I thought I would quote what you say in my answer. What should I answer this entrepreneur?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jennie Nilsson, for the reading!

To begin with, it can be stated that the matters treated before January 1 will receive their support. We are allocating 4 billion so that the support can be paid out. As a comparison, I can mention that we allocate 5 billion to the justice system and 5 billion to the total defense. It is therefore not small change that the government is allocating to this so that those who have applied for support shall receive it to the greatest extent possible.

But something that is important to remember, and that I think you should emphasize in your answer, is that the Social Democrats are not putting in more money. You also do not have any solution. You have not dug up these funds in the state budget. I think you should be honest and say that.

Even if your proposal had won in the committee and in the chamber, the mailroom will therefore not receive any money. There, you from the Social Democrats are obliged to answer. Where is the money? How will the Social Democrats solve the problems? There I can become a bit provoked: We have opposition parties that criticize the government, but if one reads the budget proposals, one sees that we are in the same situation there.

I think one should acknowledge that it is a tough economic situation. As a Moderate, I am clear that it is a political prioritization we are making. I would have wished that the opposition parties did the same and were equally clear. This reform room does not exist, and to the extent that there is reform room, one chooses to spend the money on something else.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The cost of housing is for the vast majority the single largest expense every month. One's housing affects what jobs one can take, where one can study, and how much of one's waking time goes to handling logistics such as commuting. It determines if one can move out of home and affects which preschools and schools are available for one's children, and it affects the possibility of finding peace.

There are people, primarily women, who cannot leave a violent relationship because they have nowhere to move to, and there are those who have nowhere to live at all.

Therefore, good and secure housing for everyone is a natural priority and goal for us Social Democrats. The home shall be the secure point in every person's life.

This presupposes a national housing policy that takes responsibility, is socially sustainable, and has the obvious objective of leveling inequalities – between those who today have a home and those who are left without, and between those who have capital and good incomes and those who do not. It should be based on the idea of everyone's equal value and make it possible to move from rental housing to owned forms of housing and vice versa in accordance with changed life conditions and new needs.

Today's debate on expenditure area 18 Social planning, housing supply and construction and consumer policy is about exactly this: what priorities and what responsibility the parties in Sweden's Riksdag take and what conditions we thereby provide.

On much, we are quite in agreement. No one wants rules to be unnecessarily complicated or processing times unreasonably long.

The previous Social Democratic government commissioned a number of inquiries with the aim of lowering thresholds and reducing red tape. I hope that the new government takes advantage of the results and delivers proposals to the Riksdag as they are referred and finalized.

Otherwise, we are deeply in disagreement. This is clearest in the view on the need for incentives to stimulate the construction of housing with reasonable rents throughout the country, as well as energy efficiency and, somewhat unexpectedly, long-term and sustainable rules of the game and hygiene factors. This also clearly resonates in the budget alternatives.

In the budget from SD, M, KD and L, there are no proposals for energy efficiency, even though Sweden, Europe and the world are in an energy and climate crisis. The measures that existed are being phased out, even though it should also be obvious to the government that the most climate-smart and cheapest kilowatt-hour of energy is the one that is not used.

It is misguided and incomprehensible. We Social Democrats believe that the need for targeted support to improve the energy performance of existing buildings is at least as important and relevant as before.

We therefore propose a targeted support for energy efficiency in multi-family housing of 717 million kronor for 2023, 1.5 billion kronor for 2024 and 1.1 billion for 2025. We also propose an increase of the rot deduction to 50 percent for services that contribute to energy efficiency. This could involve installation of geothermal heating, installation of water-borne heating, installation of solar cells, replacement of doors and windows or additional insulation, to name a few examples. The subsidy rate for other rot works is lowered. It is smart for the climate, the economy and the households' wallets.

Mr. Speaker! SD, M, KD and L also proceed with the abolition of the investment support.

It is in itself no secret that the right-wing parties dislike the support, even though it has been successful and contributed to approximately 60,000 apartments being built with rents that are 20 percent lower than the average and with a distribution across all of Sweden. But perhaps most importantly is that they have also been built in municipalities where they otherwise would not have been built at all.

The decision was already made when the M-KD budget for 2022 was passed, but it is nevertheless unfortunate that, in the current economic climate, one chooses to proceed without having any other concrete measures.

A situation where we are heading into a recession with an uncertain global situation, high inflation, rising interest rates, and households struggling to make ends meet every month is an unusually bad time to abolish the investment support, regardless of whether one likes it or not.

Swedish households and companies face a crisis winter, and the government's economic policy consists of cuts to labor market policy, 20,000 fewer educational places, and abolished investment support for rental apartments and student housing. It is not enough.

It gets even worse when one considers that the rules for how the support is to be phased out are now changing. In connection with the decision to abolish the support, December 31, 2021, was set as the deadline for when one had to have applied to be entitled to support if one met the criteria. This promise was then repeated in June when the issue was up in the Finance Committee and again during the election campaign by several candidates in this chamber.

When the budget for 2023, which we are debating now, was presented in November, a new announcement was made: Only those applications that met the criteria and were granted no later than December 31, 2022, would receive support.

There is an enormous difference. Today, there are approximately 21,000 housing units in the so-called queue for investment support. These are housing units where the county administrative boards assess that the applications should be approved, but where there are no funds available to make the payments. The applications amount to approximately 8 billion kronor. In addition, there are another approximately 20,000 housing units that are not fully processed, as they need to be supplemented.

Several county administrative boards are now reporting that they are receiving signals that many projects will not be completed. But we also know that there are examples where projects have already begun and where, in the middle of construction, one is informed that the prerequisites are being completely overturned. What happens with them is more uncertain.

The government's management of the investment support is under heavy criticism. From one day to the next, they have pulled the rug out from under both the construction industry and individual tenants without presenting any other solutions. They seem to have done so without any consequence analysis whatsoever and without stating any criteria at all for how the selection in the queue should proceed. It is chance, or possibly individual officials at the county administrative boards, who decide which projects receive or do not receive the promised support.

As we now enter a recession, the government is therefore changing the conditions for an entire industry and actively contributing to a decrease in the construction rate. They are also changing the conditions for individual households and their opportunities to obtain a home at a reasonable rent.

This is not the right way to meet a crisis winter. That is why we have proposed that the authorization framework for the investment support be increased by 8 billion kronor, so that prepared cases can at least be approved and so that 21,000 housing units with lower rents can thus be built. I have noted in the debate that several of the parties do not understand the budgetary implications of this, but I am happy to explain in a reply or on the side after the debate.

It is a matter of integrity and a matter of hygiene that entered agreements are upheld. Companies and households must be able to trust the government.

Mr. Speaker! Since our framework is larger than the government's in the expenditure area and our budget is to be seen as a whole, we will refrain from participating in the decision and instead submit a separate statement.

I note that none of the government parties have requested a reply. I think it is particularly disappointing that the Sverigedemokraterna chose not to do so; I would have, in fact, looked forward to continuing the discussion on broken promises with the Sverigedemokraterna.

(Applause)

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! "It is expensive to be Swedish" was a motto that many used during the election campaign. It is true with the electricity prices and food prices that we now see for the ordinary Swede. But it also applies to housing construction with ever higher construction costs, rising interest rates and energy prices, as well as reduced purchasing power among households. I believe we are all aware that the need for new housing to be built remains great even in this situation.

But the economic situation is affecting the construction industry; we see that in the forecasts for the number of homes that will be built during 2023. According to Boverket's forecast, the number of started homes is expected to decrease by approximately 14 percent this year and a further 25 percent next year, as we have heard earlier in the debate. In total, this means a decrease from 71,000 to 45,000 started homes during the period 2021-2023. I want to assert that this is a decrease that is not good for Sweden from any aspect.

In addition to the cost increases and inflation, which exacerbate the problems, there are structural factors that must be addressed for us to be able to achieve a well-functioning housing market in Sweden. Maintaining the housing construction is important from several different aspects. One aspect is that one must build to make up for the deficit that exists. Another aspect is that the construction industry is important for the Swedish economy. From that perspective, in the economic situation we have today, it is of utmost importance to keep the housing construction at as high a level as possible.

The government, for example, has the opportunity to review national interests. We Christian Democrats believe that housing construction must be re-evaluated so that it becomes possible to build in more locations that are attractive. Far too many construction projects are thrown in the wastebasket because other interests are valued much higher than the housing part. However, there is a shortage of housing, which I believe is taken into account too little in these trade-offs - or perhaps no consideration at all.

We also see that municipalities have far too poor planning readiness. A stopped or delayed project means a notch in the number of housing units built in that municipality during the current year. We believe that there should be greater planning readiness so that there are more plans to turn to in order to maintain the housing construction at the pace that has been decided upon if one or more projects run into trouble. The government, for example, has the opportunity to create a planning bonus for the municipalities to stimulate the municipalities to have finished plans and the possibility to increase housing construction as quickly as possible.

I mean that it is important that we now get a housing policy that focuses on finding reforms that enable the housing supply to function. A housing supply where people live in the right type of housing is of utmost importance so that we use the square meters we have in the best way. Today, many live in rental apartments because we have had too little small house construction, and thus those young people who want a rental apartment do not get any such. As you know, one has to wait more than ten years if one wants a rental apartment in Stockholm or Gothenburg.

The consequence of insufficient construction of small houses is that people are actually living in the wrong type of housing. Above all, young people will have difficulty entering the owner-occupied housing market, because insufficient small house construction raises prices and thus makes it impossible for young people to buy their first home. People will have difficulty financing a small house purchase due to the rising prices and credit restrictions.

We Christian Democrats see it as a long-term problem if the construction of small houses does not meet the demand. We want to increase the construction of small houses in Sweden, especially because small houses are best for society from an ecological, economic and social perspective.

The government must focus on how young people get their first home. I believe it is necessary to review the rental housing act so that a definition of student housing can be made and so that it becomes easier to build more student housing. But young people should also be able to buy and own their first home. Therefore, it is important to continue the work with start loans and housing savings and reforms that enable this.

I also think it is important that one reviews the credit restrictions that exist in the current situation. A planning bonus should be introduced for municipalities that increase the planning of small houses. The county administrative boards should also be allowed to point out suitable areas for building small houses as help and support for the municipalities. Furthermore, as I said earlier, start-up loans and housing savings should be introduced.

If we do some of this, I believe we will get some way. Housing construction will decrease, but we must all help each other to try to increase it as much as possible.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! I did not vote in favor of our reservation earlier, so I would like to take the opportunity to do so now.

Thank you, Larry Söder! I have two questions and will start with the first one. Structural homelessness is increasing all over Sweden. In my hometown Malmö, there are around 1,800 structurally homeless. These are people who are homeless because of poverty - poverty alone. They have no substance abuse problems or any mental illness.

A person who was shown in a report from Malmö is named Ove Andersson and is 58 years old. Ove is a sick elderly man who moves around with the help of a rollator and who is forced out onto the street in this cold. He spends his days wandering around in Malmö in a desperate attempt to find somewhere to get shelter at night so as not to freeze to death.

There are very many people like Ove who are homeless today - not because they have mental health issues or substance abuse problems, but simply because they are poor. And that in one of the world's richest countries.

I would like to know what the government is doing to help people like Ove and to ensure that no one has to be homeless in this country. I would be grateful if the answer is not that the government will do its best to make Bostad först national, because Bostad först applies to other target groups - not those who are poor.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with Malcolm Momodou Jallow that it is not good that we have homeless people in Sweden. Unfortunately, it is a growing problem. In every new report, one can read that the number of homeless people in Sweden is increasing, which is very bad.

There is also a national homelessness strategy today, which I think one should continue to work with. The previous government created it, and I think this government should continue to work with it. The problem does not change from one year to the next, but it is a structural problem that people are homeless.

I do not agree with Malcolm Momodou Jallow that Housing First is not part of this. Those who have problems other than just economic ones also need a secure home, and in that case, Housing First is a very good thing. I think the municipalities should take that to heart and try to work based on Housing First. It also means that one might think a bit differently in the municipalities. If someone actually has a need for a home, perhaps one should not think that the municipality only disposes of social contracts, but perhaps see to creating the housing that is needed instead.

I believe that the national homelessness strategy and Bostad först can make it so that people start thinking in a different way in the municipalities. We must help each other with that.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Larry Söder! Vänsterpartiet is for Bostad först. We think it is good and that it should be expanded throughout the country. We also think the national homelessness strategy is good, but it does not help Ove and everyone else who today, in this cold when it is -13 degrees in Stockholm, has nowhere to go.

The government must have a strategy for these people. What is being done to help them? Some are elderly and pensioners, others are small children or families with children. In one of the world's richest countries, this cannot be possible.

The Christian Democrats are part of the government. It could be good if Larry Söder tells people what the Christian Democrats and the government intend to do to help people like Ove.

I also want to take the opportunity to point out that the Minister for Housing has repeated that reforms providing incentives for increased construction will come, not least to make housing available for groups that today have difficulty entering the housing market. This applies to Ove and several others.

What are the reforms in the budget that are going to help those who are having difficulty entering the housing market today? I would be grateful if the answer is not that people should buy small houses. We are talking about people who, in some cases, do not even have the means to buy diapers for their children. It would be interesting if Larry Söder told us this. What are the reforms that are going to help people enter the housing market if they now do not have the means to buy small houses?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Malcolm Momodou Jallow and I agree on one thing: that it is not worthy that there are people who have no housing. However, we have somewhat different views on how these homes are to be created.

I think that one should ensure that people have the form of housing they actually want, and by that I mean that there are quite a few who live in rental apartments who would like to own their home in one way or another. It could be a small house, a housing cooperative apartment, ownership rights, or something else. If those opportunities are created, it means that rental apartments that people can demand are freed up. Those who do not have a home today then have the opportunity to get a home. That, together with the homelessness strategy and Housing First, I believe can help a bit along the way.

At the same time, as both I and Malcolm Momodou Jallow know, it is quite expensive to live today. We must tackle those parts, ensure that electricity prices fall and that people have the possibility to buy food. Is it not with 19 percent that food costs have gone up now for a family with small children? People actually do not have such margins today. We must ensure that we have an economy that is capable of bringing down inflation. That also means that we must be restrained.

I believe that this budget in one way or another creates that possibility, but more measures need to be taken. I can agree with Malcolm Momodou Jallow that in the Committee on Civil Affairs we need to keep a close eye on whether the homelessness strategy actually works, and we can certainly also agree on other measures.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the state budget for 2023, expenditure area 18. It is a relatively small expenditure area in terms of the economic scope: 6.1 billion out of a total of just over 1,300 billion, of which the lion's share is also allocated to an investment support that is being phased out. Therefore, during this debate, I will focus on housing policy in general and the needs and challenges that I and the Center Party see in the coming years.

But first, a few short comments regarding the figures in the table. Regarding the appropriations 1:4 Boverket, 1:5 Statens geotekniska institut, 1:6 Lantmäteriet, 2:1 Konsumentverket, 2:2 Allmänna reklamationsnämnden and 2:3 Fastighetsmäklarinspektionen, Centerpartiet proposes that the price and wage calculation be adjusted downwards. Furthermore, it is proposed that the appropriation 2:3 Fastighetsmäklarinspektionen be lowered by 1 million kronor to finance other prioritized appropriations. In all other respects, Centerpartiet follows the government's calculations in all material aspects in this budget.

Mr. Speaker! This expenditure area also contains consumer policy. I take the opportunity to say a few brief words on this as well before I move on to housing policy.

When it comes to the consumer policy area, the individual consumer today has greater freedom of choice and the opportunity to make active choices than ever before. There is a large range of goods and services with plenty of alternatives to choose from. Competition has also led to lower prices.

The increased consumption, however, has a serious downside in the form of an unsustainable environmental impact. Developments in consumer markets, including increased complexity of goods and services, have made it more difficult for consumers to make well-informed choices. It is the task of consumer policy to provide consumers with the best possible conditions to make well-informed and environmentally and climate-smart choices.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish housing policy has alarmingly large problems of a structural nature. The need for housing is great. According to Boverket, 204 of Sweden's 290 municipalities report that they have a shortage of housing in some form. Even though the number of municipalities reporting a shortage has decreased in recent years, it is clear that more housing needs to be built.

The existing housing stock must also be utilized more efficiently. At the same time, a greater awareness is needed that the conditions for housing construction and the creation of good living environments differ in different parts of the country. A sustainable housing policy must therefore be based on local conditions while simultaneously being adapted to the more overarching societal challenges that we face.

Centerpartiets housing policy focuses on facilitating housing construction. To remedy the housing shortage and increase the number of available homes, continued work is needed to remove the obstacles to new construction. The State needs to support and encourage the municipalities in the planning work, and the regional coordination in the planning work needs to be strengthened. Lantmäteriet's processing times must be shortened, and the many and long appeal processes need to be limited. A municipal pilot project to shorten and simplify building processes should be introduced. Furthermore, there should be an opportunity to designate innovation areas where deviations from current building regulations are permitted. The digitalization of the planning and building processes must also continue.

But - and it is a big but - the problems are much larger than that: Soaring construction costs and prices on materials but also labor costs, competence supply problems and broken supply chains in the wake of the pandemic, while the higher interest rate environment means that the financing of construction projects becomes increasingly expensive. This all together means that the construction pace will, by all indications, be halved, if not more, in the coming years, while old problems with a shortage of housing have not had time to be addressed and future problems of supplying the housing needs of the growing population are not being handled. There are, in fact, forecasts that Sweden's population will increase by just over 1 million people in the next ten years. One only has to do the math.

The commercial real estate sector is highly leveraged, so the interest rate hikes will hit hard and result in companies being wiped out. That companies are wiped out or consolidated is in itself neither unusual nor negative. But given the extremely high share of GDP, at least by international standards, and the cross-ownership that some of the owners of these companies have engaged in - with the consequence that they have become more or less systemically critical - there is every reason to keep a watchful eye on the real estate market.

For the private housing market, the situation is both stable and worrying. The lessons from the 90s crisis have ensured that both lenders and mortgage borrowers stand on stable ground. With high calculation interest rates even when the repo rate was below zero, there are at least calculation-based conditions for interest rate hikes towards historically more normal interest levels. But if one adds significantly increased energy costs, fuel costs, and an inflation rate of 11.5 percent that makes everything more expensive while wage earners experience real wage cuts, the situation suddenly becomes more worrying.

There is every reason to consider abolishing the tightened amortization requirement as soon as possible to give the squeezed households some breathing room.

Mr. Speaker! In this context, I also want to highlight the small bakery or pizzeria that, after the New Year, will face significantly increased rents.

Most lease agreements on the commercial side are KPI-regulated, and that means automatic rent increases of 10 percent in January. It is a major problem given that precisely this type of extra consumption is the first thing we cut back on when the economy is strained. To see turnover shrink while simultaneously having sharply increased costs for rent, electricity, raw materials, etc., is a death blow to small business owners who have not yet had time to recover from the effects of the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker! It is not possible to stand in this rostrum today without bringing up the investment support, which is now being phased out.

According to the government's own calculations, 16 billion kronor are missing to cover the applications that have been received and which this House promised to grant last spring when we made the decision on the decommissioning in an orderly manner. That the government now chooses to depart from its own promise is not only problematic from an ethical perspective but also a major problem for the companies that have based their calculations on money that would have arrived if the government had not acted so recklessly.

That one also does not provide the county administrative boards with any guidance or any framework for how they should prioritize between applications risks creating delays but also questions about legal certainty and equal treatment across the country.

That the government points out that no other party allocated funds for this in their shadow budgets is not only cowardly but directly misleading. No other party has had insight into the received applications and total amounts. Obviously, we cannot include figures that we are not aware of.

Mr. Speaker! There is much to say regarding the functioning of the housing market and the need for structural reforms. However, time is short, so it will have to be another time. But I can state a few things.

Housing policy is conspicuous by its absence in the Tidö Agreement. According to RUT, there have been over 60 housing policy investigations since 2006. It is actually time to stop investigating things and start delivering. Having somewhere to live is a fundamental right in a welfare state like Sweden.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have, above all, a question regarding this matter of lowering the price and wage adjustments.

I see that the Center Party has cut back on precisely all the agencies and institutes we have. This has been done not only in the civil affairs committee's part but straight across in all parts of the government's budget. And it is not small change. Boverket loses over 1 million. The Swedish Geotechnical Institute loses only 184,000; on the other hand, it is from the beginning a very small sum they receive. Lantmäteriet loses almost 2.4 million. For Fastighetsmäklarinspektionen, the Center Party has additionally removed the money that is set aside to work against terrorism and money laundering. The question is whether it ultimately pays off at all to remove it. But the real question is what analysis lies behind the conclusion that these funds are suddenly not needed and that one can do this.

What evidence is there that prices and wages do not need to be raised as much as the government has said? What I have heard is rather that inflation looks like it will be larger than previously thought. In the last few days, figures have come in showing over 11 percent inflation in Sweden. In that case, it feels even more wrong that they are making cuts.

I get the feeling that someone, a municipal politician without knowledge and resources, has been involved and helped with the budget, because that is how they usually do the budget in small municipalities. Then you cut back a bit on everything and gather together a large sum that you can then put on something you want to do. But it is quite unprofessional to do that in the Riksdag.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Mikael Eskilandersson, but I don't really understand why we have this exchange of remarks. It feels quite trivial when the state budget is at 1,300 billion kronor that we are bickering about some tens of millions of kronor in efficiency measures seen over a large budget.

Our budget is, as said, a whole, and it is actually not us who are blowing companies 16 billion kronor. If one is going to throw stones, one should start in one's own glass house, I would think.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only state that analysis and evidence are as absent as the Center Party has been at the Civil Affairs Committee meetings during the autumn.

I am told back that the investment support would be something we cheated the companies on. I think the Sweden Democrats were very clear that the investment support was something we would remove as soon as we got the chance. That was what we went to the election on, and that was what we did.

I can state that despite the dirty tactics in the budget, the Center Party does not even manage to get these 16 billion together. They are not in the budget.

The claim that it was not known before the adjustment is not quite true. It actually became known shortly before the adjustment. It would have been possible to make a last-minute change because it actually had not been adjusted. We would probably have had to call a meeting extra, but it would have been possible to do so.

Overall, I think one would feel more cheated if they voted for Centerpartiet and, for example, receive 300 kronor in compensation for the fuel price while simultaneously receiving a raised fuel price. I would very much like to go into how this is supposed to benefit those living in the countryside. Receiving 300 kronor and at the same time a raised price on all fuel, I do not think is anything that compensates – and that was what Centerpartiet called a substantial reduction in the fuel price that would benefit the trucking companies, which do not even get a share of it.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think, to begin with, that the Sweden Democrat member should grow up and realize that we are not in a preschool. This is Sweden's Riksdag, and we are legislators.

And it was not the Center Party that went to the election on a promise to lower fuel prices by 10 kronor. What did it become, 14 öre?

Somewhere I think we should stick to the topic of the debate and ensure that we have a serious discussion about things that are actually important for the voters.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As a new Member of Parliament, this is actually my first debate in the chamber, but there is truly no shortage of topics to discuss within the Civil Affairs Committee's expenditure area.

Of all the actors I have managed to meet during the autumn, I receive roughly the same story about the situation right now. The actors on the construction side, but also on the consumer side, all flag major challenges for both private individuals and the business sector as we now see price increases on most things and simultaneously enter a recession.

A complete standstill in housing construction is what I have heard from most during the autumn, which creates problems for many, not least all those who today queue to rent or buy a home to live in. That there is a shortage of housing in a large part of Sweden's municipalities is known by most of us, and it has been discussed previously. For many, it probably feels insurmountable in the current situation to ever enter the housing market. Current figures from Stockholm show that on average one needs to wait eleven years for a rental apartment, and if one instead decides to buy an apartment, one needs to cough up over 400,000 kronor in a down payment.

It is obvious that many, not just young people, students and low-wage earners, have difficulty finding a good home. At the same time, housing is one of the most important factors for being able to have a secure and stable life. For a municipality, it can also be completely decisive to be able to offer housing, both to retain people in the municipality and to attract both new companies and labor to the region.

Therefore, both in the housing market and in the construction market, it is of course extra problematic when interest rates, electricity prices, and the price of fuel and construction materials increase all at the same time. It is also then that one stops building.

The recession is further worsening with increasing unemployment as construction companies pause their operations and those engaged in construction cannot continue working. In the wake of this, we can therefore also expect increasing indebtedness among individuals. As the costs for housing and food increase, the risk of high leverage and over-indebtedness also increases radically. Debt problems do not only have major consequences for the indebted and their relatives but also yield socio-economic consequences when social exclusion risks increasing.

Do you think I am painting a dark and gloomy picture for 2023? Yes, I am, and that is also what the government is doing. Even in the government statement, the Prime Minister highlighted the very tough situation that Sweden faces.

That is why I am surprised by the total lack of measures in the government's own budget to counteract the consequences of the recession and the price increases. One can simply say that we are currently slamming on the brakes as we enter the crisis.

Mr. Speaker! We all know that we are entering a tough time. I am new to the Riksdag, but I am not new as a politician. This lack of measures in the budget for 2023 both surprises and worries me.

From the Green Party's side, we are making a number of initiatives in our budget that we consider to be of long-term importance but which can at the same time be used to mitigate the effects on the housing market and to protect and strengthen both our citizens and our communities in the wake of the recession.

First and foremost, we are reintroducing the investment support for rental apartments and student housing in our shadow budget. Within the member companies of Sveriges Allmännyttas alone, there are 5,300 projects in the queue for the support, and a number of projects have been halted because the support was withdrawn. And as we have said before: What the business community often desires most is long-term rules of the game. I think it is the worst possible time to abolish the investment support when construction is decreasing radically.

We are also reinstating a support for energy efficiency in multi-family housing that was voted down in the previous government's budget by the right-wing populist parties. To scrap grants for measures intended to reduce our energy consumption while simultaneously urging people to save electricity and spending money instead on paying for electricity use feels very upside down right now.

Miljöpartiet earmarks over 9 billion for energy efficiency in its entire budget and wants 80 percent of the cost for energy-reducing measures that are carried out to be able to be replaced by the state. This is a long-term and economically wise policy that benefits both the individual and the electricity systems in the long run. It is also a measure that can contribute to dampening the inflation rate.

Mr. Speaker! As we now enter a recession, the risk of over-indebtedness and social exclusion among private individuals increases. In our budget proposal, we want to strengthen consumer and debt counseling for private individuals and also our systems for those who are affected by structural homelessness.

For those who are struggling to enter the housing market and today do not have a large amount of saved capital, we also want to introduce state starter loans at a reasonable interest rate. In our budget, we present proposals on how we believe those who are today economically weakest and most vulnerable on the housing market can be supported moving forward.

Mr. Speaker! One must be able to hold many thoughts in one's head at the same time as a politician, especially when many crises are occurring at once. Among all the different crises we face, we also have a climate crisis to manage, where measures need to be taken now and not later.

The construction sector accounts for one-fifth of Sweden's climate emissions - climate emissions that must be minimized. In order to significantly reduce the climate impact and the use of natural resources from the construction sector specifically, we want to set new requirements for reduced emissions during the building's entire life cycle, that is, during construction, use, and demolition.

At the same time, we see more and more signs of the climate crisis even here in Sweden. Floods have become increasingly common, and we are experiencing more and longer heatwaves. After a few cold winter weeks here in Stockholm, it can be easy to forget what it actually looks like in different parts of Sweden.

To counteract the negative effects of climate change, we have a great task ahead of us, and it is clear that the municipalities need support in the work of climate adaptation - through increased knowledge but also financially in order to be able to implement the preventive measures that are needed.

Therefore, we propose in our budget that Boverket be tasked with administering a new budget item for climate adaptation in the built environment, which gives the municipalities the opportunity to apply for funding for various measures needed to protect both infrastructure, buildings, and people's lives and health against the effects of climate change. These are also measures that need to be implemented both now and in the long term and which will save a lot of money for society in the long term, while we protect our citizens.

I therefore stand with emphasis behind the Green Party's budget motion in its entirety. I wish to refer to our special statement regarding expenditure area 18.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Much of the picture that the Green Party paints is becoming reality in 2023. I believe it is important to try to maintain housing construction as much as possible, but also to make reforms that allow it to increase in a better economic period which will obviously come a bit further ahead, perhaps in three or four years.

I know that Miljöpartiet has previously been in favor of, for example, small house construction and timber construction. Miljöpartiet speaks about how, for example, start-up loans can be included here. I am thinking of, for example, housing savings and other ways to reform and help so that timber construction can be realized.

I would be very grateful if Miljöpartiet had any ideas and thoughts regarding this. I believe there is a harmony here between Miljöpartiet and Kristdemokraterna – one sees that small houses can be a help for people to be able to move to the right housing, but also that we can build more in wood. Just from a climate perspective, I actually think that wood construction is significantly better than building in, for example, concrete, which is often the case when it comes to multi-family houses. I believe that wood construction is good for the environment and that we should promote it in some way.

So my simple question is whether we have any more things that we can agree to move forward.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Larry Söder, for the question!

I am convinced that for those who are not populist, a large smorgasbord of measures is needed. We have presented some in our budget. We have also presented some in motions that will come forward.

Wooden construction is very interesting. As has been said, there are high emissions from construction today which, among other things, come from the building materials used. If one replaces concrete with wood, one can significantly reduce these climate emissions, and since building materials are now increasing so sharply in price, I am also interested in whether we can reuse more building materials and use a more circular construction process. This is perhaps also something we can discuss moving forward, as it has a great potential to be a way forward in quite tough economic times.

When it comes to housing savings loans, we have proposed that some type of green housing savings loan should be investigated, which has a stable and better interest rate so that one can save for one's housing in a better way. We propose some things in our budget.

Starter loans have been discussed previously, and here we seem to agree that it would be a good way forward. Then the state can help and support first-time home buyers.

I believe there are several things that we can discuss further, because one cannot manage to solve all problems with one or two measures. Many different types of measures are needed.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that housing construction must undergo a transition, that is to say, we must build in a different way to make it both more climatically correct and cheaper. I believe a circular process would be good, but even industrial construction must advance further than it does today.

We also seem to agree that timber house construction is the future and that we should build as much as possible in wood. Why then does Miljöpartiet want us to preserve so much forest and not use the forest as intended, that is, let the forest grow, use it, and then let new forest grow up? Miljöpartiet's idea is that the forest should remain, but then we cannot build houses in wood to the extent that we want. Let us agree that the forest is gold for Sweden. When you fly over the country, the forest looks absolutely stunning, but we should not just look at it but also use it.

Can the Green Party consider changing its position regarding the forest so that we can use the wood in the way that is the intent of timber construction?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now I would need approximately 40 minutes to give some kind of overview of the question of why we want to save and protect the forest, for this is one of my heart issues.

The Green Party is not saying that one should not use the forest, but we say that it is currently being used in an unsustainable way and that the forest which has a rich biodiversity is shrinking. This means that we are simultaneously exterminating species that live in the forest that has a rich biodiversity.

Sweden has a lot of forest, but large parts of this forest are more like a plantation and have a fairly small richness of mushrooms, plants, animals and other things. We need to manage the forest in a completely different way in order to be able to use the forest we are to have.

Miljöpartiet is for timber house construction, and we are not against using natural materials. But I believe we need to discuss this issue more deeply, because there are terribly many values with the forest that we need to work with in a completely different way than today. This is a very important issue for us.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! More and more people are finding it harder to make ends meet. In addition to structural injustices, current factors such as increasing inflation with rising interest rates, increased electricity costs, and more expensive food are having an impact. This hits hardest those who live with the smallest margins. This is evidenced by the fact that more and more families with children, pensioners, and asylum seekers in Sweden cannot afford food and visit Stadsmissionen's stores.

The right-wing nationalist government's austerity budget will not solve these injustices and problems.

I want to speak extra much about a group that the money is not enough for and that the government has prioritized away in this budget. It is the more than 160,000 in Sweden who live on subsistence minimum due to debts and the 400,000 who are registered with the Enforcement Authority due to debts. This alarms the Enforcement Authority.

Maria Eriksson, who lives in Kil in Värmland, has received debt restructuring and has been living on subsistence level for over two years. She says that without her mother, who can chip in money during this economic crisis, she would have relapsed into substance abuse. She also has a child to support and household costs to cover.

Mr. Speaker! As has been said, there are 160,000 people in Sweden who risk having this terrible starting point in life. These people are to manage on what is called the normal amount. After costs for, for example, housing, childcare, work-related travel, and medicines are paid, there shall only be 5,158 kronor per month left for a single adult. This is to cover costs for, among other things, electricity, clothes, insurance, and food.

The Consumer Agency points out in particular that many children will be caught in the crossfire because of this. Approximately every twelfth child in Sweden lives with a parent who has a wage assessment or debt restructuring.

Furthermore, the debt amount among young people with debts with Kronofogden is increasing, and the increase is greatest among young women. It is worrying that young people are incurring debt with such large amounts, which for the most part concern consumption loans and credits. The marketing behind these loans is often very aggressive, and potential customers are enticed with quick money without a credit check. Often, they turn to those who are already enormously indebted. It is tough to start adult life with debts.

At the same time, it is becoming increasingly difficult and complicated to be a consumer. More technically advanced products, more complicated financial services, and a global market mean many opportunities but also present the consumer with greater challenges. Every year, three out of four consumers have problems with something they have purchased.

Debt affects life so much that people experience a poorer quality of life. According to a report from the Consumer Agency, the group of those in debt are affected by depression, anxiety, and mental ill-health five times more often than the average population. Many affected simply see no light at the end of the mountain of debt. One in six people in debt has even attempted to take their own life.

If one does not receive help, there is a great risk of getting stuck in a long-term and negative debt spiral. This can happen to anyone, as many lose control over their finances in connection with unforeseen and life-altering events, for example unemployment, illness, separation or bankruptcy - this in combination with low incomes and already small margins.

Mr. Speaker! All of this, the right-wing nationalist government knows. They know that there is an economic crisis, and they are aware of the low normal amount. They know that anyone can end up in a long-term debt spiral, that consumers are highly vulnerable in the consumer market, and that mental illness is overrepresented among those in debt. Why are the political measures to counteract over-indebtedness absent and deprioritized by this government?

The Enforcement Authority plans to increase the normal amount at the turn of the year but says that a political initiative is required for an extra supplement due to the unusually high inflation. Such a political will is lacking in the right-wing nationalist government.

Close and in-depth support and advice to consumers regarding complicated agreements or guidance before loan decisions reduces the risk of over-indebtedness. But as the municipalities' finances become more strained, consumer guidance is being abolished in more and more municipalities. Only 179 municipalities have some form of consumer guidance today. The Slottsavtalet's budget bill delivers no proposals to increase the appropriations and ensure municipal consumer guidance across all of Sweden.

In a debate article in January 2022, the Sverigedemokraterna said that over-indebtedness is a ticking bomb. Similarly, this has been said in their interpellations, written questions, and motions. They have highlighted the possibility of consumer counseling as a pre-filter to budget and debt counseling and that this should be made available to more people, regardless of where in the country one lives. Therefore, Sverigedemokraterna budgeted for this in their previous budget motion, but not in this year's budget bill. The other 19 points in their action program against over-indebtedness are also missing.

Many say that the Sweden Democrats are the biggest winner in the election. The largest part of the palace agreement concerns migration, and they have even ensured that a liberal drives their migration policy.

My questions are: Why is the local consumer guidance not sufficiently budgeted? Why is there no plan to increase the normal amount with an extra supplement due to the high inflation? Why is the support for civil society, which can provide support and information on consumption, not being strengthened? What happened to all the 20 proposals in the Sweden Democrats' action program to solve the over-indebtedness?

But it was that thing about saying one thing before the election and another thing after the election. Obviously, everything changed when the Sverigedemokraterna entered Tidö Palace with the others.

Mr. Speaker, the Left Party takes the over-indebtedness seriously in any case. We consider it unworthy that young people, families with children, and women live in poverty, but also that people do not receive the support they need, which risks increasing their indebtedness and can end with people taking their own lives.

Vänsterpartiet wants to reverse this deplorable development and proposes 100 million more every year than what the right-nationalist government does, evenly distributed among the country's municipalities. We want to guarantee that all people have access to good consumer guidance, and for that, more municipalities need to have access to it.

We believe it is more important than ever to support organizations that provide support and information on consumption, such as Sveriges Konsumenter. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet allocates 10 million more to civil society organizations within the consumer area than the government does.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Ulf Kristersson said in the government statement on October 18 that he would form a government for all of Sweden and for everyone who lives here and that he, as Prime Minister, would lead Sweden to a united country. But it is obvious that when Ulf Kristersson and his right-wing nationalist government speak to "all of Sweden," few recognize themselves and feel reassured by their economic policy.

Urban planning, housing supply and construction, and consumer policy

Since the election result came, lies and betrayals have emerged when election promises have not been fulfilled, while low-income earners, young people, those in debt, the unemployed, pensioners, and the disenfranchised have felt a clear neglect in the construction of Kristersson's Sweden. This is strongly expressed in the government's budget bill. All of Sweden will remember this until the next election in 2026.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 December.)

Energy

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