Urban planning, housing supply and construction, and consumer policy

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The time has come for the Civil Affairs Committee's budget debate, and as the representative for the majority budget, I have the honor of opening it.

The majority budget is a very well-balanced budget for the situation we find ourselves in today. Our investments in the housing area are limited and consist primarily of stimulus funds to the municipalities for new plans as well as an increased rotavdrag.

It is important to remember that Sweden is still struggling with high inflation. It looks like we are starting to win over the inflation, but the fight is definitely not over yet. Now we need to hold on and endure and not put on the spending trousers too early. Unfortunately, this seems to have been completely missed by several parties.

Urban planning, housing supply and construction, and consumer policy

We know that a very large proportion of the Swedish population wants to live in a villa or a terraced house; as many as seven out of ten inhabitants want that. Still, it is only a very small proportion of that which has been built that has been exactly villas - approximately 20 percent of the new production during previous years. In numbers, we have often been equal to or below the neighboring country Finland, which has a much smaller population than Sweden has.

I do not want to be as categorical as Peps Persson was when he sang that he refuses to live in a rental barracks, but Sweden would definitely benefit from better meeting people's desire for housing. Sweden is not a densely populated country. On the contrary, we are sparsely populated, especially from an international perspective. Therefore, there should be room for people to actually be able to choose their housing.

The government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is making a clear prioritization in the budget by sending stimulus money to the municipalities to meet the need for small houses, i.e., terraced houses and villas. It is noticeable in our municipalities that the demand for both houses and terraced houses as well as buildable plots is actually still large – for example, there are currently 2,400 people in Helsingborg's plot queue. In this situation, the opposition says that nothing at all is being built in Sweden, despite the fact that every plot released to the plot queue is built upon. However, only plots corresponding to about one-tenth of the demand are released each year, that is around 250 plots, and this is far from unique.

At the same time, housing construction has stalled in many places, but in places with high demand, construction is taking place on the plots that come onto the market. The problem there is the shortage of plots for small houses. Therefore, municipalities need to receive an incentive to produce more plots so that more people can get their dream home and so that construction can start again. Adding more plots to the market is not inflation-driving as it does not add more money. The support we propose goes to the municipalities. It is also a well-balanced proposal: In 2024, 60 million is added, which therefore goes to the municipalities, and thereafter the support is increased to 75 million.

This stimulus is intended so that the municipalities shall prioritize more plots for small houses. This is done in the same spirit as that which has shaped the policy during the past year, where Boverket has received several assignments aimed at increasing small house construction. Among other things, Boverket has been tasked with producing a knowledge base, and they shall improve the construction forecasts. They shall also produce a guidance for development agreements.

There is, therefore, a clear common thread here: housing construction is facilitated and the municipalities are stimulated, which go hand in hand in the work to increase construction.

It is our ambition to increase the availability of buildable land, especially in attractive locations, and therefore the shore protection shall also be reformed. We have also seen that the possibility of making exceptions from the amortization requirement in new production does not appear to be working as intended, which is something that Finansinspektionen has been tasked to look into.

On the theme of stimulus funds to the municipalities, funds are also added to adopt detailed plans that convert premises into housing. In many cities, this will result in more vibrant areas where there are currently premises that stand empty. The initiative is at 20 million for 2024 and is subsequently increased to 25 million kronor.

There is also a very important initiative to shorten lead times and speed up the process, and that is the increased appropriation to Lantmäteriet. Lantmäteriet plays a main role in the digitalization of the construction process. Lantmäteriet shall develop a roadmap for the continued digitalization of the social construction process. It is very important that we now get started with the use of technology that already exists but has not been used. Digitalization is an important part of the work to shorten the processes and create a more efficient handling of all cases. This could obviously have been started much earlier, but now it is being started in any case.

We move on to the consumer policy part, where the major change is that the National Board for Consumer Disputes is strengthened. It is important that the National Board for Consumer Disputes manages to handle incoming cases within a reasonable time. Both the public and companies have a great deal of confidence in the National Board for Consumer Disputes, and we see good compliance when it comes to their decisions. Even though there will be a small cost linked to having one's case reviewed in the National Board for Consumer Disputes in the future, it will continue to have many cases to decide.

The consumer who has been awarded a decision in the National Advertising Board should also be able to receive compensation for the cost when it is clear that the cost resulting from the complaint is to be borne by the business operator. It will become an extra incentive for all business operators to do things correctly from the start, so that they can avoid these unnecessary costs.

In conclusion, I intend to briefly touch upon the other budget proposals that have been submitted and what the investments in the Civil Affairs Committee's area look like in them.

The Social Democrats, who are the largest party in the opposition, seem to have completely missed the inflation-driven crisis we are in. They are throwing out new billions into the market in production support, energy efficiency support, and state construction loans. Now, the risk is admittedly non-existent that this budget proposal would actually pass in the Riksdag, but it is remarkable that they take inflation and the interest rate issues so lightly.

It is inflation and interest rates that are stopping very much of what should be built today. To fuel the inflation would actually be the worst imaginable Christmas present for the entire construction sector. New announcements regarding reduced inflation, on the other hand, would be a good and welcome Christmas present for everyone who is currently on notice.

The Social Democrats are also introducing their own variant of rot, where, in a true socialist spirit, it is the one who cheats the most who profits the most from the system. The government's rot is the same for everyone, but in the Social Democrats' green rot, certain measures shall give higher deductions while others give no deduction at all. Where is the justice in that the one who has been responsible and made the energy efficiency improvements already in previous years can now not receive support to renovate a kitchen, if the Social Democrats' proposal goes through, while the one who renovated the kitchen earlier and ignored energy efficiency measures can now receive support for energy efficiency measures? It becomes an injustice between these groups.

Green rot also opens up for cheating, which is bad for the general moral. How hard is it to write on the invoice that a new interior wall suddenly is called, for example, "additional insulated exterior wall"? This type of legislation can be enjoyed if one is in constant opposition. But if one wants to take responsibility and really govern a country, one cannot introduce legislation that in principle encourages cheating. It should be easy to do right, and one should not encourage cheating. That is my starting point.

Centerpartiet rejects in its budget all forms of stimulus to municipalities. The former Farmers' Association therefore wants neither more plots for villas nor to facilitate the conversion of empty premises into housing in the cities. Centerpartiet has also removed the energy efficiency of small houses in its budget. Then they cut back on Lantmäteriet and thereby threaten the entire digitalization work that is currently underway. It is 4.1 million in cuts that are somehow to be saved. Centerpartiet is also in favor of a green tax deduction.

I also want to briefly mention Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, who are going all-in with investment support in the housing area; however, the supplements are not even sufficient when compared to what it cost before the decommissioning. It becomes a bit unprofessional when one does not seem to be in the same reality as the rest of us, where there is an inflation and a global environment to take into account. That seems to have been completely forgotten.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report and against the reservation.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

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

I note that Mikael Eskilandersson uses the majority of his speaking time to review the opposition's budget proposals. It is easy to understand why. The own budget, negotiated together with the government parties, does not contain much.

It becomes almost a bit humorous, however, when Mikael Eskilandersson, for example, reasons why the Social Democrats' proposal linked to rot would be problematic and involve more cheating. It is obviously exactly the same problem that exists with rot regardless of how large the deduction is. The government also proposes an increased rot, a luxury-rot, which only hits those who can already put out approximately 600,000 kronor. It is not a general policy, but it is an extremely targeted policy toward those who earn the most.

The reason I requested the floor is still that the Sweden Democrats are not presenting their own budget but are supporting the government's budget and have negotiated it. The budget is, of course, a whole. I am nevertheless curious about what Mikael Eskilandersson considers to be Sweden Democrat gains in the housing policy area.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We begin with the claim that I would have spent the majority of the time reviewing the opposition's budget proposal. That is not true. I looked at the clock. For the majority of the time, around seven minutes I believe, I spent going through the budget that we have presented and which I am actually very proud of.

There are parts of the budget that I would have wished were more far-reaching. It is clear that I would, of course, have liked to see more investments that more clearly pointed out the proposals we have had, for example regarding Sverigehuset. But we have pushed through investments in more villa construction, and one has acknowledged the Swedish population's desire to live in villas and small houses. The Social Democrats often forget that seven out of ten actually want to live in a villa. Eight out of ten homes that are built are apartments. One can compare with similar countries like Finland, which has a much higher proportion of small house construction. I do not understand why Sweden could not also have that. This may be the biggest housing policy change since the Social Democrats left government power.

What I might highlight as the best thing about the Tidö cooperation is that we have such an open dialogue all the time. We discuss all issues and arrive at what we consider to be the best compromises. We stand very close to each other on housing issues, I would like to say.

It is important that construction gets started. But it is also important that we produce the plots that are in demand and that the municipalities succeed in providing those plots, so that we avoid seeing examples like in Helsingborg, where 250 plots are produced but there is a queue of nearly 2,500.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Sweden Democrats are proud of and satisfied with the budget that now lies on the Riksdag's table. It involves a concrete total of 80 million kronor distributed among 290 municipalities to plan villa plots and convert office premises. Everyone except the government and the Sweden Democrats thinks that this is a sign of poverty in the economic situation where we now find ourselves. It is obvious that housing construction has stalled. It fuels the recession and creates problems for individuals and for jobs and growth. But it does not seem to concern either the government parties or the Sweden Democrats.

I have two follow-up questions that I hope to get answers to. One is: How many housing units do the Sverigedemokraterna estimate that these proposals will provide in 2024 or 2025?

My second question concerns the sudden flip-flop regarding the support for consumer organizations. In the spring, it was thought that the organizations were so important and did such an important job that their grants were increased by 1 million kronor. In total, a number of organizations share 14 million kronor. Now, six months later, it is thought that they have no purpose whatsoever. The entire support is being abolished – half disappears now, and it is to be completely gone by 2026. What has changed from April to October that results in this sudden flip-flop?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have completely missed the economic situation. The problem today is inflation and the interest rate level. What we can do about inflation and the interest rate is to be restrained. The Social Democrats are definitely not restrained. One thinks that one can throw out billion after billion. Then one complains about the government that actually takes responsibility and ensures that we get down the inflation and does what needs to be done.

It becomes a bit ridiculous when one starts to question how many houses this provides. Yes, it would have provided significantly more houses if the Social Democrats had not sat in the municipalities and blocked plans, as was done, for example, during the past week in my home municipality. There, a plan was blocked and sent back because it was thought that there were too many houses drawn on the plan and that an area that was too large had been included.

It is clear that in the end it is the municipalities' responsibility to ensure that the houses actually get in place and are built. What we have done is to allocate stimulus funds that are to stimulate more plots. More plots will come with these stimulus funds than without. But in the end, it is also about how the municipalities handle it and how the municipalities direct it. We must remember that the construction takes place at a lower level. It is not that the state can decide what should be built - unless one goes in and pays for it to be built in certain places. This was what happened during the Social Democratic era - one paid for certain buildings. One has actually paid to build nice houses in areas where it quite often would have been built anyway. Yesterday I raised it in the debate. Now I do not have time to raise it here. Overall, one must start by ensuring that there are plots available to build ordinary villas on.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that I registered ten minutes of speaking time, but I will certainly exceed that. I say it already now.

I want to direct my first question to the Tidö parties and the blue-brown government. Are you satisfied with this catastrophic housing policy? It must be the worst housing policy we have had in Sweden's history. Are you satisfied with it? You cannot possibly be satisfied with it. The rest of Sweden is clearly not satisfied with it. All actors in the housing sector have shown their dissatisfaction and time and again asked for reforms, and nothing happens.

Mr. Speaker! Once again, the blue-brown government presented a budget for expenditure area 18 that primarily hits tenants and, above all, the poorest tenants. This year's budget also hits hardest all those who do not even have a home, because no reforms for increased housing construction are included in the budget.

Mr. Speaker! I regret that I once again must stand here in the chamber and speak about this. No one wishes more than I that I did not have to. No one wishes more than I that the government had presented proposals that seriously addressed all the problems we grapple with within social planning, housing supply, and construction. But no such proposals come from the Minister for Housing and the blue-brown government; on the contrary. The proposals that the government has presented so far instead make the wounds larger, the problems larger, and the challenges larger in every way.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, people are becoming poorer. The economic injustices continue to increase. The gaps between the rich and the poor have never been greater. During the pandemic, Sweden received 14 new billionaires every month. The number of billionaires in our country has increased by 1,700 percent over the last 25 years.

At the same time, fewer and fewer people can afford the most basic necessities such as food, heat, and housing. Inequality is spiraling out of control, and our society is being torn apart. More and more children are being evicted from their homes, and the single greatest cause is poverty. More and more households are falling into debt and losing their footing while they struggle to afford food and housing.

Mr. Speaker! It is for the sake of these people that I stand here again and repeat this. Sweden needs a policy for all homeless people. We need a policy for all families with children who are evicted due to poverty, for all young people who cannot move out of their homes, and for all retirees who find it increasingly difficult to stay in their homes due to the ever-increasing rents. Sweden needs a policy that dares to invest in building for ordinary people. My message is the same as always. Housing is not a commodity like everything else. Housing is among the most important things we have. Housing is a human right for everyone and not just for the rich.

Mr. Speaker! Today's social crisis is extensive. The need for investments in urban planning, housing supply, and housing construction is enormous. The housing shortage is never-ending, and in the large cities, it is acute. Overcrowding is increasing. Young adults and workers in metropolitan areas are fleeing the cities because they cannot afford to stay.

In 180 out of 290 municipalities, there is a housing shortage. At the same time, we see a complete standstill in construction. Housing construction is at its lowest level in ten years. The decrease since last year is the largest in three decades. The construction companies speak of the worst crisis since the 90s. The collapse has led to the number of layoffs within the construction industry in September this year increasing by 446 percent compared to September last year. The construction crisis hits the entire economy. The construction sector accounts for 11 percent of GDP, and about half is housing construction. That we are in a serious situation is almost an understatement.

Mr. Speaker! The construction crisis means that construction is at its deepest slump in several decades. People cannot find housing, or they cannot afford to stay in their homes. Swedish household debt is among the absolute highest in the entire world. We are evicting more and more of our children from their homes. The politicians who let this happen without shouting loudly should reasonably break apart from within. Every child who is evicted is a shame for a welfare society like ours.

What are the Minister for Housing, the government, and the Sweden Democrats doing? They shrug their shoulders and continue to ponder how those who already have a lot can get even more. They continue to present reforms that all simply aim for those who have a lot to get more. Or the proposals aim in one way or another to actively push down those who have nothing.

Mr. Speaker! What have the government and the Sweden Democrats done so far? In a situation where the highest priority should be to eradicate homelessness, the government instead chose to present proposals aimed at evicting even more people. The proposal de facto makes it easier to evict innocent tenants who have not committed any crimes. Note that: They have not committed crimes. These are proposals that are intended to make it easier to evict children and abused women.

Mr. Speaker! When reality screams for resources so that more housing can be built that more people can afford to live in, the government is investing heavily in donating further tax billions to the rich's kitchen renovations. It is called a deduction when it is for the rich and a subsidy when it is for the poor. It is called socialism when it goes to poor people, but when it goes to rich people, it is good and it suffices. With this government, there is strangely always money left over for deductions. One example is that in 2022, the housing allowance cost 4 billion, and the ROT deduction cost 12 billion.

Mr. Speaker! When report after report shows how poorly people fare in second-hand housing despite paying extortionate prices for these accommodations, the right-wing government focuses on looking for more opportunities for those who own a home but do not need it themselves to earn even more money by renting it out in second-hand. Once again, it is those who have much who are to benefit at the expense of the most vulnerable. Second-hand housing is, quite simply, a return to a Poor Sweden that we do not want to see.

Mr. Speaker! When structural homelessness spirals and the only thing preventing people from having a home of their own is the fact that they cannot afford it, more affordable rental apartments are needed where people without capital and high incomes can live with first-hand contracts and under secure conditions.

But in that moment, Andreas Carlson and his government choose to phase out all support for the construction of rental apartments without presenting any alternatives. The government chooses once again to actively work so that even more rental apartments will disappear. This time, the right hopes to be able to convert the rental apartments into condominiums. These condominiums are to be squeezed in among the rental apartments they fail to sell off. The right's obsession with ownership will hit the remaining tenants harder than ever before. It is something that hardly benefits the government's representatives.

Mr. Speaker! It is not enough. It is not sufficient. We must be able to hold the government accountable. We need reforms that are for real.

To solve the housing crisis, it is not enough to only have regulatory changes that simplify construction. Nor does it help to sell off the cheap rental apartments that remain or to evict innocent people who live in rental apartments. Something else is needed.

Politics must dare to allocate economic resources when they are needed. And now they are not just needed; they are necessary. But if this, there is no government decision. Not a single investment that can truly contribute to increased construction can be found.

If the investment support is so impossible to discuss, one must dare to do something else. If we cannot talk about the investment support, we must dare to do something else. We must have an alternative. The industry is crying out for a long-term housing policy where some form of support for construction is included. We must listen.

Vänsterpartiet has proposed state top-loans. We have proposed that one at least dares to support the construction of student housing with a specific investment support for just these. If you cannot support the investment support in its entirety, you should at least be able to support support that goes towards building student housing.

We have proposed a support for renovation and energy efficiency of multi-family buildings - something that would contribute to a more sustainable society, to more job opportunities and to the possibility of keeping rents at a reasonable level after renovation. We have proposed improved credit guarantees for construction in the countryside. We have simply proposed many reforms that are not the contentious investment support.

I would like to hear the government's proposal on how we are to increase construction and at the same time prevent all competence within the construction industry from being gone when we emerge from this recession. It is important that we get answers today, because no one is satisfied. I hope that the government is not satisfied either and that it is prepared to invest and listen.

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 also want to take this opportunity to move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 1.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is always interesting to listen to Member Malcolm Momodou Jallow. It was sulfurous, strong and in every respect incorrect, just as usual.

Sometimes I wonder if the Left Party has completely missed the fact that there is an inflation that is making us all poorer. One can always list everyone who has received more money and say: Look how many who have received more money in their accounts! But what does it help when the money is actually worth less? That the number of billionaires is increasing is natural in a country that has had an inflation that has been up at over 10 percent.

Inflation is actually a greater threat than anything else. In the situation we are currently in, the Left Party chooses to proceed with a budget that allocates 13.5 billion just to this area. If we look at the entire budget, it looks even more frightening. 13.5 billion - only Miljöpartiet is crazier than that.

In our budget, we are putting in almost exactly 6 billion, and it is actually on a downward trend rather than an upward one as we are in the process of phasing out harmful policies that have existed previously.

One can ask a question considering that Member Malcolm Momodou Jallow has sat and supported the previous government. Should the previous government not have done more?

But my real question is: Have you calculated how much the interest rate will need to be raised if your budget were to be approved? And how would it affect construction if the interest rate went up even more than it has so far?

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are not a serious party. One can never take the Sweden Democrats seriously. One moment they say one thing, and the next moment they change their minds. I wonder what the Sweden Democrats' voters think about the party's housing policy, because it is non-existent. It is a lot of talk and little action - nothing.

The Sweden Democrats do not have a single reform in the budget. The only thing the Sweden Democrats are nagging about now is that market rents should be introduced, but we know that the majority of their voters do not want that. The Sweden Democrats are certainly satisfied because they have succeeded in steering the government by presenting repressive, racist proposals every week. They have presented proposals to undermine democracy as we know it. They have presented proposals to divide society. It is the Sweden Democrats' entire raison d'être.

The Sweden Democrats have nothing to say about the housing policy. If you want to discuss it – please come forward with proposals that we can discuss! The Left Party is very clear regarding the proposals that we have put forward. You cannot hide behind inflation and the crisis every time questions are asked about the housing policy. It is you who are in power now. You are not in opposition, so show that you are actually in power by putting forward proposals that can combat the housing shortage we see today!

It is chaos, and everyone in the construction sector says the same thing: We would like to see reforms. If you stand here and have no reforms, you might as well sit down and show some respect for the Swedish people. If you don't have anything positive that can in any way meet the housing crisis we are in, it is better that you sit down and occupy yourselves with the repressive racist politics that you are engaged in.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is continued sulfurousness from Malcolm Momodou Jallow. The Sweden Democrats are therefore not a serious party, and all we want is to introduce market rents, he says. I have never witnessed us saying that we want to introduce market rents. It has not even been on the table to introduce any market rents.

What was on the table was what the previous government sat and negotiated about – a freer rent setting in new production. But it is not market rents in themselves. One should still be a bit more well-informed than that, especially when one is responsible for the housing policy. Market rents are not something that is being discussed.

What the sector wants to see is equal competition and long-term conditions. That is what the construction sector tells me and also to others, that is what I have heard. I have not heard the construction sector say that it wants stimulus grants similar to those that Vänsterpartiet proposes, where certain companies are pointed out and given a lot of money so that they should build in different places. That type of stimulus is not in demand.

If one provides equal conditions, equal competition and long-term conditions, the construction sector will gradually enter a boom, and then it is a matter of being able to build. The problem today is that too little has been done by the previous government. We have much we need to address when it comes to digitizing and ensuring that Lantmäteriet functions so that it goes faster to release the plots when they are needed. We need to speed up the process with plans, general plans and detailed plans, and that whole part.

This is what we are working very hard on at the moment, and it is what has given rise to a number of assignments from the government's side. But they have not appeared in propositions in the chamber.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and Mikael Eskilandersson say that market rents are not being discussed at all. I do not know who is out of touch with reality here. Was the member sitting and sleeping when this was discussed in the committee? Does he not read the newspaper? Does he not remember his own interview?

One wonders when he claims that market rents are not important for the Sverigedemokraterna. He says that it is not an important issue and that the Sverigedemokraterna are not prepared to discuss introducing market rents.

Unfortunately, Mikael Eskilandersson cannot answer now, but it would have been good if he could have answered the question: Does Mikael Eskilandersson mean that the Sweden Democrats still do not want market rents to be introduced in Sweden? I believe that the Swedish people and your voters would appreciate hearing the truth, because now Mikael Eskilandersson is standing there and lying to his voters and trying to mislead them.

The construction companies are now talking about the worst crisis since the 90s. The collapse has led to the fact that the number of layoffs within the construction industry in September this year had increased by 446 percent since September last year. If that is not a crisis, I do not understand what a crisis is.

The construction sector says that they need reforms from the government, but they see none. The calculation does not add up. People will lose their jobs. Competence is disappearing. The only thing we hear from this government is: We will wait until the crisis is over. Then we can return with proposals. But by then, all this competence will be erased and gone.

The incompetence that we see today in this government, which the Sweden Democrats support, we have never before seen. It is completely unacceptable. It is not good enough. Act and do your job, otherwise resign!

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I shall answer Malcolm Momodou Jallow's question. Yes, I am very satisfied with the government's policy in the housing area. I think that work is being done in a structured manner and that efforts are being made to address the problems that exist in the housing market.

I would, however, like to ask a few questions to Malcolm Momodou Jallow based on his speech. We are probably quite in agreement on the picture itself, that we are building too few homes. Then we can always discuss what types of homes we should build. Malcolm Momodou Jallow said that he wanted to build cheap rental apartments. In that case, I would like him to speak about how expensive such a [home] is. What cost for rent does Momodou imagine we should have on cheap rental apartments?

Malcolm Momodou Jallow also addressed second-hand housing. My view is that we are in a situation where second-hand housing is necessary to have. We shall have rules and requirements that ensure a person living with a second-hand contract feels secure and can live under organized conditions. I think that we in this chamber have tried to organize it, and I believe that it is good.

I would like to ask Malcolm Momodou Jallow, in light of his speech, whether he thinks that second-home ownership should be completely abolished in Sweden. It would actually become a very large crisis for those who live there. If that is not the case, what else would need to be done? We still did quite a lot during the last parliamentary term when we sat together in the Committee on Civil Affairs, which I think countered the conditions in that market in a good way.

I would like to have answers to the two questions first.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! For the first thing, I am quite surprised that Larry Söder says that he is satisfied with this government's, his government's, policy. Then we are in a bad spot. When the housing crisis is worse today than in several decades and the member, who sits in power, stands and says that he is satisfied, we are in a bad spot.

I hoped that Larry Söder would have some self-awareness and say: No, we are actually not satisfied. There is much more we can do. The situation is so serious that we must act. That would have been a slightly more honest answer.

Larry Söder must be the only one in Sweden who is satisfied when it comes to housing policy. Everyone else outside of this chamber and outside of the Tidö parties has shown their dissatisfaction. I hope that he can revise this answer and consider what more can be done. I believe, in fact, that Larry and I can agree that much more can be done that is not being done today.

Secondly, it concerned subletting. As a Left Party member, I am for having several different housing options, different forms of tenure. I have said this in this chamber several times. However, that is not what can solve today's housing problems. We need more housing. We need to build affordable housing. And when I say affordable housing, I mean housing that ordinary people can afford. It can never happen if the state does not step in and contribute with stimulus funds that help so that the calculations can work out and so that construction companies can build.

The investment support did exactly that - 2,000 kronor less if one received investment support than if one did not use it. That is the state's role. It is our role to ensure that we stimulate.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is fortunate that Malcolm Momodou Jallow has two more minutes left, because I did not receive an answer to my question. This time he used a different expression, namely rental apartments that people can afford. I asked for a specific figure. Vänsterpartiet speaks quite often about cheap rental apartments. Then I want to know: How does one define "cheap"?

I believe that one cannot build cheap rental apartments in Sweden. In 2022, the newly built rental apartments cost 1,800 kronor per square meter. If you live in an apartment of 70 square meters, it becomes 11,000 kronor a month. Is that what Malcolm Momodou Jallow calls cheap? Is 9,000 cheap? Is 7,000 cheap? I would very much like Malcolm Momodou Jallow to speak about that and, in the next sentence, tell me how he intended to get down to that figure in construction costs.

It is a matter of that the one who builds a property must also be able to pay the cost of building it. It cannot come from the heavens, the money must come from those who actually rent an apartment there.

Then Malcolm Momodou Jallow can say: Yes, but we have put so much money into our budget. Then one must know that for an ordinary family with children who are going to pay these rents that Malcolm Momodou Jallow wants, he has already made it more expensive. He wants a bank tax that they shall pay. He wants them to pay a higher fuel tax. He wants to abolish RUT and put it on the families with children instead.

Politics doesn't add up, Malcolm Momodou Jallow!

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude what I began saying in the previous reply. Larry Söder asked me about cheap rental apartments. I answered that when I say cheap rental apartments, I mean rental apartments that people can afford. That is the answer to that question. Larry Söder can choose to ignore my answer, but it is still my answer.

What I mean is that people should build housing that ordinary people can afford. In that case, one must take many different things into account - inflation, the economy, increasing poverty, the pandemic. That is why it is important that the state takes its role. The state can help the construction companies to build so that the calculations can add up.

But the state can also take a step back and say: No, we do not do that. Larry Söder and the entire right say that the state cannot subsidize the construction of rental apartments. It is socialism, says Larry Söder and his friends. But the state always has money to subsidize rich people's kitchen renovations, pool constructions, and whatever it may be. Is that not hypocrisy? One does not want to give money to poor people who also work and pay tax, but one is very generous when it comes to giving money, many billions, to rich people's kitchen renovations. As I said before, 12 billion went to this in 2022 and 4 billion to housing allowances. Is that reasonable? It cannot be reasonable.

When structural homelessness spirals and the only thing preventing people from having a home of their own is the fact that they cannot afford it, more affordable rental apartments are needed where people without capital and high incomes can live. That is what we need. We must build rental apartments that people can afford. That is the only way forward. Everything else is just a waste of time.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Last week, in my hometown of Gothenburg, temperatures dropped towards -10 degrees. It was a harsh, biting cold that stung the cheeks, ears, and fingers - just the kind of feeling that only a truly raw winter day on the west coast can provide. This week, the temperatures have risen slightly, but it is still very much winter.

It is also winter in the economy. It is a barren winter with a cold that bites and stings in people's wallets, in the companies' income statements, and in the municipalities' budgets.

Sweden has, like the rest of Europe, entered a recession. We have a recession at the same time as inflation is high, which makes the situation unusually complex. In the housing market, interest rates have risen, housing construction has fallen sharply, and many families are struggling to manage their housing costs.

Mr. Speaker! The situation is very serious, both in the economy in general and in the housing market in particular. The situation is serious because we in this country have for decades had structural problems in the form of a housing shortage, difficulties in building, and poor mobility in the housing market. The problems were clear even when there was a boom, but have worsened further when there has been a recession.

The biggest problem and the greatest danger for Swedish households and companies is inflation; higher prices, and especially prices that continue to rise, mean that neither people's private finances nor companies' calculations add up. This is particularly noticeable within the construction industry, where prices for both materials and services have risen sharply over the past year.

We must therefore fight down the inflation monster before inflation takes hold in the Swedish economy. Otherwise, this recession will become both long and deep. And the deeper and longer the recession becomes, the deeper and more difficult the problems on the housing market will become.

Mr. Speaker! Therefore, the budget that we are now presenting is a restrained budget that takes responsibility for Sweden's finances.

Now, someone might say that inflation has already subsided. It is true that it has gone from a peak of 10-12 percent at some point last spring to 4-6 percent today, depending on which measures one uses. But it is like the winter in Gothenburg; even though it was biting cold last week, it is still cold and chilly today. An inflation of 4 percent is twice as high as the Riksbank's inflation target of 2 percent. Should inflation continue to stay at these levels, many families but also companies will find it extremely tough in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker! Inflation has not gone down by itself. Thanks to a restrained budget proposal, responsible parties in the labor market, and a strict monetary policy, we can now see that inflation has begun to slow down. Had the government instead pursued a fiscal policy where billions were distributed to the right and left, for example in subsidies to developers or through interest discounts to landlords, it is not at all certain that inflation would have subsided as much as it has or that the Riksbank would have paused the interest rate at 4 percent.

The risk with such a policy is that one would have done everyone a disservice and that we would have had an even higher inflation rate with even higher interest rates as a result. Sweden would then have gone from Göteborgsvinter to permafrost.

If, on the other hand, we manage to together wrestle down the inflation monster, all the conditions are in place for the economy to soon recover. Then there are also all the conditions for housing construction to recover and for the economic cycle to turn upwards within the next year or years.

Mr. Speaker! I want to read a quote from Ola Palmgren, who is vice chairman of Hyresgästföreningen. He has said: "We have had a completely inadequate housing policy over the last 30 years and now we see the result of that." Palmgren was quoted when he presented Hyresgästföreningens report Unga vuxnas boende 2023 at the end of November.

The report is a frightening read for everyone interested in housing policy. It establishes that the proportion of young adults lacking their own housing has almost doubled since the end of the 90s. When Hyresgästföreningen submitted its report for the first time, in 1997, it was 15 percent of young people aged 20-27 who lived with their parents. 75 percent had their own housing, and the rest had solved the housing issue in another way, for example as lodgers. This year, it is 65 percent who have their own housing and 26 percent who still live with their parents.

Behind these figures are people of flesh and blood, which the Tenants' Association also notes. 35 percent of those surveyed hesitate to start a family due to the housing shortage. Approximately the same number hesitate to move to another city for the same reason.

Mr. Speaker! The figures on the housing shortage are just as much figures on crushed dreams. Young people do not dare to start a family today because they cannot find a home. People have to turn down dream educations or dream jobs because they do not know where they would live.

There is also a socio-economic aspect to this. In training programs within professional groups where there is a skills shortage, the places are not filled because it is not possible to move to the training location. Companies cannot hire, grow, and pay taxes because the skills they are seeking cannot find housing.

Even though I, as a Moderate, may not always agree with the Tenants' Association's proposed solutions, I completely agree with the description of the problem. Housing policy in Sweden has not been characterized by any sense of crisis, and for decades, the issue has hardly been given any attention.

During the eight years that the Social Democrats and the Green Party sat in government, there were five different people who served as housing ministers. One of them also served during two different periods. The moving boxes to the housing minister's office were carried in and out with higher frequency than a rental apartment.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government is now restructuring the housing policy in Sweden. There is no law of nature that says one must stand in a housing queue for years or know someone who knows someone to get a rental apartment. There is no law of nature that says it must require millions in the bank or wealthy parents to be able to buy a condominium or a villa. One can simply look around Europe to realize that the situation is not like this in other countries.

The government is therefore focusing on enabling more housing to be built through simpler rules, shorter lead times, and more buildable land.

Through regulatory simplifications, we can achieve more space-efficient housing and greater innovative power in construction, which in turn pushes down prices. Through shorter lead times – today it takes eight to ten years from idea to finished housing – costs during the planning stage are reduced and more housing can be built.

By arranging for more buildable land, the price of land will fall and we can build more housing where people actually want to live. One such example is coastal plots. The Tidö parties presented as recently as last Thursday a far-reaching proposal to reform the coastal protection and enable more housing.

Mr. Speaker! In the short term, the government's primary priority is to combat inflation. The limited reform space that exists, we allocate to expanding the justice system, strengthening the defense, and restoring the work principle. Furthermore, we are putting effort into protecting welfare and household finances. These are offensive investments in a difficult economic time. Some investments also have a direct impact on reducing the decline within the construction sector and people's vulnerability on the housing market.

We are temporarily increasing the renovation deduction from 50,000 kronor to 75,000 kronor and separating it from the renovation deduction. We do this for two reasons. It will, for example, save many jobs in the construction sector, especially for sole traders or smaller builders who can transition from building housing to carrying out renovations and conversions.

We also do it to support people's private finances. Among our political opponents, people sometimes mock and claim that the roof deduction primarily goes to millionaires who are building new swimming pools. Millionaires will always be able to afford to build new swimming pools, believe me. An increased roof deduction, however, can be the difference that makes it possible for a family with children who need to replace the roof or add insulation to save electricity to afford to do so.

The government is also creating two planning bonuses for municipalities that choose to produce detailed plans even though the demand for these is currently low. This includes, among other things, 60 million kronor for municipalities that produce detailed plans for small houses. The demand for new small houses is enormous. In recent decades, the political focus has been on building more apartments. At the same time, we know that seven out of ten Swedes want to live in small houses. Enabling more small house construction is therefore also an important point in the government's housing policy.

We are creating a planning bonus of 20 million kronor for municipalities that make it possible to convert office premises into housing. As remote work and working from home increase, the needs for offices in society and what they look like are also changing. During the second half of the 1900s, many homes in our cities were converted into offices. Many of those offices could now be converted back into homes, but among other things, detailed plans are putting a stop to it.

In addition to creating the possibility to build more housing, we hope that the bonuses will also become a support for municipalities so that they do not have to reduce their planning capacity during the downturn.

Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear: 2024 will be a tough year regarding housing construction due to high inflation and increased capital costs. With a restrained budget and an offensive housing policy, we can, however, fight down the inflation monster and address the structural problems that have created a housing market that does not function.

Mr. Speaker! Since expenditure area 18 also includes consumer policy, I would like to take the opportunity to devote a few words to it.

The Moderate-led government is now carrying out a major initiative on strengthened consumer protection by reinforcing the authority National Advertising Board, ARN, which adjudicates disputes between consumers and companies. A decision from ARN is a recommendation on how the dispute should be resolved and is a simpler way to settle a dispute than pursuing it legally in a court. ARN's recommendations are also often incorporated into, for example, industry standards and are in that way guiding for how regulations and legislation should be interpreted.

Arn is an important tool when it comes to strengthening consumer protection in Sweden and facilitating for businesses to follow the legislation and do the right thing. At the same time, the number of cases to Arn has increased sharply in recent years, which risks leading to increased case backlogs and longer decision times. Therefore, we are now strengthening the Allmänna reklamationsnämndens budget with 5.2 million in 2024 and 9.6 million and 11 million in 2025 and 2026 respectively.

We are also taking other measures to strengthen the National Board for Consumer Disputes. Approximately one-third of the cases that come to ARN are dismissed because they either fall below the value of disputes that the authority reviews or are incomplete and are not supplemented. This creates an unnecessary workload for the authority, which still has to process the cases.

The government has therefore submitted a proposition to introduce a symbolic application fee to Arn, in accordance with current EU directives. This will hopefully lead both to more consumers finding out if the authority can actually process the case and completing their applications as needed.

Mr. Speaker! 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)

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! My Moderate colleague seems to have found a great interest in poetry just here before the Christmas season. The member is talking about shattered dreams and permafrost.

Poetry is all well and good, but I wonder what the Moderate housing policy spokesperson has to say about housing policy when 7,000 have been given notice and bankruptcies have increased by 29 percent. In November alone, companies in the housing sector with a turnover of 1 billion went bankrupt. Several hundred were told they do not have a job to go to, just in time for Christmas. According to UC, these bankruptcies cost the Swedish state 46 billion in reduced tax revenues.

I honestly wonder what the government is doing to handle these issues. I have submitted several interpellations and two committee initiatives to demonstrate the Centre Party's goodwill in being a constructive force in providing proposals for solutions. You reject everything, across the board – the agenda list is empty, and the bill list is empty. As soon as someone says something, you say that a lot of work is being done at the Government Offices.

I would actually quite honestly like to know what the government is doing to handle these problems which the member himself says are of a structural nature and blames previous governments for not having addressed. There are 62 public inquiries to dust off and use, so what are you doing?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Alireza Akhondi for what I take as some form of compliment for my poetic expressions, even though I perhaps saw them more as prose.

I will begin by saying that I completely share the member's concern. It is an extremely serious situation in the economy as a whole, and it is an even more serious situation within the construction sector and perhaps even more so within the entire housing sector. It is one thing that people lose their jobs and companies go bankrupt, but the big problem is that houses are now not being built to the extent that would be needed for us to address the housing shortage that exists.

I truly welcome that Alireza Akhondi is open to a constructive discussion. During the previous parliamentary term, a number of announcements were made that the Tidö parties, together with the Center Party, supported. I therefore believe that there is much we agree on and can continue to talk about. Our door is always open for the Center Party.

We do three things: We simplify the rules for building, shorten the lead times in the planning and building process, and increase the availability of buildable land. When it comes to buildable land, we are now moving forward with a reform of the shore protection. We provide planning incentives to municipalities. When we talk about lead times, it concerns everything from reviewing permit processes to working with Lantmäteriet and their processes. Regarding the regulatory framework, we have done everything from giving assignments to Boverket regarding relaxations in building requirements for student housing to ensuring that a major review of the building rules is now being carried out and so on. Just as the member says, there are many things that are ready and that we are also working on to make progress in this area and obtain better conditions for housing construction.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank David Josefsson for the answer. We certainly do not share the view that not much is being done, but what we have to deal with in this chamber are matters and bills, and they are conspicuous by their absence. We can only state that a quarter as many new homes are being built as when this government took office.

The opposition raised the issue of the coastal protection. We naturally welcome that. The question that arises is why you voted no to the same proposal, which was on the Riksdag's table shortly before the election. What were the reasons for voting no other than party tactics? You are now hammering out exactly the same proposal and saying that it should be placed on the Riksdag's table. It means that a certain number of homes could have been completed and provide relief for the struggling housing sector today, and that more people could have realized their dreams of living in our entire elongated country.

What if the Riksbank fails to get inflation under control? We see the American unemployment figures affecting the Fed's possibilities to lower the interest rate, which in turn affects how Sweden and the ECB can handle the interest rate and inflation. What happens then if one does not get the reduction of the interest rate level that we would need in this sector – do you have any proposals in your back pocket?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by explaining what we have actually said about the shore protection.

Just as the member says, there was a proposal in a government bill during the previous parliamentary term. At that time, we said that some of the things are good, but overall, this will not lead to improvements. It risks leading to deteriorations.

What we are doing now, we are doing in two steps. We are taking a major grip on the shore protection over a slightly longer term in order to actually achieve these improvements - improvements that I know the Moderaterna have stood behind, the Sverigedemokraterna have stood behind, and the Centerpartiet have stood behind. We are also looking at the proposal that exists and picking out the parts that are good, even if we did not think the whole was good.

One could easily end up in a blame game here, Madam Speaker, and ask why the Center Party could not already during the previous parliamentary term sit down with us so that we, in the three parties that have a similar view of how we want to solve the coastal protection issue, could have solved it then. Then we would not be in this situation now; then we could, as the member said, already now have built these homes. We can turn this discussion over and over. I believe we all know who it was that had the political deadlock.

I think the member's question about inflation is the truly relevant one here. What happens if the government and the Riksbank do not succeed in taming the inflation monster? What happens then?

I would say that is when the truly dangerous thing happens, Madam Speaker, because if we do not succeed in fighting inflation with all our might and if we cannot have a budget that is restrained and brings down inflation, then we go from a Gothenburg winter to permafrost. It is not a poetic expression; it is a fear I carry. It is something that worries me extremely much.

That is why it is extremely important that we approve this budget. We must not end up in a situation where the inflation monster takes hold in the Swedish economy and makes housing construction impossible for several years to come.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! David Josefsson mentioned in his speech that young people cannot start families because there is a lack of housing, that companies cannot hire because there is a lack of housing, and that people cannot take jobs because there is a lack of housing.

The construction crisis is hitting the entire economy of the society, and to say that we are in a serious situation is almost an understatement.

The question was asked here earlier: What is this government doing? We have not received an answer. David Josefsson mentioned that they are shortening lead times and simplifying the building regulations. But my question is about what David Josefsson's government is doing so that people can build housing that people can afford.

Despite the things that David Josefsson mentioned that the government is doing now, the situation is catastrophic. It is a construction crisis. It is a crisis in the whole country. In northern Sweden, one hires a hundred people a month, but they have nowhere to live.

You are responsible. You sit in the government. You have the power to create change. Why are you doing nothing? We who sit in the Committee on Civil Affairs receive no matters that come to us. There are no bills that come to the Committee on Civil Affairs, no proposals.

Everyone in the construction sector is crying out for the reforms needed so that they can build housing. They cannot build because the calculations do not add up. Why don't you come up with proposals where the state can step in and help? What are you doing to stop this construction crisis? What are you doing so that more housing can be built that people can afford?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, for your contribution! I completely share your view of how serious the situation is. It is extremely serious.

I think that one should look up and realize that it is not just a serious situation regarding housing construction. It is a serious situation regarding the economy as a whole. Households are struggling to meet their monthly bills. Companies are struggling to be able to continue having employees. Municipalities are struggling to make their budgets balance. Everything is not just about housing policy. It is also about the economy of society as a whole. Our focus is to break down the inflation monster and thereby bring down costs and interest rates.

Then we do things to get the housing construction in order. As I stated in my speech, too few homes were built even when there was a boom. There were a number of things that were problems during the boom which have led to even greater problems during a recession. In that case, it is a matter of reducing red tape, reducing lead times, and increasing the buildable land. I understand if one does not think these are the right things, but to claim that we are doing nothing is political dishonesty.

This government has a clear reform agenda to bring down costs and enable both more housing and cheaper housing. But one must be aware of what the Tenants' Association (Hyresgästföreningen) observes: there has been a lack of crisis awareness for 30 years. It is an extremely great trust that you in the Left Party have in the Tidö parties if you believe that we will be able to turn it around in a year. I can guarantee the members that it is a task that we have started with great force, but the focus in this budget is to save the Swedish people from an inflation monster that otherwise risks biting its teeth in.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate that David Josefsson is at least honest and says that we find ourselves in an extremely serious situation, in contrast to my colleague Larry Söder who is satisfied with the situation. I think it is an honest answer that we find ourselves in an extremely serious situation. One must realize that just to be able to start trying to come up with solutions. If one does not realize that the situation and the state of affairs is serious, one does not understand what one needs to do.

With that said, I absolutely do not agree that the proposed measures that have been put forward are the right measures to solve the problems that we describe here today. Housing must be built.

The construction sector is talking about bankruptcy and layoffs. People are losing their jobs, and the government is hiding behind inflation. It is not possible. It is not enough. One cannot constantly say that we have inflation and that we have to wait until the inflation is gone. No competencies will remain. That is what the industry and the sector have also said. Why is action not being taken?

People cannot find housing or cannot afford to stay in their homes. Swedish household debt is among the absolute highest in the entire world. We are evicting more and more of our children from their homes. We have children who are being evicted. Homelessness is increasing. We have small children and families with children who are being evicted from their homes. Then the government says that we have a crisis and inflation and that we have to wait until it is gone. While one waits until it is gone, more children are evicted and homeless on the street. Is that reasonable? Is it too much to ask of a government to act and protect its people in times of crisis?

You are responsible now, and therefore I think it is reasonable to demand that you act. What are you doing to stop families with children, in particular, from being evicted? What are you doing to stop homelessness and to ensure that people have homes to live in?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, if nothing else for your commitment!

You say, or the member says, that one must build housing and worries that families with children will be evicted otherwise. That is exactly what worries me too.

Then one can say, as a member, that the government is hiding behind inflation. What makes me worried – and it makes me truly worried – is that representatives of the opposition seem to pretend that there is no inflation, that inflation would not be any problem, and that families with children are not struggling to manage their finances because prices have gone up or struggling to pay the loans because interest rates have skyrocketed. They pretend and do as usual. They continue as if nothing has happened.

My question to Malcolm Momodou Jallow is what the Left Party's policy is. What are your proposals to actually bring down inflation and ensure that we do not have seven difficult years with high inflation and high interest rates, families with children being evicted and people who have to move from their homes because they cannot afford to pay their loans? What policy does the Left Party and the opposition have to actually address the challenge we face? It makes me truly worried. Where is the crisis awareness among the opposition parties regarding this?

As stated, there is no sense of crisis in the Left Party's budget proposal. One would want to ask what the effects would be if that policy were pushed through. Where would inflation end up then? Where would the interest rate end up then? How many families would end up on the street with the Left Party's policy? I do not want to know.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I appreciate when members make corrections and note that it is good when you speak through the Speaker. I will remember this.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, David Josefsson, for both the speech and the exchanges so far! I share David Josefsson's concern regarding inflation and the economic development. What I, however, object to is what the Moderaterna and the government seem to believe: that doing nothing is the same as fighting inflation. It is simply not true. On the other hand, it is obviously important to do the right things in the situation we are currently in.

It is not the case either, despite the government and David Josefsson claiming that one cannot do anything in this specific policy area and that one must be restrained, that one does nothing in a lot of other areas. The government spends a fairly large reform space, but one has other priorities. For example, one has no problems with a luxury-root or reduced tax on plastic bags, snus, or for that matter, fuel. Especially the latter likely affects inflation quite significantly. It is simply a matter of which political choices are made and what one prioritizes.

David Josefsson and the government also seem to have no ambition, alongside fighting inflation, to also ensure that we do not enter a deep recession. Therefore, it is remarkable that one, given the role the construction sector plays in driving a recession, essentially does not produce a single proposal.

My question to David Josefsson is therefore: In what way does one intend to prevent Sweden from entering a deeper recession than necessary, and in what way does one intend to ensure that construction takes place at a faster pace than what has now been signaled?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jennie Nilsson, for the remark! Just as Jennie Nilsson says, it is important not to get stuck in doing nothing because there is inflation. This was also what our previous exchange was about, Madam Speaker.

I would like to say that the danger in this situation is to pretend as if it is raining and as if there is no inflation - to not have a restrained state budget with everything that entails, all the criticism one has to endure and all the tough priorities one has to make. It is actually almost a bit provoking to hear that it would be to do nothing to hold onto the money in tough times. The natural thing for a politician is, of course, to want to spend them and make the voters happy.

This government is doing a number of things, both in the short and long term, to both keep housing construction going and save jobs. We are strengthening rot. We are introducing planning bonuses. We are increasing the housing allowance for families with children to help them cope with a tough situation. But we are also making important investments in other policy areas. We are expanding the justice system and the Armed Forces. We are allocating 16 billion, 40 percent of the reform space, to protect municipalities and regions. We are, therefore, doing a number of things to get through the recession.

But it is not just about getting us through it. The most important task we face is, as I said, to ensure that this does not become seven difficult years - that it does not become a long and deep recession but just a Gothenburg winter, not a permafrost. This is the government's focus, and it is not to do nothing.

The question earlier was whether one was satisfied with the government's policy. I would, to paraphrase LO, say it like this: I am proud, but I am not satisfied.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The fact remains: inflation is not a domestic Swedish problem but something that the entire EU and largely the whole world is grappling with. If one looks at the area that is most comparable, namely the EU, one can however state that it is going worse for Sweden than for most other countries. Only Hungary, Luxembourg and one other country have a worse economic development than Sweden, and only Sweden is projected to have a negative economic development next year. This is not a receipt that the government is doing the right things – on the contrary.

With this said, I still want to address some of the things that David Josefsson raises, linked to what is being done. The increased housing allowance is a good thing. It was implemented by the Social Democrats in connection with the pandemic, and it has continued to exist as a result of new challenges. But I note that it is being abolished starting from the mid-year turn next year. In what way is it assessed that families with children can manage without an increased housing allowance during the second half of 2024? What is it that is supposed to have happened then? This must still be considered.

I also note that David Josefsson has read HGF's report on young adults' housing 2023 and is as horrified by it as I am. The 30 years where nothing has happened are somewhat interesting if one looks at them retrospectively. The last time the right ruled, 2006-2014, 22,000 apartments were built per year, thus far below the need. The last time the Social Democrats ruled, approximately 60,000 homes were built per year, roughly at the level of what was needed but not enough to handle the accumulated deficit. Now we are again building at a level that implies a deficit, and my question therefore remains: What actual measures will be taken to handle the construction crisis we see now and ensure that construction occurs at a level corresponding to the need in the future? I see none of this in the government's budget.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! To begin with the European perspective, it can be stated that how a country manages its recession also depends on which structural reforms were achieved during the boom. We come from eight years of Social Democratic rule, during which reform work was almost non-existent.

Anders Borg said that we managed the financial crisis relatively well because we had in the barns. This government really did not come to a set table. The previous government did a lot, but unfortunately, one cannot say that it prepared Sweden for a recession.

To get construction started, we are doing things in the long term. We simplify building regulations, shorten lead times, and increase the amount of buildable land – all of which were problems during a boom and are also problems during a recession. I do not believe we can expect to have a large housing construction during a recession. The big problem was, just as Jennie Nilsson said, that we did not have a sufficiently high housing construction even during a boom.

We must address these structural problems if we are to resolve the housing shortage, through proper reform work. Now we will hopefully have a short recession to then enter a boom and quickly get the construction moving. It is the government's ambition, and it is what this policy aims for.

The member of the government stated in his previous exchange, Madam Speaker, that RUT was a luxury reform. I took out a RUT report to see if this was true. There it is stated that 342,000 people who are counted as high-income earners utilized the RUT deduction last year, while 712,000 Swedes who are middle- or low-income earners utilized it. RUT is not a luxury reform. RUT is for ordinary people who must make their finances work.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! According to Boverket's latest forecasts, we need to build 67,300 homes per year until 2030. During the record year 2021, under the red-green government, approximately 71,000 homes were started. According to Boverket's forecast, in 2024 we will start the construction of approximately 20,000 homes, and that is far too few.

I listened to the Minister for Housing in June this year, after his meeting with the industry. Andreas Carlson said then that the government is prepared to take swift measures to address the crisis in housing construction. It was, therefore, in June, and I believe that was one of the reasons why so many were disappointed when this budget was presented, because the swift measures that the industry had wanted to see were not included.

The question is, of course, what is meant by rapid measures. The government parties have been in opposition for eight years, and now they have governed housing policy for a little more than a year. One could think that there would have been time to develop new measures that could benefit housing construction if the issue had been prioritized.

I wonder therefore: With the measures that the Moderates and the Tidö parties are now presenting, how many housing units will that policy be able to contribute? And if it turns out as many believe, that inflation will decrease this spring, will we then see any new measures in the spring budget, and what could those be in that case?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the question! Just as the member says, the annual construction was reached during a booming economic boom. The big problem is that it is said that on average one would need to build 67,000 homes - now one is talking about up to 70,000 homes per year - during a business cycle.

The definition of a recession is that construction actually decreases. This means that one will need to be much higher than that level during a boom to meet the housing need that exists.

Our focus lies on resolving the structural problems that mean that, despite having a boom and almost zero interest rates, we only reached 65,000-70,000 homes per year. We would have needed to build many more homes during the boom.

The government's focus lies on addressing the structural problems. Succeeding in that involves a number of things: regarding simplification of rules, regarding shortening lead times, and regarding securing buildable land. But if we succeed with this, I am convinced that we can reach a situation where enough housing is built. It will not be 2024 or 2025, but when we are in a boom. Then we can, in the longer term, build away the housing shortage, and at the same time we must make the housing market more functional.

Fast measures are not a quick fix. It is not about throwing billions at developers or landlords in a burning recession. It is, however, about ensuring that we are ready when the economy turns to handle the demand that exists. This is what we mean by fast measures, and that is why we pursue an offensive housing policy.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to return to something that David Josefsson raised in his speech, namely the abolition of the coastal protection, or the improvement of the coastal protection, as the Moderaterna call it.

The Government sees this as a sensible solution to increase housing construction. On the other hand, we see that the county administrative boards have granted approximately 80-90 of the requested coastal protection exemptions in recent years. During 2022, the municipalities granted 7,155 coastal protection exemptions and the county administrative boards granted 773. In 2018, 20 miles of coasts were developed in Sweden.

We also have something called LIS-areas, which I assume the government is aware of. It stands for rural development in coastal locations, and the municipalities can then designate coastal locations for construction. This was introduced in the Environmental Code already in 2009 to stimulate local and regional development in areas with good access to free coastal areas. The difference compared to the government's proposal seems to be that the public shall continue to have good access to the coastal areas and that plants on the shore and in the water shall have good living conditions. I do not know if this is the difference that the government sees in relation to the new reform or not.

The problem with abolishing the coastal protection and talking about it becoming cheaper to build near the coast is that the calculations are based on the fact that the person who buys in a coastal location has a higher ability to pay. There will be less untouched coastline and natural land to visit for those with thinner wallets and perhaps an increased availability of houses for those with thicker wallets.

I wonder: How many homes can be created by abolishing the coastal protection, and how many more miles of beaches will be able to be privatized?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the question! It is an interesting perspective that the member has on the shore protection. She argues that shores should be protected, and if one builds on a shore - that is, if one uses it - it is privatized. I recoil slightly from that description.

Sweden has an enormously long coastline. We have many and long rivers. We have two large lakes and thousands of small lakes. We have good access to beaches.

There are beaches that should be protected for various reasons. It could be about public access, about biotopes, and a number of other things. In the same way, there are forest areas that should be protected so that the public will have access to them, for biotope protection, or similar. But that all beaches should be protected because certain beaches need to be protected, I think is wrong.

The member says that one does this for them with thick wallets. The big problem today is that beach land has become a class issue. The billionaires, whom the member from Vänsterpartiet spoke about, will always be able to afford to buy beaches in Sweden, precisely because it is a scarce commodity. Despite the fact that we are one of the countries in Europe with the most meters of beach per capita, there is a limit on where one is allowed to build. The rich have the means today to buy a beach plot, but we ordinary mortals do not.

By opening up for construction on beaches - not on all beaches but on some - it actually becomes possible for more people to live near the shore. What was an impossibility and something to dream about can now become a reality with our beach protection reform. I think this is very important to keep in mind. It is this perspective that drives me to actually create more buildable land and give more people the opportunity to live near the shore.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! During the SD government's first year, Sweden has gone from record-high construction to a standstill in new production. According to Boverket's forecast for this year, approximately 27,000 homes will be started. This is a decrease of 55 percent compared to last year.

For 2024, the forecast is that housing construction will fall further and land at just over 19,500. It is a gloomy forecast and far from the approximately 67,000 homes that need to be built annually for us to be able to meet the need. And many analysts believe it will become even worse. For example, Byggföretagen predicts that the figure for this year will be 24,000 homes.

As a direct consequence, we now see that notices of termination and bankruptcies are increasing dramatically. We can look at the figures for October and November. One has to go back to the 90s crisis to find similar figures. This is something that, in addition to obvious problems for housing seekers, will have a strongly negative impact on jobs and growth. Sweden is becoming poorer.

The negative development is driven by global factors such as the war in Ukraine, high inflation, and rising interest rates. But the government's passivity given these factors is also remarkable. The little that has been achieved has been insufficient and, above all, in some respects incorrect. Clear examples of mistakes made are the phasing out of the investment support and the broken Sweden negotiations. Both of these decisions were made at a time when we were heading into a recession, and they have likely contributed strongly to the sharp decline in housing construction.

The right-wing government does not seem to realize the seriousness of the situation, nor does it realize its responsibility to take concrete and relevant measures. It becomes obvious when one sees what the government's answers and proposals to meet the construction crisis became in the budget we are now debating: 60 million in stimulus bonuses to municipalities to plan villa plots and 20 million to motivate municipalities to convert office premises into housing.

We have the worst construction crisis since the 90s crisis. It will, if nothing is done, make the housing crisis permanent at a high level for a long time to come. The consequences will be great. Fewer will be able to move to take a job or get an education. It affects the supply of skills, jobs, and growth. Fewer young people can move out from home. Fewer can get divorced. Women exposed to violence may be forced to stay in violent relationships. More will become overcrowded while fewer can choose to move from a home that has become too large or a house that has become too big.

And the government's response is a total of 80 million kronor to be distributed among 290 municipalities to plan villa plots and convert office premises into housing. It is not even serious.

Madam Speaker! The construction sector is a growth engine that drives both economic upswings and economic downturns. Right now, it is driving through the recession. The housing shortage has consequences for the entire societal planning. Companies' growth is slowed. Industrial establishments are threatened, and jobs are lost.

When the construction industry slows down, it has a ripple effect on several industries. That one construction worker creates jobs for three other people is an old truth that still holds true. Increased unemployment within the construction industry thus risks spreading across the entire labor market.

And Sweden's economy is shrinking. Only Estonia, Hungary and Luxembourg are performing worse in the EU. Next year, Sweden is the only EU country where the economy is expected to continue shrinking. It is not a receipt for a government that has control and is doing the right things. On the contrary, it is a rejection of the Sverigedemokraterna's and the government's policy.

Madam Speaker! Sweden cannot afford to let the housing market collapse. The entire construction sector is facing a steel bath, and the state must urgently contribute with more active measures. The Social Democrats therefore propose two new measures in the form of a state construction stimulus and state construction credits, both of which should only be linked to clear credit conditions regarding rental levels, price levels, climate standards, and social contracts.

The state construction stimulus aims for a production support directed towards locations with large industrial establishments as well as for youth and student housing. The state construction credits are a favorable state co-financing for new production that should be deployed to lower the investment cost and the financial risk. We propose that the appropriation to Boverket be increased by 100 million to cover the costs associated with the introduction and administration of these measures.

We also propose that the government be authorized to enter into financial commitments of at most 3 billion during 2024 for construction stimuli and to take out loans from the Swedish National Debt Office for state construction credits amounting to 5.12 billion kronor.

So, in total, we want to stimulate the construction sector with just over 8.1 billion to cushion the economic downturn and to build away the housing shortage. This should be compared with the SD government's 80 million.

We also want the government to immediately send the finalized proposal on starter loans for first-time buyers to the Riksdag for a decision and that the government proceeds with the proposal that public service housing shall be exempted from the requirement to apply the Public Procurement Act in accordance with the proposal in the investigation Lower the threshold to a good home.

And we want the government to deliver when it comes to the proposal in the BUMS investigation regarding monthly reporting. It would mean that significantly more people in these bitter times who are entitled to housing allowance could receive housing allowance, not least students, the unemployed, hourly workers, and many more.

The government also continues to say no to these proposals.

Madam Speaker! In a situation where we risk major losses of competence in the construction sector, economic stimuli are needed. In addition to investing in measures that involve more construction, it is reasonable to invest in measures that retain competence in the sector. The most effective way to do that at the moment is likely investments in energy efficiency. Despite this, there are no proposals for energy efficiency in the SD government's budget. This is despite the fact that Sweden, Europe, and the world are in an energy and climate crisis. The measures that existed were phased out, even though it should also be obvious to the government that the most climate-smart and cheapest energy is that which is not used. It is misguided and incomprehensible.

We Social Democrats consider 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 the energy efficiency of multi-family dwellings of 1.2 billion for 2024. We also propose an increase of the rotavdrag to 50 percent for services that contribute to energy efficiency. It could involve the installation of geothermal heating, water-borne heating or solar cells, replacement of doors and windows or additional insulation - to name a few examples. It is smart politics for the climate, the economy and the households' wallets.

Madam Speaker! Expenditure area 18 includes, in addition to social planning and housing supply, also consumer policy. It is a policy area that increases in weight and importance when households are pressed hard by inflation, high interest rates, and a cost crisis. This occurs at a time when it is becoming increasingly difficult and more complicated to be a consumer.

It is more technically advanced products, more complicated services, a global market that is expanding, increasing SMS loans, pensioners who are deceived by fraudsters, fake invoices and misleading advertising. The list of challenges for consumers can be made long.

To prevent over-indebtedness and increase incentives for sustainable consumption, we propose that a new appropriation of 50 million kronor to strengthen the municipalities' consumer guidance be introduced. We simultaneously oppose the SD government phasing out the support to the non-profit consumer organizations. They constitute an important complement to the Consumer Agency and function as a protection and a support for the most vulnerable consumer groups. They currently share 14 million kronor, and as recently as this spring, the government contributed 1 million kronor with the stated motive of strengthening them in their important work. It was important, right, and welcome.

To now halve the support for 2024 in order to completely phase it out in 2026 therefore appears contradictory and completely incomprehensible. The question that must be asked is what has changed from April to October that justifies such a radical about-face where the need for increased support suddenly and without warning has been transformed into no need at all.

From the consumers' perspective, absolutely nothing has happened. Their challenges remain. It is therefore difficult to see this as anything other than part of the ideologically conditioned attack on civil society that we are now seeing in area after area.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker! Since our framework is broader than the government's regarding the expenditure area and our budget is to be seen as a whole, we will refrain from participating in the decision and have instead submitted a separate statement.

In this speech, Denis Begic and Leif Nysmed (both S) concurred.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is much to say about the Social Democrats' policy. If we start with the housing commission that Member Jennie Nilsson has announced the Social Democrats want, where Member Jennie Nilsson was very clear in the media recently that she does not believe one should discuss issues where there is no agreement.

It also shows that the Social Democrats' previous proposal regarding specifically a housing commission, where the Social Democrats wanted to be a part, was merely a cheap political move from the Social Democrats. One is not at all interested in discussing issues where one has a different opinion. A party that wants to discuss other solutions than its own was not to be trusted, according to MP Jennie Nilsson. At least, that was what she said in the media.

But that was not quite what I intended to ask Jennie Nilsson, but the question I have concerns the green tax deduction. How is it actually intended that the green tax deduction should work? How is one supposed to control that what is performed is actually within the scope of the green tax deduction? Is it the intention to hire many more people who will travel around and check so that it does not become a "fiddling" tax deduction as it otherwise risks becoming? It must be very tempting for the construction company to write something else on the invoice in order to keep the cost down for the final customer in that way and thus get more customers.

I do not quite see why one wants to build up a system that is so rigid and so prone to cheating as the Socialdemokraterna propose in the form of a green rot deduction. I do not buy at all that it is the same problem with the ordinary rot deduction today as it would be with a system surrounding a green rot deduction, because I do not experience the rot deduction as something that is cheated on to a very large extent today.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Eskilandersson, for the questions!

If we start with the last question, I assume that this is checked in the same way as other things. Why does the member believe that in the ordinary system, one cannot be tempted to state a material cost as a labor cost? It is something that we see happening, and it is also something that many alarm about when looking at the cost development, for example, the cost for the tax deduction for renovations.

It is also noteworthy that Mikael Eskilandersson stands in the chamber of the Riksdag and claims that companies providing energy solutions would be more prone to cheating than other companies in this sector. I hope that Mikael Eskilandersson will be held accountable for that claim.

With that said: the Social Democrats propose a housing commission. We propose it constantly, and we do so together with a number of other actors - actually all actors except the Sweden Democrats and the government.

We do it because we believe that urgent measures are needed here and now, and we and all other actors consider that the government is not delivering them. We also do it because we consider that long-term and stable rules of the game are needed, not least linked to structural reforms, so that companies and investors can rely on what applies for these large investments with long depreciation periods.

The purpose of a commission is that all issues are put on the table and discussed as a whole. What I am not interested in discussing, which I have stated in the media and which I assume Mikael Eskilandersson is referring to, are individual issues, piece by piece and in parts. That is not what is needed in a situation when one is to take responsibility for a whole.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! To start where Jennie Nilsson left off, it was not a discussion about individual issues that I had with the media, but I said clearly and distinctly that the Sverigedemokraterna are interested in discussing all issues within the cooperation for the Tidö Agreement. I had no comment on any specific issue. That one then chose to present it in the headline as if it were about a specific issue is a completely different matter. I am not the one who writes the headlines.

I do not want to claim that companies working with energy solutions would be more prone to making inaccuracies. On the other hand, a green root would include certain but not other parts of one's home, and it becomes difficult even for me to know what would actually be included and what would be outside. I also do not feel that I receive any guidance from Jennie Nilsson's answer regarding what is okay and what is not.

The problem is that if you add insulation to an exterior wall, it should be energy-improving, but if you do an interior wall, it is suddenly not energy-improving. However, it is the same companies that deal with building exterior walls and interior walls. It is not specific energy companies that come and build exterior walls and then refuse to build an interior wall. So the market does not work that way.

Unfortunately, there are already today quite unscrupulous people working within the construction industry sometimes, even though I assume that the vast majority of companies are serious.

In conclusion, I just want to mention that the Social Democrats and now Jennie Nilsson in her speech were almost mocking the fact that the government parties only spent 80 million while they spent 8.1 billion. They are boasting about this. Then I wonder if they have truly understood the threat from inflation. When one boasts about how much more money one actually spends in the area, one has truly understood nothing.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I must thank Mikael Eskilandersson for his comment, even if the tone is at times problematic in the chamber of the Riksdag. It is not the opposition's heckling that has made the greatest impression so far in this debate; I must say that nonetheless.

With this said: If a housing commission is to look at the issue, one looks at the whole. That Mikael Eskilandersson is apparently offended that other political parties comment based on something he calls merely headline setting must stand for Mikael Eskilandersson himself.

What is it then that is needed in the situation we find ourselves in? We have a situation where housing construction is collapsing, and it is driving the recession. Construction workers are being laid off now and are going home instead of building the housing that is needed. This, in turn, risks the supply of skills and companies' opportunities to grow and expand, just as it risks gigantic industrial establishments in our country.

The opposition presents proposals to the government to meet this, but the government and the Sweden Democrats stand completely helpless and passive and say "we are afraid of the inflation ghost."

It is not worthy of a Swedish government. The Swedish people have the right to expect a government and a coalition partner in the form of the Sweden Democrats that is capable of taking responsibility for both managing inflation and averting a recession - or at least pretending that one wants to avert a recession.

What is on the government's table is truly a joke.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are probably all in agreement that we have major concerns in the housing market. There are high and unstable interest rates, there is an inflation that is difficult to reel in, and it is also difficult to know what it will look like in twelve months.

More and more young people are finding it difficult to find their own housing. They are forced to stay at home with their parents or are perhaps forced to involve their parents as a participating party in order to get a loan for a home.

We are building far too little every year compared to what Boverket has set as the benchmark for us to be able to build according to demand. This means that people live in the wrong housing, a housing that is not optimal based on their situation, or that one does not get a housing at all.

The queues for a rental apartment in our three large cities are longer than what is reasonable, and thus people find housing solutions that are insecure, expensive, and sometimes directly dangerous.

It is also expensive to build. It takes a long time to plan and to get it in place. In short: Our housing market does not function, but has very large problems.

I also believe we can agree that the problem did not begin on October 18, 2022, when the current government and our housing minister Andreas Carlson took office. I believe that for many years we have turned a blind eye to the structural problems with land availability, planning processes, and skyrocketing construction costs, and we have tried to solve them with temporary subsidies and various ways of putting a bandage on the wound instead of trying to heal the wound.

What can then be done to solve the problems on the housing market? Yes, there is no quick fix, as some seem to believe, but it is to delve deep and see the problems exactly as they are.

We must have long-term rules of the game. It must be possible to build a property at reasonable costs without having to rely on subsidies. The housing stock must be used as efficiently as possible over time and be maintained in the meantime.

The time from idea to finished house must go faster, and the planning time and the appeal period must become shorter. But the first thing we must ensure is that there is long-term perspective and direction in the decisions.

Long-term perspective among those who govern is desirable. The Social Democratic government managed to deliver six ministers in eight years. That means that a minister in a Social Democratic government sat for an average of 16 months. Housing Minister Andreas Carlson will soon have caught up. We know that from idea to reality for a proposal, it takes two years or more with investigations, referrals, and processing in the chamber. Then everyone realizes that a minister who sits for 16 months does not have time to make any impact or carry out what he has decided to do. The long-term perspective with a housing minister who sits for four years will pay off further ahead in the form of continuity and the same governance, and it will lead to more results.

We, as government parties, have put pressure on the municipalities to build based on need by ensuring that the county administrative boards are more involved in the planning of housing, in terms of where construction can be envisioned in the different municipalities, but also based on how much has been planned, what needs exist, and the reasons why construction is not being carried out according to need.

We, as government parties, have given a planning bonus for those who plan small house areas, precisely to stimulate the municipalities to continue planning housing even in the current situation.

We, as government parties, have tasked Boverket with returning with significant reliefs for student housing, while Boverket shall also work on a review of the building regulations, which I believe can ultimately create more space-efficient housing and perhaps even cheaper housing.

We as government parties have commissioned an inquiry into shortening and simplifying permit processes according to the Environmental Code.

We as government parties are now reviewing the shore protection in order to facilitate housing construction.

We as government parties have tasked Lantmäteriet with producing a roadmap to continue the digitalization of the community construction process.

We can continue and list what is underway, but my point in much of this is that the same minister who gave the assignment will receive the results of the assignment and can then present proposals to the Riksdag. It will mean continuity, and it will yield results.

An important part that we can all help with is daring to put pressure on the municipalities to take their responsibility. The municipalities have planning monopoly, and it is the need that should govern how each municipality plans, not what one as a politician considers reasonable given the availability of money. One must look at the needs, plan according to the needs, and thereby shorten the planning times to build the housing that is needed.

We can provide incentives for the planning, and the county administrative boards are given a role to be involved. But it must be up to the politicians in the municipalities to realize what the planning monopoly entails and what they bear responsibility for.

I look forward with confidence to the rest of the parliamentary term with reforms that are stable over time, which will create a better housing market.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

In this speech, Lars Beckman and David Josefsson (both M) and Jakob Olofsgård (L) concurred.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Larry Söder for the speech.

It would have been fun if the Minister for Housing, given his weighty role and the trust that Larry Söder shows him, had actually also participated in the debate. But now I have to settle for Larry Söder, and that is obviously not a small and insignificant thing. But he is still not the Minister for Housing, even though he represents the same party.

I have some questions. First, I have respect for the fact that people want different things in politics. That is why we are politicians. We believe differently about what solves challenges and problems. It is quite obvious that we believe differently about what solves the housing situation regarding the crisis in the short perspective and what is required in the long term. I therefore have respect for that a new government wants to make changes.

What I do not respect is that, in the situation we find ourselves in, with inflation, a cost crisis, interest rates, and an economy driven by a declining housing sector, one chooses to abolish the measures that were in place without replacing them with anything else. This risks becoming a completely lost parliamentary term.

The Minister for Housing has now presented two budgets, which is half of all the budgets he has the opportunity to present, and there is actually nothing that will truly contribute to construction occurring at a pace corresponding to the needs that exist.

When can we expect the Minister for Housing to actually start delivering?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I also have respect for the fact that people have different views on how the problems should be solved. I do not believe that Jennie Nilsson and I have directly different views on what the crisis looks like, but one can have different views on how it should be solved.

My perception is that we have had problems with the housing market for a long period. We are taking the chance to try to solve the problems during this mandate period, and it is clear that it takes time before the proposals are delivered and come to the chamber.

I hope that the investigations will be delivered to the government so that the referral processes can start, and after that, propositions can be delivered. I am happy and satisfied with all the investigations that the Minister for Housing has managed to get started, so I believe that we will see a clear improvement.

I did the same thing as the Social Democrats when I was in opposition, that is, complained that the minister did not participate in the debate. I understand that it can be a joy. Now the majority took note of this in the migration debate on Thursday where the migration minister participated. The problem was that the Social Democrats went home before the migration minister could speak. There was, therefore, no Social Democrat left in the room when the migration minister stood up in the debate. I think that is a failing grade for the opposition, who demand that ministers should participate in the debate, but when they then do come, one goes home.

I am mindful of our minister's time, and I believe that the four of us from the governing parties can manage the debate. We would like the minister to be present, but then the Social Democrats must also deliver, that is, participate in the debate when the minister arrives.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It was still one of the trickiest answers that anyone has ever received to a question in the chamber, at least as far as I know.

The Social Democrats are normally always in the chamber. I obviously cannot account for what happens in a specific debate in another committee. However, I can state that we, many times from the opposition side, have sat ourselves in this chamber when issues in this committee have been handled.

I therefore think that Larry Söder, the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna should start by examining themselves before they come with criticism to anyone else.

I also point out that it would have been nice to debate with Andreas Carlson, mainly because Larry Söder highlighted the housing minister so many times in his speech and painted a picture of his perseverance and capabilities as that which would solve the crisis. In that case, it would have been fun to get to debate with the housing minister.

With this said, my assessment is that the inquiries that the government has submitted will change the situation at the margin. Furthermore, these inquiries have been given an extremely long time to work. None of them will deliver their reports until the autumn of 2024 or the spring of 2025, which means that they will not have time to be referred for consultation, processed, and sent to this chamber during this parliamentary term.

If nothing new happens, and if no new proposals come from the government, this is a completely lost year for housing policy in Sweden. We cannot afford that given the current situation and not with regard to what is required for us to be able to be a growth country in the future.

I have another question linked to this debate, and it concerns the consumer organizations. What was it that happened from April to October that prompted the government to go from thinking that these were important organizations that needed extra support to thinking that they were not needed at all and thus abolish them?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is quite simple. The National Board for Consumer Appeals has an unsustainable situation. Their caseload has increased by 198 percent, and they must receive more funds. And this must be handled within the existing framework. That is how this prioritization occurred, i.e., that Arn receives more money.

Then I believe that Jennie Nilsson and I have different views on how this mandate period will end. I believe that it will be a starting point for a changed view on the housing market. I believe that we will get a changed part of the housing market, where we can build more housing in the future both in high cycles and in low cycles. We must be able to agree that we built far too few homes even in high cycles. In that case, bandages on the wounds are not the alternative I choose, but rather to reform and to make structural reforms that fundamentally mean a changed view on how we can build and how much time it may take.

We still have to agree that it is the price of the housing that determines how many homes are built. If no one can pay for the homes, no homes will be built. Therefore, we must get down the construction costs. We must ensure that the sectoral costs, that is, the planning costs, become lower. We must ensure that there is planned land. That is where the municipalities come in. That is why I constantly nag that the municipalities must take their responsibility because that is where the planning monopoly lies. We will never be able to manage this without their help. Then it is not their responsibility, but we need their help.

I therefore do not believe that this will be a lost mandate period. I believe that we can move forward with this. And when we are through with this, I actually believe that it is a better structural market.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Larry Söder and I have had many debates in this chamber. He is usually quite reasonable in his way of thinking.

I previously asked Larry Söder if he is satisfied with the situation and the current state of affairs. And Larry Söder answered yes. Now I am giving Larry Söder an opportunity to revise his answer given that he has heard his colleagues, including David Josefsson who said that he is not satisfied but proud. Now Larry Söder is given an opportunity to revise his answer regarding whether he is satisfied with the policy being pursued when the government shows a lack of reforms when it comes to housing policy.

It is a crisis in Sweden today, and the government chooses once again to work actively so that even more rental apartments will disappear. This time, it is hoped that the rental apartments can be converted into condominiums. And these condominiums shall be squeezed in among the rental apartments that they do not manage to sell off - as if there are not problems already. We lack precisely rental apartments that people can afford. This government wants to sell the rental apartments that remain and convert them into condominiums.

Where are all those people who are not entitled to all the government's various deductions or grants supposed to go, and where are all those people who can never or do not want to buy a home supposed to go when you have sold or converted all the remaining rental apartments? Where do you intend for those people who neither can nor want to buy a home and who are not entitled to the grants that you give to the rich and wealthy to go when you have sold all the remaining homes?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! If I remember correctly what Malcolm Momodou Jallow said in the rostrum, it was: Are you satisfied with the government's policy? I answered yes to that question. I am satisfied with the government's policy. It is a completely different thing than to say that one is satisfied with the situation in Sweden. But I am satisfied with the government's policy, and that is what I stand for.

Then we agree that we do not have enough housing and that people sometimes cannot afford a home. And quite regardless of whether one has money or not, there is not always a home to be had.

That there are too few homes does not mean that there are too few rental apartments. There are too few homes, and there are too few square meters that one can live in in Sweden.

I honestly believe that many of the problems in the rental areas, that is to say, in the vulnerable areas, are due to the fact that we only have rental apartments in an area. Had we been able to insert condominiums, owner-occupied apartments, and villas there, the situation would have been different there.

I do not think it is necessarily wrong to convert rental apartments into condominiums. But it is wrong that we do not have enough housing that people can live in, whether it is villas, small houses, condominiums or rental apartments. We probably need more housing of all kinds. But do not pit the different types against each other. On the other hand, we can state that we have built far too many rental apartments for a time and far too few of other types of housing. Therefore, we focus on another part, for example, small houses.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I note that Larry Söder did not answer my question. I agree that too little is being built. I have said that, and everyone agrees. But that is not what my question is about. My question is about whether, if too little is being built and we have far too few homes that people can afford, is it then reasonable to sell or convert the apartments that exist today, the homes that people can afford? When people today are struggling to afford food, how are they then supposed to afford to buy an apartment for many millions? It is not reasonable. And when you do convert these apartments, where will all those people who cannot afford these apartments go? That is my question.

I have another question that I shall take the opportunity to ask. You have also proposed that it should be easier to evict people who are related to people who commit crimes, that is to say, families with children. If one of two parents who have two children ends up in a criminal environment, you want to evict not only the one who has committed a crime but everyone else who has not committed any crime. This means that several people will end up on the street. Where will they go? Where will all these innocent people go? Now I am not talking about the guilty one. It is important that one does not spend time on that. I want to spend time on those who are innocent, who have not committed crimes and who behave themselves. You want to evict all these people. It is therefore about collective punishment. Where will all these people go when you have finally chosen to evict them? Where will all the women who have ended up in violent relationships and who are being beaten go when you evict them? Where will all these children, given that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is law in this country, go? I would appreciate an answer, Larry Söder.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will never vote for a government that thinks a situation with criminals who can harass a residential area is okay. If one harasses a residential area and is a criminal and lives permanently in an apartment there, then I want to make it easier to evict this person. There is no other alternative. There must be consequences from society if one is a criminal. One should not be able to hide behind anything.

For those who need housing, we have a system in Sweden. We certainly have too few homes, but it can never be right that we protect someone who is criminal. If you live next door to someone who is criminal, should you accept it? Or should you be able to go to your property owner and say that you feel unsafe? What do you think the answer will be if it is accepted that there is a criminal in the area? Yes, that you have to move somewhere else. Where are you going to go then?

It is about what morality and what perspective one has. I will not accept that we take it easy on criminals, they must find somewhere else to live.

We do, however, share the problem picture, Malcolm Momodou Jallow and I. How many times as many times as we have said that Sweden has too few homes. But my way to more homes is to simplify construction, shorten lead times, and ensure that the municipalities plan for the number of homes that are needed. We shall not subsidize and give grants, but it shall be market price.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! It is an exciting discussion about the expulsion of criminals. We shall see if the Prime Minister's State Secretary is expelled if he is convicted.

But that was not what I was looking for with my speech. We are now debating expenditure area 18 Urban planning, housing supply and construction, and consumer policy. Social planning, housing construction, the housing market, and our consumption patterns are significantly affected by the economic situation, and we can surely agree that the economic situation in Sweden is worrying. But that does not mean that one does not have the opportunity to do things during the time that do not fuel inflation, which is a major problem.

Here in the chamber, we seem to be in complete agreement that housing construction needs to be strengthened. What strikes me is that the list of government bills is completely empty. When opposition parties submit interpellations and written questions or submit proposals for committee initiatives to contribute constructively, the government rejects these coldly. Since we do not see anything that the chamber can take a position on, the words about the governing parties doing things are simply strange. Let me remind my colleagues that the government is in its third term, and over three terms, one should be able to produce things. There are announcements from the previous parliamentary term and 62 public inquiries, so there is a great deal of material to work with.

I turn to the government's argument that nothing will be done until the structural problems existing in the housing market have been addressed. I am also a structure nerd and like to solve things at the root. But that should not prevent one from providing so-called bandages that alleviate the situation for a sector that is in the process of collapsing. Even though it is already tough for households, the bitter medicine will first come in 2024 when the majority of households' loans are to be refinanced. Then the result of the government's sluggishness in this policy area will become clear.

I agree with the government that the obstacles to new construction need to be cleared away in order to remedy the housing shortage and increase the number of available homes. But one cannot, as Larry Söder, on the one hand blame the municipal sector, and on the other hand fail to take responsibility for the fact that the municipal sector is not given the resources it needs to be able to be a relevant actor. What municipality can justify cuts to elderly care and schools while simultaneously expanding its building office to make more land available? It is an equation that does not add up.

I will bring up some other important matters. Yesterday, I had an interpellation debate regarding the write-down of properties in rural areas. It is an issue where both KD and SD have had a high level of involvement. We know that low housing prices outside the larger cities make it difficult to achieve profitability in investments when the property value must be written down as soon as the house is built. We have long said that the accounting rules for the public housing companies must be changed, but without colliding with the EU's state aid rules. We have also proposed that an inquiry should be appointed on the issue. In the debate yesterday, the Minister for Housing said that it was up to individual Members of Parliament to come up with proposed solutions—this at the same time as he sits on all the investigation resources that the Government Offices have at its disposal.

Centerpartiet proposes that work should be done with the state credit guarantees and more clearly direct them towards weaker markets where it is particularly difficult in the short term to achieve profitability in the production of housing. In our budget motion, we have written: "The Riksdag authorizes the Government to, during 2024, issue special credit guarantees for new construction and modification of housing, including owner-occupied homes, in rural areas, and for the redemption of municipal guarantees and loans that cooperative rental apartments take up upon acquisition of properties for conversion into cooperative rental apartments in rural areas."

There is already a framework in the budget, and we propose that it be expanded. Why are we doing it? What is it aimed at? Well, during 2022, 60 new credit guarantees were issued, which corresponds to the addition of 2,300 new homes, and it is a way, in an inflationary situation, to ensure that things are still done to address the problems.

In today's debate, there is a lot of focus on the future housing market and the addition of new homes. We agree that more homes are needed. Boverket points out that 540,000 new homes are needed by 2030. Let me correct David Josefsson. In your budget bill, you mention nothing about business cycles, which you said in a reply. This is about the actual need until a specific year, that is 2030. I still want to assert that there are methods that one could use to achieve increased construction.

In this debate, I also want to mention rent-setting models. It is another issue where we have taken a committee initiative. We hear rumors and whispers in the corridors that this is being prepared in some form in the Government Offices, but when one asks the Minister the question, one gets no real answer.

The secondary housing market is naturally also an important part of a functioning housing market. One cannot forget the existing housing market and the problems that already exist and only focus on issues that perhaps have a longer time horizon.

I know that the Christian Democrats have certain heart issues in housing policy - the issue of homelessness, for example. In the Center Party's budget motion, we have a section on social housing policy for those people who lack the opportunity to seek housing on the ordinary market. For them, additional measures and a modern social policy were needed.

Building entire residential areas for social purposes is not an appealing model for the Center Party. We should instead, for this purpose, focus on individual dwellings in both existing housing stock and new construction. I hope that the Christian Democratic housing minister gives some thought to the party's core issue and comes with proposals that solve this problem.

I know that I am exceeding my speaking time, but this is an important debate. I want to point out to my Sverigedemokratiska colleagues in the chamber that the climate crisis is real. It is nothing that can be denied, even though there are attempts from the Sverigedemokratiskt side to downplay the crisis.

The green deduction - which was introduced on the initiative of the Center Party, should be added - has been the subject of debate here today. It was introduced in January 2021. It has been an enormous success. The Center Party therefore proposes in its budget motion that the green deduction be broadened. It currently applies to the installation of energy storage, charging points, and solar cells - i.e., such things that affect housing and the housing market and also the climate transition.

We want to make it easier for people to strengthen their own household's sustainability profile. We propose that investments in conversion from direct electricity and gas, energy efficiency measures, water-saving products and so on should be included.

It actually makes me quite uncomfortable to hear Mikael Eskilandersson point out an entire industry as potential fraudsters who are unable to manage a deduction. It is distressing.

I am scrolling past a part of my planned speech and now want to say something about consumer policy, which is also handled within this expenditure area. The development of trade over the last decades has naturally affected consumers for the better. The individual consumer has great freedom of choice, can use more sales channels and has greater opportunities to make an active choice. But one cannot deny the downside in the form of unsustainable environmental impact.

It is our task, since the issues lie with our committee, to safeguard a long-term sustainable development so that consumers can continue to make active, correct choices.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I first want to agree with the reflection on social housing policy, which we discuss far too little. We must probably try to raise that voice and come to something there.

I did not hear what the Minister for Housing said yesterday, but I take the risk of saying that when it comes to housing in the countryside – where the value of the property can be half of the production cost – we must find a solution further ahead. Write-down over a longer period, up to seven years, I have proposed. Publicly owned housing companies should be able to be guarantors so that it would work without risk over a longer period. It is a solution proposal that I have put forward and which I think is quite okay. There may be many more.

What actually made me request a reply was the question of the municipalities' role. It should not be perceived as me placing the entire responsibility on the municipalities. However, I believe they are a part of this that we must manage and address. From the state level, we can do a lot, but at the other end, it is the municipalities that must deliver plans for housing construction.

We Christian Democrats have in our budget tried to allocate some money in the form of a planning bonus to the municipalities. I note that the Center Party does not support it in its budget. I do not believe, however, that one can disregard the municipalities' responsibility. They have the opportunity to charge a fee. Citizens think it is far too high, and I have full understanding for that, like that one does not want to prioritize differently in the municipalities. But state and municipality must probably interact there to arrive at a solution. The planning must not go down now when it is a recession but must be kept up so that one can be in phase when the boom starts up again. It is probably a journey we must make together.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that Larry Söder had a concrete proposal on how the write-down issue could be handled. I only hope – although unfortunately it did not sound that way in the debate yesterday – that the member has the opportunity to speak with the Minister for Housing about this. The issue is concerning, but it can be solved. I called it a low-hanging fruit yesterday, and that provoked a furious reaction from the Sverigedemokratiske member who intervened in the debate. But I would like to thank Larry Söder.

When it comes to construction, we agree that a lot of new housing needs to be built. What really worries me – and I am not out to win cheap political points – is the wave of layoffs. It affects people in my vicinity: civil engineers, architects, land surveyors and so on. The worrying thing is that there are no proposals that could alleviate this here and now while waiting for structural reforms.

I am therefore appealing again to Larry Söder, who has a good entry point to the Minister for Housing, to ask when we can expect proposals that show that the government does not just intend to sit out the time during the mandate period, at least not within this policy area.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Regarding serving the time, I do not think today's report from the various Tidö parties has shown that they are doing so. Instead, they are trying to deliver during the time that this is going on.

This is otherwise a situation that none of us wanted. Three years ago, we probably did not think we would have this situation during the mandate period, but now it is what it is and we must handle it as well as possible. I also believe that one will be able to see delivery to the chamber further ahead.

What I am worried about is that one puts everything into one basket and believes that this will solve it, but the government or we in the Riksdag will never be able to solve it ourselves. We must have the industry's help, we must have the county administrative boards' help, and we must have the municipalities' help.

Everyone must realize that they have a role to play in this. That is why I bring up the municipalities all the time, because I think they have gotten away with it a bit. We must get them on the field in one way or another. One such thing was to try to get a planning bonus for them, in order to awaken the thought in them that they can help and provide support.

I would like to ask Alireza Akhondi: What role do you think the municipalities can play in this? What can the municipalities help with in the situation we are in? We all realize that if nothing is done, we will not have any plans when the tide turns, regardless of when it turns. Then we will have the 1994-1995 situation again, when it took a very long time before everything got moving regarding both plans and that there was a lack of labor. I believe that the municipalities must be on their toes there.

I would like to know what the Center Party has for ideas on this.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! My committee colleague Larry Söder is a wise person. I will absolutely say that. It is clear that housing issues are not something that one party can solve entirely alone. Larry Söder is completely right.

A unified approach from different actors is needed. It should also be added that housing policy is complex and intersects with many different policy areas. For example, there is quite a lot in the Finance Committee that affects housing policy, and climate investments, energy issues, and so on are handled in other committees. It was against this background – the complexity and all the deadlocks that have existed in these issues – that the Center Party proposed a crisis commission for the Swedish housing and real estate market.

If you really want to make demands on others, you have to sit at the same table. It is not possible to stand in this chamber and say: We do nothing, because you do nothing. If you want to get results, you sit at a negotiating table and give and take. This is what I miss from the government.

It is partly about the crisis insights, that we have problems of a structural and cyclical nature, and partly about the will to accept help from other parties who extend a benevolent hand and say: Let us, together with other actors – the municipal sector, the County Administrative Board and the industry – find long-term answers to the questions.

We have the same picture, and I really hope that the Christian Democrats will soon invite us to dance.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Member Alireza Akhondi says in his speech that I point out an entire industry as cheaters, and this I must address.

What I have said is that if one is to have a green renovation deduction where it suddenly is to make a difference depending on whether it is, for example, an exterior wall or an interior wall that is to be renovated, one builds a system that opens up for injustice between different types of renovations. You also open up an opportunity to tinker with the reporting in a way that I might perhaps consider as cheating.

If I change an interior wall, it would not give the right to rot because it does not become more energy-efficient, but if I change a little in the exterior wall and add a little extra insulation, it definitely becomes a more energy-efficient house. Then I suddenly get the right to rot. This difference becomes unfair.

It perhaps shows even more for the person who renovated their kitchen a few years ago. That person can today get a deduction for adding insulation to their walls, while the person who added insulation to their walls a few years ago cannot today get a deduction for renovating their kitchen.

It will become a problem that one distinguishes between things that are done within the same four walls. And who is actually supposed to monitor this? It will not be entirely easy to monitor. I actually believe that there are more than I who see that it becomes problematic if one creates a system where only certain parts of the house entitle one to a tax deduction for renovation.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker and Mikael Eskilandersson! I have confidence. We have a system with rut and rot and green deduction that Skatteverket handles, and they do so with excellence. It does not mean that everything is peaceful and serene or that fraud does not occur to some extent. I have no idea whether it does and, if so, how much.

Of course there are issues with drawing boundaries. There always are, but one cannot refer to the fact that someone who did something ten years ago cannot take part in a support that the Riksdag makes a decision on today. That is the case with everything we do.

I choose to pose a counter-question to the member. From my perspective, the member's objection is more about criticism of the climate adaptation and energy efficiency than about the deduction itself. We propose this because we see that there is a need for energy efficiency and climate adaptations, given the climate crisis.

We see that it has a direct impact on household finances over time when one can reduce costs for, for example, electricity. You who, together with the rest of Tidögänget, went out and spoke a lot about electricity prices and other things, what concrete proposals do you have to address the climate crisis and households' opportunities to make sustainable choices?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The alternative to a green tax deduction is the tax deduction that the government is proposing, but it makes no difference whether it is additional insulation or something else that one does.

The advantage of our rotavdrag is that one can do exactly what needs to be done on the property without having to distinguish between what is energy-efficient and what is rather aesthetic.

At the same time, energy prices mean that most see a need to improve energy efficiency based solely on their own electricity bill. It is a means as good as any for steering towards energy efficiency.

Something else I want to bring up is that Alireza Akhondi in his speech said that the government would lack proposals, but in the Center Party's budget proposal, one removes all proposals that come from the government. One removes the stimulus funds for new plots, one removes the stimulus funds to change plans in the municipalities and furthermore makes several small cuts as well as a larger one of over 4.1 million on Lantmäteriet.

At the same time, it is claimed that one would somehow have a better housing policy than the one the government has. I actually cannot make that add up at all. With all these cuts, one is rather leaving the municipalities to their fate, and then they end up in a situation where they have to take money from the school or elderly care. It was precisely this that we wanted to avoid through the stimulus funds.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I am an economist, so I love it when there are discussions about figures. The registration cases at Lantmäteriet decreased by 12 percent in 2022, which reasonably creates opportunities for Lantmäteriet to use its existing staff in a more efficient way. Furthermore, there is something called price and wage calculation. We usually have an efficiency requirement on all our agencies, and the price and wage calculation is an effective tool for streamlining the agencies.

We say no to the government's decommissioning of support for sustainable community building. This results in an increase in expenditures of 40 million kronor per year, which leads to certain reallocation effects within the framework of this expenditure area. At the same time, we add 1 billion in increased credit guarantees and broaden the rot deduction. We have very many proposals in different policy areas that together break the government's passivity regarding housing policy.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by directing a thought to the five construction workers who lost their lives in a construction site accident – specifically in an elevator accident. What we are debating today concerns those who build Sweden's homes. Let us send them a thought from here.

Madam Speaker! Before I entered politics, I was involved in the expenditure area that we are debating today, namely housing construction. At that time, about three years ago, there was a boom. The nail guns could be heard over the rooftops. We were truly at full capacity.

Today, however, there is a numbing silence. No hammer blows are heard, and many of my colleagues have had to leave their jobs within the construction sector. That is why this government's most important focus has been – and will be – to combat that which has caused my colleagues to have to leave their jobs.

The high interest rate is a result of inflation. This has been repeated over and over again. For me, it is extremely clear. My colleagues - housing developers and business developers - constantly plead with me and say that they cannot make the calculations work. They say that inflation must be beaten down.

Now we hope that the storm wind will subside and that the tight state budget yields results. But the waves are still high out there, and the storm has not yet abated. It is not possible to hoist sails when the storm blows - then the ship would capsize. We need to hold on and endure.

I go back to the years when we had wind in our sails, when the sails were hoisted and the sun shone in the sky. During these years, there was still something that chafed within us; there was something that was not right. Of course, housing was being built, but beneath the surface, one could see fundamental structural problems. I therefore want to mention three issues that I received then and that I took with me into the work in politics.

The first question I often received was: Do you have any plots of land? It seems like we live in a country that is significantly smaller than, for example, Luxembourg. Why? Yes, because we have long queues for plots of land in most of the places where people want to live and where work is available.

But it is not the case that we have squeezed together to any great extent in our vast country. All city dwellers may be excused, but when we out in the countryside drive around, we pass many fine, beautiful places where more housing could be built. There is land that could be utilized but which is not used.

What do you answer to the question: Do you have any villa plots? It's fine with just a small one, people said. It doesn't need to be so huge - just a place to stake out one's claims.

If one actually managed to get hold of a plot, it was anything but cheap. One had to put out a large part of one's mortgage before one had even started building - before the spade had even hit the ground.

That is why this government is now moving forward with proposals. While the storm blows, the government is doing the work that should have been done during the eight years of boom, when the structural problems were not addressed. Therefore, we are moving forward with a planning stimulus to municipalities to stimulate small house construction. We task the county administrative boards with promoting housing construction. We task Boverket with producing guidance for development agreements, i.e., land agreements. We task Lantmäteriet with producing a proposal for a roadmap to continue digitizing the community construction processes.

Madam Speaker! The second question I often received was: Why is there such a regulatory jungle? Sometimes we received a call from a landowner who wanted to sell some land that was perfectly suitable for construction. In several cases, it took over eight years before the shovel could be put in the ground due to long lead times.

One had to capitulate and say that it is indeed as long as it will take. It is not, so why are we doing it in this way?

When Lantmäteriet had finally arranged a new construction map, the next challenge began, namely to contend with the municipality's various interpretations of building regulations. Even the municipality's own case officers expressed that they didn't know inside out how a detailed plan, a building permit, or whatever it might be, was to be interpreted. They themselves exclaimed in the question: Why is it such a regulatory jungle? It delays housing construction and costs money that the citizen - the customer - ultimately has to pay themselves. How have we managed to over-regulate our important housing?

Therefore, several proposals for measures to clear the regulatory jungle and facilitate things for both building permit departments, developers, and citizens who want to build their dream home are on the government's table. Boverket is working on a major review of Boverket's building rules and Boverket's construction rules under the name Möjligheternas byggregler. It is a great challenge to tackle this. This government is doing it, and it should have been done earlier.

The third and perhaps most important question that I am still confronted with was: How will we ever be able to buy? The question came to me from a construction worker at a company that worked every day on carpentry and building various terraced houses and row houses – in other words, small houses. He thought that the houses being built, which he was involved in building, suited him and his family very well. A small terraced house with a small lawn was all he dreamed of. But despite the fact that they were two working people with a steady income and a small amount of savings, the threshold to move from the expensive rental contract he was on to his own small plot – a small house – was far too high. He looked at me and said exactly these words: How will we ever be able to afford to buy?

This government went to the election on a promise to realize people's housing dreams. It is about people like this construction worker, who struggles and builds but cannot afford to live in the house he himself is building. Despite eight years of booming economic growth, we then had the lowest single-family house construction in 100 years.

Of course we shall build rental apartments. Of course we shall have varied forms of housing. But let those who want to own their home do so. Seven out of ten want to do that.

Policy must be shaped according to this. I say yes to building more rental apartments, because it is needed - but I also say yes to even more small houses, because that is where the dreams are. Then it can gladly be a small terraced house with a small patch of grass. There can gladly be a small trampoline on that patch of grass, and a small planter box - and there can be a large sun lounger on the deck. It is a dream that many today cannot afford, but this government is working for and aims for them to be able to afford it.

That is why we are moving forward with the investigation on more ways to own one's home and with rent-to-own and condominiums. A committee is conducting a review of borrower-based macroprudential measures such as the mortgage cap and the amortization requirement, and at the ministry, a report is currently being prepared on starter loans for first-time buyers.

Madam Speaker! I want to give three short answers to the three questions. The answers will be: more small house plots, fewer complicated rules, and that more people should be able to afford their dream.

In this speech, David Josefsson (M) agreed.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your speech, Jakob Olofsgård! I also want to thank you for the sympathetic gesture of highlighting the tragic fatal accident that occurred yesterday. I agree that such things should not happen in the Swedish labor market. It is a subject and a debate in its own right, and I think we must take the issue much more seriously.

Then I want to move on to the rest of Jakob Olofsgård's speech. It was based on the fact that he himself has experience from the industry and that he, if I understood correctly, has carried a number of questions linked to this into his political life. That is obviously both sympathetic and good, but the question I still must ask by reason of that is: When you meet your old colleagues today, Jakob Olofsgård – are they satisfied with what the government is delivering in this area?

I know, in fact, who your former employer is, and when I visit them, I also meet your former colleagues. They express to me a great frustration both over the lack of insight from the government and over the lack of relevant measures to, above all, handle the crisis here and now. That is, therefore, my first question.

Then I shall try to get an answer to a question that I have asked several times earlier during the debate, and it concerns what apparently happened between April and October. The government went from, in April, giving the non-profit consumer organizations an extra, increased support of 1 million kronor, with the motive that they are important and especially in this economic time play an entirely special role, to in October – without explanation, without motive and without warning to the organizations – announcing that this support shall be abolished entirely. What happened during these six months?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the two questions, Jennie Nilsson!

Regarding the first question, it was very important for me to meet my colleagues who have just been laid off. I have done it again, as a government representative. I have not wanted to duck or run away from it, but have instead traveled to the construction site knowing that it is their last day. That is the motivation I carry with me into this – Jennie Nilsson mentioned the questions I carry with me – regarding the fact that the timber house industry, which Småland largely supports right now, is on its knees.

What is mentioned to me are proposals that I take with me to the government and the department. Of course, that is how it is. But when the frustration that exists has subsided a bit, when one talks about the actual problems and when it comes down to the bottom line, it is still as I mentioned in my speech, that it is because of the increased construction material prices that the calculations ultimately do not add up. Construction material prices are still high after the pandemic, and the next crisis one dreads is actually how one will manage to solve the issue with the prices when Ukraine is to begin being rebuilt. That is another challenge that we have to return to. It still boils down to this with the high interest rates, which are a result of the inflation.

Yes, it is possible to look at different measures, but it is also about the structural problems we see. It costs a lot to produce buildable land today, which is still a burden. What the Jennie Nilsson government did not address during eight years is therefore weighing on us now, during this crisis. It does not make things easier.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jakob Olofsgård for the answer. However, it was not quite an answer, so I choose to interpret it a little bit. I therefore interpret what Jakob Olofsgård says as that they are not satisfied and that what they express when I meet them is roughly the same thing as what they express when they meet Jakob Olofsgård.

The fact is that the timber house industry is the part of the entire sector that is perhaps most pressured right now. It was out early and was put under hard pressure early on. There is a risk that it will be wiped out and actually practically won't exist when the crisis is over. Still, the government delivers no concrete measures to handle the situation here and now. It is incomprehensible to me how one can arrive at that conclusion.

Then Jakob Olofsgård raises a number of structural reforms that we are largely quite in agreement on, I would believe – at least many of them. Not least, I do not believe that anyone thinks that rules should be more complicated or more difficult than they need to be. Here there are low-hanging fruits for which we also provide concrete proposals in our committee motion. I look forward to being able to reach an agreement on them when they are addressed during the spring.

At the same time, I can state that the work that Boverket has begun to simplify the rules has been met with massive criticism because it rather involves complicated rules. I expect the government to take a new approach and handle the situation.

Seventhly and finally, I repeat my question for the fourth or fifth time – I do not know how many times I have asked it. What was it that happened that caused a complete reversal in the view on the non-profit consumer organizations? We heard Larry Söder say that it was because Arn needed more money, but when one handles a budget of roughly 1,300 billion, it is remarkable to claim that in order to give Arn 6 million, one needs to slaughter the entire support for the non-profit consumer organization.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for repeating the question I did not have time to answer, Jennie Nilsson! Time ran out, and I would like to return to it.

First, however, I just want to express that the timber industry, in particular during the 90s, felt exactly the same crisis. That it is a crisis now is therefore nothing new; it is a tough situation in many places, and therefore it is a crisis. We cannot copy anything, because we do not only have a recession but also an inflation crisis - or an inflation ghost, as the member called it earlier. I do not believe in ghosts, but I believe that it is real.

The member mentioned the support to consumer organizations, and 6 million is also a lot of money - especially in times of inflation and especially when we see that Arn needs these funds to provide real consumer benefit. It is therefore clear that those funds went to supporting Arn and its activities, which are very important. Then we know that the consumer organizations are also supported by other organizations, and it is important that this occurs.

What happened in between was, therefore, not that we saw civil society and the organizations becoming less important, but what happened is what the member chooses to call the inflation ghost. We call it a reality of inflation and high interest rates that we must combat with full force.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by mentioning the tragic incident that occurred at a construction site. I completely agree with you, Jakob Olofsgård. Thank you very much for raising this! It must not happen. Our thoughts go out to all who were victims of this tragedy and their families.

Jakob Olofsgård mentioned that this government went to the election on a platform of realizing people's housing dreams. But they have instead turned into people's housing nightmares. There are more people who are homeless and more who have to fight to stay in their homes. Pensioners fight to be able to stay in their homes. Families with children are evicted. It cannot be people's housing dreams.

According to Boverket and everyone within the construction sector, the housing shortage is extra acute. There is a construction crisis that hits the entire economy of the society. What is Jakob Olofsgård's and the government's answer to this? Yes, more people shall own small houses.

Household debt continues to increase. Swedish households are the second most indebted in the EU. Swedes are one of the most indebted peoples in the entire world. Jakob Olofsgård's and the government's answer is: More people shall own small houses.

It is out of touch with reality. When people have to struggle to have food on the table and to eat, Jakob Olofsgård says: You are to take out several million in loans, have your own down payment and buy a small house.

I have nothing against people having small houses if they want to. But conditions must be created so that people can afford it. Today, many people cannot afford to have their own housing. You must base your proposals on a reality. You do not.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question. It may not have been entirely clear, but I understand your intent.

I want to return to what happened at the construction site. I have personally experienced construction site accidents. One lives with such things for a very long time on a construction site. Now, the question of safety at construction sites does not fall under our committee, but under another, and it is another minister who is responsible. Today, the minister visited the site and left flowers and thoughts there. But this is felt clearly by all of us who have experienced similar incidents, regardless of the workplace.

Yes, homelessness is increasing. When inflation and crisis hit, it always strikes those who have it the toughest. That is what we see now, with greater pressure on precisely those who now have no housing. They can end up in structural homelessness or violence in close relationships. Those who are without housing are hit much harder today due to the housing shortage.

That is why it becomes even more frustrating when I think back to the fact that more was not built during the eight years of economic boom when I was in the housing industry. That figure for the number of dwellings that Boverket sets is supposed to be an average. It goes down, and it goes up. If it is an economic boom, one must build well above that figure. That more was not built was a result of us having a left-supported government during those eight years. That is why many are homeless today.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree with the analysis. If it is a crisis, it is those who are most vulnerable who are hit hardest. That is why we have many who are homeless and many who today have a home but risk losing it. I agree with this.

The challenge, then, is that those who are affected in times of crisis are those who are most vulnerable. How, then, can the answer to those who are poor and vulnerable and cannot afford to buy food and pay bills be that they should buy small houses? It does not add up. It cannot be reasonable for you to say to a poor family struggling to buy winter clothes for their children: Go and buy a small house with a small garden!

What the member describes is wishful thinking. I wish I could fly to the moon. But I must land in a reality. Do I have the prerequisites to fly to the moon? No. I must start from my reality and the prerequisites that exist.

Today, people are poor. Today, people are being evicted from their homes. Today, families with children are out in the cold. Today, pensioners are fighting to stay in their homes. You cannot tell them: Buy a house! That is making a fool of them. It is diminishing their reality and how they struggle every single day. Please come up with something constructive that can help these people here and now! So far, you have not succeeded in doing that.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for another point that I can have an answer to. What is like flying to the moon for a Left Party member is something a Liberal can actually do. I believe in those who are having a tough time now. The one who is poor should one day be able to realize their dream and get there. If we give up that dream, we have given up people's dreams. We do not do that in this government. We fight for them.

I was clear that those who are first in line to buy are those who already have jobs. I did not express that it is the homeless who are to buy; that is twisting what I said. I said that those who have steady jobs and savings still cannot afford it. When that family has the means and opportunity to buy that small terraced house with that small lawn, that also frees up a home. When apartments are freed up, a movement occurs. There are then also more homes. But that requires that the small terraced house exists and that the family with children has the opportunity to buy it.

I have personal friends who have made the journey from homelessness to owning their own home. Even if it is to fly to the moon for Vänsterpartiet, it is a reality for this government. It is something that we will continue to fight for, Madam Speaker. We will continue to do everything we can to keep Vänsterpartiet away, who believe that this is to fly to the moon.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

Due to how I have heard several members express themselves, I would like to remind you of the rules of address in the chamber. You know that parliamentary custom dictates that we formally address our speeches directly to the Speaker and thereby indirectly to the members of the chamber. Simply put, this means that the members of the Riksdag speak about each other and not to each other. The members speak to the Speaker and tell him what they think on various issues. A member who, in a debate, speaks about another speaker, for example by responding to arguments, should use the speaker's first and last name. This means that direct address between speakers, for example by saying "you" or "you" (plural) to each other, should not occur.

(cont.)

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