Urban planning, housing supply and construction, and consumer policy

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now it is the budget debate for the Committee on Civil Affairs. We are debating expenditure area 18 Social Planning, Housing Supply and Construction, and Consumer Policy.

The debate shall be conducted in two rounds, where the focus will be more on consumer policy in the second round. I will therefore now focus my speech on housing and urban planning. We will return to consumer policy; it is not forgotten.

Madam Speaker! Sweden finds itself in a situation where we have become stuck in talking about a housing crisis but rarely about the real dreams and desires that the Swedish people have. Many young people and also older people long for a home of their own that they can call their own, a house with a plot where the children can play and where one can feel security and stability.

According to several surveys from among others SCB and Boverket, a large proportion of Swedes prefer to live in owned housing. It is not about a small group, but it is a broad majority of the Swedish people. It is definitely more than half of the population - the measurements rather indicate two-thirds or more. People want to own their home, build their future on a steady foundation and feel that they are managing and developing something lasting, not just for themselves but also for future generations.

But today, the reality is different. Often, it is difficult and expensive to buy a house. Land prices and construction costs have galloped, while at the same time, administrative hurdles and long permit processes make the step to owned housing unnecessarily high. Many are forced to remain in apartments even though they would actually like to move to a house. The result is a lock-in across the entire housing chain. Those who desire their own house are stuck in an apartment, and the young, newly arrived, or students who would like to have a first-hand contract see the queues becoming ever longer.

Everyone loses on this. A society where people cannot live as they wish is a society that does not fully take advantage of its opportunities.

We can choose which path we want to take forward. Sweden can either continue to have a housing market filled with unnecessary obstacles and exploding prices – or we can choose to take another direction.

We in the government support have focused on speeding up, simplifying and enabling much more efficient construction, where long lead times can be shortened and where land can be released. The total number of measures intended to facilitate, in various ways, for those who want to build housing is historically large and is not limited to our part of the budget.

Changed tax rules provide more money for households to spend on their housing, a lower tax on ISK accounts provides expanded opportunities to save for future housing, and when the shore protection is soon changed, it will become easier to find land to build on. These are just a few examples.

Madam Speaker! A proposal that lies a bit warmer in my heart than the others is nevertheless Sverigehuset. Sverigehuset gives us completely new opportunities. This is hopefully the starting signal for something completely new on the Swedish construction market and could become as revolutionary as it was when cars began to be built on assembly lines. It is based on a simple idea: type-approved house types that already in advance fulfill all requirements. By using templates and standards, we can shorten the design time, lower the costs, and make it easier for more people to realize their dream of their own home.

When we create conditions for more people to buy houses, apartments are also freed up. Those who today live in an apartment but dream of a house can take the step and thereby leave the vacant apartment to the one who is taking their first steps into the housing market. This is a chain of moving that would benefit everyone.

Let us look at other countries to understand how powerful this initiative can actually be. In the Netherlands and the USA, among others, standardized building solutions have contributed to lower costs and faster construction rates, which has meant that more families can afford houses on the outskirts of the city or in the countryside. When these families move from their apartments, housing is also freed up for others, which creates a mobility that the entire market benefits from.

Even in Japan, it has been seen how pre-approved house models simplify the process for small house construction. Families get faster access to exactly the type of housing they desire, and this movement speeds up the construction chain. When more people buy houses, they move out of apartments, which in turn become available for those who want to enter the market. The results are a balanced housing ladder where everyone can climb in step with life's changes.

In Germany, standardized methods and more efficient planning have contributed to reducing construction costs and providing households with choice. People can more often choose to buy houses because the thresholds are not as high. This leads to the country's housing market becoming more mobile, more adaptable, and better equipped for change. The young and the elderly, families and singles, can all find their place in this chain. In this way, a kind of stewardship is taken over the housing market where politics, the business sector, and households cooperate to create stability and choice over time.

To speak of stewardship is important for us. It is not just about building houses for the moment, but about building something larger and something that is more long-term. We have inherited our country from our ancestors, and we borrow it from our children and grandchildren. As good stewards, we shall not hand over a housing market in chaos with sky-high prices, but we shall hand over an environment where there are real opportunities to own one's home, put down roots, and feel security.

Through Sverigehuset, we can lower costs, press down unnecessary bureaucracy and create a market where it is easier to build and live in houses. When more people can own their home, the bonds between individual, family and place are strengthened. It creates pride, a sense of responsibility and a will to care for and develop what we actually have. This spirit of stewardship is the core of Sverigehuset.

We take inspiration from other countries, but we shape the solution according to our own conditions. Through standardized house types, we can more easily build houses that last over time, where the cost does not spiral out of control and where the house's quality is well-tested. At the same time, the design and architecture are classically Swedish and are based on recognition and Swedish tradition.

It becomes easier for families to plan for the future. They can buy a house, put down roots, and know that they are investing in something lasting. When they do that, we thus free up apartments for others, and the chain begins to move. That is how we create movement and life in our housing market. We must not underestimate the power in this. When more people get the chance to own their home, the security in society also increases. People build up capital, feel responsibility for their local environment, and strengthen the bonds to their home location.

This is not just a technical solution but a social and cultural change. It is a process where we ensure that our children and grandchildren can one day enter adulthood with good conditions to acquire their own home. It is to leave behind a stronger Sweden than the one we ourselves inherited - a Sweden where the housing market is not a locked door but an open staircase. Every step in that staircase becomes easier to take when Sverigehuset is put into practice.

Madam Speaker! By fully introducing Sverigehuset, we can facilitate things for the majority of the Swedish people who prefer to live in owned housing. We can lower costs, shorten construction times, and free up vacant apartments for those who today are left out. We can create a more mobile and fairer system where people get greater opportunities to realize their dreams.

We can do this as responsible stewards of our country, with our eyes turned toward future generations. It is a step toward a Sweden where it is easier for families to plan their future and where stability and security are a natural part of our everyday lives. Sverigehuset is not just a technical or economic idea; it is part of something larger – a vision of a Sweden that takes its stewardship seriously and where we leave a better legacy for our children and grandchildren.

I vote in favor of the proposal and against the motions.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! A couple of weeks ago, we had the Minister for Housing in the Committee on Civil Affairs. When he arrived there, he was immediately asked about market rents or free rent setting, and he answered that there are no plans to present a proposal on market rents or free rent setting. Just to be one hundred percent sure, I thought I would ask a similar question to Mikael Eskilandersson.

Not so long ago, the Sweden Democrats, with their party leader at the forefront, stood clearly on the side of the tenants. It was said to the then Prime Minister Stefan Löfven that SD stands on the side of the tenants. It was said that market rents have no place in Sweden. It was also pointed out that the Moderates' and the Center Party's idea of free rent setting in new production inevitably leads to market rents in the entire stock. They were thus standing on the side of 3 million tenants, just like the Left Party.

Mikael Eskilandersson also clearly expressed that free rent setting in newly produced rental apartments is a step towards market rents in the entire stock – a step that the Sverigedemokraterna, according to him, are not prepared to take. Mikael Eskilandersson also said that free rent setting would in principle only mean that rents would go up very much for certain people and that SD is therefore definitively against free rent setting.

Despite this, the same Mikael Eskilandersson said less than a year ago that it could be imagined to compromise away this promise and that the question of rent setting is not a heart issue because it is not a security issue.

My questions are therefore: Will the Sweden Democrats betray 3 million tenants and contribute to the introduction of market rents or free rent setting? Does Mikael Eskilandersson not consider the right to own a home to be a fundamental issue of security?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I want to assert that I have definitely been misquoted and that I am being even more misquoted when Malcolm Momodou Jallow repeats my words here. What I said in an interview was that we can talk about all issues within the Tidö cooperation. Thus, no specific issue was singled out.

I can say that we have not changed our view on free rent setting in new production. Nor do we intend to change our minds when it comes to free rent setting. We talk within the Tidö parties, but that question is, as far as I know, not on the table – not at my level, at least, and I cannot imagine that it is on any other either.

Our position regarding free rent setting in new production is that it would create a two-tiered housing market where those who can afford to pay higher rents get access to new, modern homes while others are forced to crowd into older homes and have a lower standard. It would drive segregation not only between areas but also within the cities, and it would not provide the security and the type of areas that we envision.

The utility-value rents are the basis for a more equal society where people with different incomes can live in the same areas, and it strengthens the community and the social structure that we do not have a division between rich areas and poor areas - which we would get if we introduced free rent setting in new production and had houses built with completely free rent setting. They would become significantly more expensive to live in, and only a small proportion of Sweden's population would be able to afford to live there.

What we would, however, like to see is that one manages in some way to produce more affordable apartments, but when it comes to producing affordable apartments, we believe more in move-chains to owned housing - including through what I emphasized here, that is to build Sverigehus and the like. Then more homes can be obtained.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the answer.

I think it is very important that the Swedish people receive clear messages. We have, in fact, heard in the chamber that certain parties can say one thing one day and something completely different the next. For me as a Vänsterpartist, who safeguards the position of tenants, it is important that this is clear and that the tenants can feel reassured that market rents or free rent setting do not simply appear one day while the Tidö parties are governing the country. That is why it is important to get this message from Sverigedemokraterna.

This matter of ownership is something that the Sweden Democrats talk about very much. But we find ourselves in a situation where many households are poor - there are over 200,000 poor people in Sweden today, according to SCB. People are struggling to pay their bills, and many children are being evicted. To, in this situation, present proposals that would make it harder, more difficult, and more expensive for people to pay for their housing is not just stupid, it is simply devoid of intelligence to have that type of policy.

If I understand Mikael Eskilandersson correctly, there is no risk at all that the Sverigedemokraterna would support such a proposal from the Tidö parties if it were to appear. I know that the Centerpartiet does not want to release free rent setting. Does Mikael Eskilandersson mean that the Sverigedemokraterna will not support free rent setting or market rents if the Tidö parties were to come up with such a proposal, regardless of how they choose to package it? Is this what Mikael Eskilandersson is saying to the Swedish people here?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have enjoyed making a number of comparisons between the Nordic countries. I cannot see that it would be to our advantage in Sweden to start copying our neighbors' systems - actually not at all.

I do not see the advantages that are claimed to exist with doing as they do in Finland. There, they spend 29 percent of their income on housing while we in Sweden spend just over 21 percent of our income on housing. I see instead that we in Sweden have a great advantage in that we do not need to spend the enormous sums that the Finnish state spends on housing benefits because we have had a more reasonable rental development.

The problem in the housing market is not that the rents are too low, but that too few homes are being built. Free rent setting in new construction does not solve the housing shortage; it only makes the newly built homes more expensive and less accessible for those who truly need them.

What we see today is that a large part of the population who do not have such high incomes are actually demanding housing. Bruksvärdeshyra (utility value rent) has proven to be a stable foundation for creating long-term sustainable residential areas, while free rent setting risks creating a market where only those with the highest incomes get access to new homes.

I do not see this as something that the Sweden Democrats would want to see or stand behind. On the contrary, I think that the Swedish system often receives far too much criticism in comparison to how it actually looks in other countries. We do not have greater acute homelessness than any other country. The problem in Sweden is that a lot of homeless people who actually have housing are counted as homeless, because they are counted as homeless as we have in social contracts. I think this is wrong, but that is how it looks when one compares the figures. Therefore, it looks as if Sweden has very many more homeless people than other European countries have.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Many fine words were spoken in the speech regarding owned housing, but very little about rented housing. For many, an owned home is a dream that lies quite far away. Even a rental apartment can be quite difficult to obtain, not least for families with children.

In a memorandum from the government that arrived in January this year, there was a proposal to make it mandatory for municipalities to be able to issue rental guarantees for families with children. A rental guarantee means that the municipality, with the help of the state, can guarantee the rent if the landlord considers that a family with children has insufficient solvency. A rental guarantee is something that could help more families with children get an apartment.

When the bill arrived, the proposal was missing, even though the money for this remains in the government's budget. It does not seem that anyone understands why. I would like to know what the Sweden Democrats' position is on rental guarantees for families with children.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I mean that the shortage of rental apartments is largely based on the fact that we have a housing market that is not adapted to where the population actually wants to live. Very many – up to 30 percent of households – live in rental apartments, which is much more than in, for example, Norway. Still, we have a greater shortage than, for example, Norway, which is due to the fact that Norway has significantly more owner-occupied housing. In that case, one chooses owner-occupied housing, actually for reasons such as that the Norwegian state has subsidized owner-occupied housing so that more people can have the opportunity to own.

When we have so many in the population who actually want to own their home, I think we should be clear that we want to support people so that they can realize their dream of owning their home.

Rental housing has its place, especially for the younger part of the population but also for the older part. As the older part of the population gets older, naturally more in this group will need rental housing.

I received a question about how I view the fact that the municipalities can guarantee the rent for families with children. The municipalities have a responsibility to ensure that there is housing – a municipality cannot ignore the fact that a family is about to end up on the street. If a family with children is about to be evicted, it is even to the extent that the municipality, via social services, has a possibility of action if one contacts the municipality, which one should do before evicting a family with children.

I definitely want to point out that I stand up for the municipalities' self-determination, but I see no problem with a municipality stepping in and supporting a family with children if it is needed.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mikael Eskilandersson for the answer, which I however think was a bit unclear.

It is a major problem that many families with children are in insecure housing situations. This is something that can destroy a child's life. The child may need to change school and social environment often because the family moves and may not be able to stay in their football club or continue with any other leisure activity.

There was a proposal that the state should step in and help the municipalities so that they would get safer housing solutions. There is money in the budget, and the government almost moved forward with a proposal. Very many are wondering what happened. Why was this proposal not put on the table? Should I interpret it as that it is the Sverigedemokraterna who have put spokes in the wheels for this proposal because one wants to safeguard the municipalities' right of self-determination?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would not interpret it as the Sweden Democrats who have put spokes in the wheels of moving forward with this proposal.

It is actually possible for the municipalities to step in and support families with children. It is also important that the municipalities have the possibility to manage how they do this themselves, as there are different solutions in different municipalities. Some municipalities work very hard with social contracts, while other municipalities work harder with Bostad först and the like.

According to the legislation that already exists, the Swedish Enforcement Authority must contact the municipality before a family with children is evicted. The purpose of this is to avoid the displacement of families with children. However, it cannot be that those who have children can never be evicted and therefore can ignore paying the rent; this would also not be a good solution.

I think we should trust that the municipalities take their housing responsibility. It is also they who handle schooling and so on for the children. If children live in misery, it is the municipalities that step in and take these children into care.

The Sweden Democrats have done a great deal through their childhood guarantee, which the party has had since 2017. It is part of protecting children from suffering ill fate. It is not just about housing but also about much more around the child, and it is a matter of the entire society taking responsibility. Much of this, however, lies at the municipal level, and then it is a matter of municipal self-government.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I have sat on the Committee on Civil Affairs since the 2022 election, and in practically every seminar and in every debate, I have heard the Sweden Democrats raise the issue of Sverigehuset.

I have since tried to understand the proposal. I do not belong to the category that rejects proposals simply because they come from a certain side. In this, there is, so to speak, no ideology or other issues that interfere. At the same time, I do not want the voters to get stuck in a Sweden Democrat illusion about something that de facto is just an illusion.

I would very much like to hear Mikael Eskilandersson explain a bit about how this is intended to work in practice. Standardization of construction processes is all well and good, but when you build small houses, you have land costs and connection fees. You have quite a lot of costs to get the calculation to work. How then does Mikael Eskilandersson mean that just the fact that one has a standardized, pre-approved house type is suddenly going to start a construction wave of new small houses?

In the previous speech, the Sweden Democrats raised the issue of local self-government. How does Mikael Eskilandersson mean that one safeguards local self-government by saying that it should be built identically throughout our long country?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Alireza Akhondi, for the question! I am very happy to answer questions about Sverigehuset.

The reason we want to move away from the system one has in Sweden, where thousands of different case officers in 290 municipalities sit and assess the same house, is that it simply becomes significantly more efficient.

Most often, this scrutiny is exaggerated and for large parts unnecessary. I can take as an example my own house which I built once upon a time in Örkelljunga municipality. It was a basic A-house I built, and an identical one was built a couple of months before. Still, I was to submit exactly the same drawings. I was to submit exactly the same applications for everything despite there being another house built that was identical. It was a typical catalog house. I could never really understand the point of the same municipality in practically the same area sitting and scrutinizing the same thing once again for a precisely identical house and taking payment for every item once again.

We know now, when we have looked at what it costs to build, that many costs still occur. But compared to other countries and how they have succeeded in bringing down the price by introducing different forms of type-approved houses, it would translated to Swedish conditions and the Swedish house move somewhere between 350,000 and 700,000 per house that one could reduce the costs by. It becomes cheaper to build because one simply gets less waste and so on when one makes the same house model several times, but also because one does not need a full building permit in the same way. It becomes more a matter of an exhibition of the house and a notification fee.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! If the Sweden Democrats had made an effort to come up with a few more proposals within the area of housing policy during the five terms they have had to work out bills, I might not have reacted to the Sweden Democrat illusion. But we are in a situation where the current government has had plenty of time to address the challenges of housing policy.

I usually point out in the debates that this is an area where there have been over 60 public inquiries since 2006 and that virtually every centimeter of this policy area has been investigated. It should therefore not be particularly difficult to dust off old inquiries and produce something, I would think. But one does not do that. One points out Sverigehuset, but one still does not answer the question.

Mikael Eskilandersson! How do you achieve this wave of newly produced houses when the building permit cost for that type of house constitutes a fraction of the total calculation? I would very much like to get an answer to that.

I did not receive an answer to my previous question either. How does one ensure that municipal self-government is protected? I perhaps do not want to live in a world of illusions and live in the typical Swedish house. How are those cases handled?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have heard this lament from Alireza Akhondi before, that nothing is happening and nothing is being done.

I believe that most people you speak to outside this room are rather surprised by how many different things the government is actually working on and how much we have actually already implemented in various ways – for example, lowering the tax on ISK accounts, which hopefully provides more money for construction. Sure, one has to save them up first. But we have had a focus on this with land, time, and money. That is to say that we shall ensure that there is land to build on, ensure that the time is not too long, and ensure that there is money to build for.

I think the government has succeeded very well in that part, and I see that the Center Party has presented a budget proposal that is almost identical to the government's. There is a difference of 10 million in the proposal, so it must almost be seen as a flirtation with the Tidö parties - especially considering that there is no other opposition party that is closer to the government than the Center Party.

If I were Alireza Akhondi, I would be more worried about how I will manage to form a cooperation with the opposition than about how Sverigehuset will become cheaper. But there are good calculations that he can look up.

Then it is not just about building permit costs. It is about competition. It is about that one can build in a different way. It is about that the one who builds knows that it will be possible to build here and that construction companies can produce hundreds of houses that look the same. Then it becomes cheaper. We have seen that in other countries, as I said in my speech. I want to refer to the countries that I have already mentioned.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! A home of one's own is not just walls and a roof. A home of one's own is a home. A home of one's own is the very foundation for our lives, for our dignity, and for being able to be a part of society's community. A home of one's own is not a luxury or a commodity. It is a right, and it is politics that is the key to everyone's right to a home of one's own.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is still in the same crisis as when we stood here a year ago. Housing construction is still at historically low levels. During the first half of this year, 1,150 construction companies went bankrupt. This can be compared to 1,725 bankruptcies during the entirety of 2023.

Unemployment is at a record high. Not since the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic years have so many been without jobs. Half a million people are without jobs today. Over the last two years, the number of unemployed people within the construction industry has increased by 59 percent. During the same period, housing costs have increased by 26 percent and food prices by 25 percent.

One does not need to be a mathematician to understand that more and more households are struggling to manage the most basic things: food and housing. The statistics speak for themselves. But the crisis is not primarily about figures, statistics, and tables. It is about people, about lives being torn apart, and about broken families. It is about a broken society. It is a crisis that forces parents to choose between paying the rent and buying food for their children. And all of this is a consequence of an unjust policy in an increasingly unequal society.

Madam Speaker! The number of evictions is at historically high levels. Since the government took office, records in the number of evictions have actually been broken every year. Just this year, 342 children have lost their homes. That is 13 percent more than last year, and it is 342 children too many. But what is the government doing? They are turning a blind eye.

The government's response to those hardest hit by the crisis is mocking and out of touch with reality. They say: "Lower the subsidies!" "Pull yourselves together," says the government. "Owning is better than renting," they say. "Buy a small house," we just heard from the Sverigedemokraterna. This is, therefore, the government's message to the most vulnerable households. But how is the single mother – who is already on her knees trying to pay the rent – supposed to be able to buy a small house? In what way is the unemployed construction worker supposed to pull themselves together when the construction industry has totally collapsed? The government's policy is a slap in the face to Sweden's poorest households.

Madam Speaker! Today we have a government that claims it is about safety when they present proposals to more easily be able to evict more families with children. We have a government whose representatives claim that evictions in the long run can be a boon for the evicted children. A government that stands behind such a statement reveals a very dangerous misunderstanding of how children are affected by homelessness and trauma.

Security is not created by evicting more children, nor is it created by converting cheap and secure rental apartments into objects of speculation. Security is definitely not created by – as the government does – prioritizing tax cuts for the rich over welfare and housing for everyone. The government's policy is not a policy for security; it is a policy for increased inequalities.

Madam Speaker! Security is the opposite of everything this government does. Security starts with a home of one's own. That security should be a given. But here we stand today, with a housing policy that time and again fails people. It is a housing policy that continues to favor the already privileged and leaves the most vulnerable without support. The interest subsidy remains untouched, but only for some - not for the poorest. Their interest subsidy is, of course, withdrawn. The subsidy for the rich is expanded. The economically most pressured households - the tenants - are left completely without support now that both the energy efficiency support and the support for building rental apartments have been removed. The government's and the housing minister's economic priorities are clear.

Madam Speaker! We have heard the same tune repeated over and over again for a few years now. The government is pushing to reduce the number of rental apartments through conversion to condominiums and rental purchases. They talk about making it easier to own. Those who do not fit into their mold are banished to an expensive and highly unreliable secondary market. It is a secondary market that the government actually invests in because they see an opportunity to make it even more profitable for the person who owns a home and wants to rent it out at extortionate prices. The government remains blinkered. They see the residents they want to see. The others they simply ignore.

Owning one's own home is the great and realistic dream for the government's representatives and their friends. But for many more households in today's Sweden, the housing minister's dream of a small house is unattainable. People who cannot afford electricity and food and who are evicted because they do not have money for their rent can neither buy out their rental apartment nor buy the housing minister's small house. Reality is and remains the same; with the government's policy, a few more will be able to own while many more become homeless.

Madam Speaker! The government's policy is a policy that divides. During the Renaissance, the political principle "divide and rule" was born. For those who know their history, it is not difficult to see the similarities between Machiavelli's Renaissance prince and Sweden's government. The government's unequal, unjust, and unbridled racist policy lives up to the criteria that characterize this form of unscrupulous politics. It is a policy that splits and destroys our society bit by bit. This is what the SD-supported government's repressive policy in all policy areas has given us. Politics should build community and utility. Instead, the government builds walls and hatred.

Madam Speaker! When household finances are being pushed to the breaking point, the government chooses to make it even harder for people to stay in their homes. The government no longer chooses merely to stand passive but even deepens the problems. Until today, the government's housing policy measures have had a single clear focus: to attack, in various ways, the households that already have it toughest. Rental housing is the most expensive form of tenure to live in, but it is in that which the majority of low-income households live. The government does nothing to lighten their burdens, neither in the short nor in the long term.

Never in modern times has politics hit the most vulnerable in society as hard as with this government. Both legislative proposals and economic measures are consistently aimed at worsening conditions for the poorest, whether it concerns repressive proposals regarding evictions or poorly thought-out ideas about subletting as the solution to society's housing problems. It is a policy for the market, not for the human being.

Madam Speaker! It is never a kindness to evict children. A homeless child is not a safer child. It is a child that society has failed. Instead of the government blaming everything bad in society on immigrants, tenants, and the unemployed, we must address the root of the problems: the economic inequality, the housing shortage, the segregation, and the injustices. Vänsterpartiet has many good proposals that address just those problems.

The Left Party's policy has everything that the government does not have. We are their direct opposite. We stand for everything that the government does not stand for: justice, equality, solidarity, humanity, a society for everyone and security for everyone. That is what the Left Party stands for.

Madam Speaker! When the government invests 34 billion in tax cuts for high-income earners, the Left Party instead invests 45 billion SEK in improving things for households with, among other things, increased cash benefits and health insurance, abolished care allowance deductions, increased child allowance and so on. When the government abandons all economic policy for increased construction, the Left Party will invest 28 billion more than the government over the next three years within expenditure area 18.

When Vänsterpartiet presents legislative proposals to strengthen tenants' rights, stop the sell-offs of rental apartments, counter extortionate rents, and ensure by law that no child shall be evicted from their home, the government's legislative proposals worsen the situation on all these points.

Let me add, for the sake of safety, that with all the Left Party's budget proposals, in all areas, Sweden's national debt would still be among the lowest in the EU at the end of the framework period in 2032.

Madam Speaker! The government's housing policy lacks courage and new thinking. They are stuck with their small houses and believe that they can find the solutions there.

At a time when we need climate-smart and efficient housing solutions that cost less both for the individual and for the environment, the government chooses to continue on its usual ideological autobahn. Their proposals are both bad for the environment and too expensive for most. Climate-smart and economically and socially sustainable initiatives are conspicuously absent.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party has a different vision. I have a different vision. I know that a housing policy based on justice is possible – a policy that tears down walls and builds bridges.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe in something greater. We believe in a Sweden where every child, regardless of where the child is born or which parents they have, has a right to a home, security, and faith in the future. It may sound naive. Call me naive in that case, for without such a vision I do not understand why one works as a politician at all, let alone as a housing policy politician.

Madam Speaker! The Government says that their policy is about responsibility, but I say: Your policy is inexcusably irresponsible. Your policy does not only cost us money, it costs us human lives, dreams for the future, social cohesion and hope.

I conclude by saying to the Minister for Housing: Sweden deserves more. We deserve a government that takes responsibility for our entire population, and if you cannot deliver the solutions that are required, it is time to hand over to those who can.

I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 1 on housing policy goals. I also support the Left Party's budget proposal in its entirety and the specific statement contained in the report.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Civil Affairs Committee's secretariat and wish both them and everyone in the chamber a Merry Christmas.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Strongly sulfurous and in all respects completely incorrect are the words that come to mind. I have heard them before after Malcolm Momodou Jallow has spoken, and they also apply today.

It is apparently brave and innovative to borrow money for the country and send the bill to our children. I think that sounds significantly more irresponsible.

We were discussing child evictions. Can Malcolm Momodou Jallow understand that it is sometimes actually good for the children when authorities intervene? We are talking about 342 children. There are roughly 1.7 million children in Sweden, at least if you count everyone under 18, and about 100,000 are born every year. The 342 who are evicted are often vulnerable in many more ways than just from the fact that the parents have not been able to afford the rent.

Unfortunately, these children often live in misery, and unfortunately, there is often much around them that our authorities need to deal with. I have personally seen examples where the authorities, when they have finally been able to enter the families, have been able to prevent the children from continuing to live in misery. If one lets the children stay, it just continues.

I therefore want to ask Malcolm Momodou Jallow: Can he really not see that the authorities sometimes need to step in and help children who are in a vulnerable situation? It is unfortunately often linked to poor finances, and that is when we discover how bad the situation actually is in the family.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish people may have heard what Mikael Eskilandersson began with. He said "342 children" and that 100,000 children are born. If I interpret him correctly, there is nothing about 342 homeless children, but it is completely okay and in order. It is just a small part of the number of children born every year.

This is the difference between Vänsterpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna. That is why I stand on this side and Mikael Eskilandersson stands on the other side.

As I said, there are 342 homeless children today – children who have been evicted. It is far too many; it is 342 children too many. In this country, which we ourselves call a welfare state and which is a wealthy country in Europe, no child should have to be homeless.

I understand why Mikael Eskilandersson tries to justify that it might be reasonable that 342 children are homeless when over 100,000 children are born every year. It is because he belongs to a government that has new legislation that makes it easier to evict more children. "Safer residential areas" is what they call it when they make it possible for property owners to evict children who have not committed crimes. Entire families are being put out on the street.

When I asked where these people were going to go, neither Mikael Eskilandersson, any of the Tidö parties, nor the responsible minister could answer the question, and today we see the result of this policy.

On the one hand, all politicians and parties say that we are to have a zero vision for homelessness, but on the other hand, more children end up on the street every year, sometimes because the parents cannot even pay a bill of 300 kronor.

There are 200,000 more poor people in Sweden today. It is your fault, Mikael Eskilandersson. It is you who are in power. Make sure these children have a home! It is a right, and we have the Convention on the Rights of the Child as law in Sweden. Follow it!

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! At best, Malcolm Momodou Jallow is simply poorly informed about what happens when the authorities enter a home and one has an eviction order. What normally happens is that social services, the police, and so on are also involved when one enters a property.

It is not that one places the child on the street, normally speaking, but often it is a situation where one takes care of children according to LVU. It is not that the person is kicked out onto the street and then you let the children sit on the street and freeze to death. That is not how it works in Sweden, quite simply.

There is another thing I want to ask a question about, namely timber construction. I have a fondness for timber buildings in general, and there is a reason why Sverigehuset looks the way it does. It probably stems from the fact that I come from a family that owns forest and were so-called forest farmers, and that I myself am a bit of a forest farmer.

I have previously worked for Södra Skogsägarna and have thereby spent 13 professional years in the forest, so when I saw that Vänsterpartiet wants to allocate a substantial amount of money, specifically 750 million kronor, to building in wood, I thought it was nice. But it is easy to cut wide swaths in others' leather, as it would be directed towards building multi-family houses in wood. It would also be increased during the coming years. 750 million was only a weak start.

How does the Left Party ensure that the money ends up in the right place and that it doesn't turn out like with all the subsidies that came from the previous government, that is, that they go to houses that would have been built anyway? A great deal is already being built in wood today, and it is furthermore subsidized in various ways. Above all, it is a cheap material that we have plenty of in the country.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the question of evicted children. I come from Malmö. When children are evicted and families with children become homeless, they turn to the municipality – to the institutional authorities that Mikael Eskilandersson refers to. In Malmö, it is so that when you come to the municipality and want support for housing, you receive support one week at a time.

Think about being a child with two or three siblings, a mother and a father, or more often a single mother, and coming to the municipality and hearing it say: "You get a place for a week." After a week, you have to pack your things and come back to the municipality and apply once more, and then you get another week.

Is this a safe way of living for a child in this country – in Sweden? Is it a type of solution that Mikael Eskilandersson thinks is good? Is he satisfied with it? I am not. I respect Swedish law, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is very clear: We must create safe conditions for children to grow up in. What I mentioned, I would not call safe conditions for children to grow up in.

Having a stable home is one of the things I would call security. You talk about security, but what you do creates insecurity for many children.

I hoped that Mikael Eskilandersson would take the question seriously and say something here that can ensure that no child will be homeless, need to move from one place to another, or seek housing week by week. But unfortunately, we do not get answers from either Mikael Eskilandersson or the government. Those who suffer are the children who grow up in an insecure society with poor conditions, and this affects them. The homeless children are those who will ultimately end up in crime. Then Mikael Eskilandersson and his government can come with their repressive measures. It does not work.

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has long faced major challenges in the housing market. Over time, we have seen long lead times, high costs, and difficulties for many to find a home that matches their needs and dreams. This affects our growth, our security, and our opportunities to meet the challenges of the future.

These types of problems have not arisen overnight. They are the result of years of political decisions that have prioritized the wrong things; poster politics and ineffective measures. But now we have a Moderate-led government that does not stand by passively and watch as the problems worsen. On the contrary, we are tackling the structural challenges that other governments have ignored. We are laying the foundation for a housing market that works for everyone, whether you are young and seeking your first home, have a family that needs a larger residence, or are an older person who wants to find something smaller or live together with several.

Madam Speaker! Building housing in Sweden today is unnecessarily complicated and, moreover, expensive. Long lead times, bureaucracy, and a lack of buildable land have created a situation where housing construction is moving slowly. This is not acceptable, and therefore we are making major investments to create a more time- and cost-effective construction process. We are shortening lead times in the planning and building processes by investing in digitalization. The Government proposes that Lantmäteriet receives 10 million kronor in 2025 to continue the work with a national geodata platform.

By making more datasets available digitally, the municipalities will get better tools to plan and implement housing projects faster. We are also simplifying the regulations. Boverket's new building rules, which enter into force in 2025, are an important step towards reducing complications and lowering the costs of building. We are also strengthening the competence in the municipalities in this regard. The Government is allocating 15 million kronor per year until 2030 to train the municipalities in the new building rules and building permit processes. This is an investment in a long-awaited, faster, simpler, and more efficient building process.

The opposition will certainly criticize us for not investing in investment support or subsidies. But, Madam Speaker, this is a one-sided and repeated policy that has not solved the structural problems. Grants to property owners and developers often went to projects that would have been built anyway, while the regulations and processes continued to put obstacles in the way of broader housing construction.

Madam Speaker! Safety is today the most important factor for people when they choose where they want to live. It is unacceptable that every fourth person in Sweden feels unsafe in their own residential area. Crime has taken over certain areas, and this does not only affect safety, but it affects our entire society negatively. Since July 1 of this year, we have made it easier for property owners to evict criminal tenants. This is a reform that many have requested, not least those who live and reside in those types of residential areas; those who are affected when criminals dominate an area need to be protected.

We have also commissioned an inquiry into how property owners and public actors can cooperate better to create safer residential environments. There are role models to meet all around the country. No one should have to leave their residential area. It is a disgrace that it happens today. Therefore, safety is one of the most important building blocks in our policy.

Madam Speaker! Seven out of ten Swedes want to live in detached houses. It is a dream that we Moderates want to make a reality for more. We are investing to promote the construction of detached houses by increasing the incentives for the municipalities. Boverket shall review the conditions and where buildable land is available. Furthermore, we are working, as we have heard during the debate, with the concept Sverigehus. These are type-approved detached houses that can be built more simply and cheaply.

The opposition will of course claim that we are doing too little, but, Madam Speaker, our policy is about making housing more accessible for more people through structural reforms and long-term solutions, not by wasting taxpayers' money on inefficient subsidies.

Housing policy is about more than just building houses. It is about building societies. Then we need a functioning housing market, where construction goes faster, where security is a rule rather than an exception, and where more people get the chance to own their home. That is what most people want. That is also what this budget is about, and therefore I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision on the budget.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Noria Manouchi for her speech. I have two questions linked to the speech.

I note in our report that a choice has been made to do something as unusual as politicizing the purely factual reporting of results, which in normal cases is actually a statement of facts. Furthermore, it is done in an extremely inconsistent manner. One manages to both be satisfied that the government states that there is a lack of evidence for the effects of the investment support and simultaneously continue to rejoice over that one is abolishing the inefficient and poor investment support.

Which is it? Is evidence missing, or is it a political statement linked to the question without evidence?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! I am trying to figure out exactly what it is I am supposed to answer.

First, regarding the question of those grants, subsidies, those hundreds of millions of kronor that have been paid out to developers, which were supposed to lead to amounts of new housing but did not. SKR produced a report five or six years ago where it was stated that that type of investment has not led to the construction of more housing. That was what I took note of in my speech.

We can take the investment support for elderly housing as an example. Despite the fact that elderly housing is a very expensive cost for the municipalities, and despite the fact that the elderly part of the population is increasing in our country, not even 25 percent of the municipalities applied for the support. It is not only an inefficient support, but it is also quite unwanted, according to my interpretation. Therefore, it is important for our government not to continue with the types of subsidies that do not work.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

I assume that I was unclear and that the member did not understand. My question was about how one can both claim that there is a lack of evidence and then claim that something is ineffective and bad in the same sentence. It is very illogical and also unfortunate that one chooses to do this linked to a factual presentation in the budget. It is to politicize this type of document on a completely new level, and I find it incomprehensible.

My next question, which I did not have time for last time, concerns what the member expresses: that one thinks all forms of investment support and subsidies are bad. Despite this, one now signals in the budget a support for the green industrialization in the north, however without specifying what it concerns. I assume that it is to start applying next year. The proposal was presented in connection with the budget, i.e., several months ago, and so far I have not managed to get any answer on what it is that is to support construction linked to the green industrialization in the north. I hope that the member can give me some answers to the question.

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! The government's budget is political, I would like to assert. I hope it is; it would be very strange if it were not. I believe that is how we want to continue in our democracy - that the government presents a political budget and it is clear what the government's political priorities are.

In my response regarding the subsidies, I noted one of the Social Democrats' investment grants that has not functioned - which the municipalities have not applied for and which has therefore been ineffective and unwanted. That was an example that I took up. I can ask the Social Democrats' member if it is your intention that this is wrong and that we should continue with this type of subsidy, which the municipalities do not want and do not apply for and which therefore are not paid out.

Your policy has been tested and has failed. For eight years we have had this type of short-term solution, which did not solve the structural problems in the housing market. That is why we are now tackling the fundamental obstacles and investing in long-term reforms that reduce bureaucracy, stimulate housing construction, and create a more just market. Is it the Social Democrats' intention that we should return to a system where the government's housing policy consists of paying out several hundreds of millions of kronor to developers without it leading to more housing?

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! We have record-high unemployment. Half a million people lack jobs. We have a construction industry that stands still. During your two years in government, housing costs have increased by 26 percent, and food prices have increased by 25 percent. But perhaps the worst statistic for these two years is that the number of evictions has gone up by 26 percent. Just this year, 342 children have lost their homes. That is 13 percent more than last year. And we both know that Malmö is one of the municipalities where the most children's families were evicted during 2023 and where the number of evictions is increasing the most - we are both from Malmö.

In the midst of all this, you are pushing through proposals to sell off even more rental apartments, probably some of the last ones remaining that still have reasonable rents. In the midst of all this, you have legislation that makes it possible for property owners to evict more children, without you having any answer as to where these children are to go.

My question is quite simply this: I wonder in what way Noria Manouchi believes that these measures - sell-offs, market rents, and the legislation regarding evicting children - are going to help homeless families with children in Malmö and the rest of the country. That is the first question.

The second question is: Does Noria Manouchi, who speaks of safety as the cornerstone of her politics, consider the right to one's own home to be a fundamental safety issue? If so, why do you make it possible for children to become homeless? Why, under your rule over these past two years, have more children been evicted without having anywhere to go?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by stating that we have approximately 20,000 vacant rental apartments available today - not in Stockholm but in other parts of our elongated country. Furthermore, construction is increasing, according to Boverket and SKR. In northern Sweden, specific initiatives have been made that cause housing construction to increase. In areas near cities in larger cities, the construction of multi-family houses is increasing. And in smaller municipalities outside the metropolitan regions, housing construction is increasing. This provides greater opportunities to match demand in a better way than before. We also need to take note of that which is not quite as bad as it once was.

I also want to say that it is absolutely heartbreaking that there are homeless children in Sweden. In this issue, the municipalities have a very large responsibility. The eviction prevention work is absolutely crucial to ensure that no family falls through the cracks.

When a family with children is in the risk zone for eviction, our common welfare is put to the test, and it is then exposed what priorities have been made and what has been left out. When one looks at the statistics, one can see which municipalities have woven together a safety net that works and which have not.

It is clear that it is worst in our common home city Malmö, which in 94 out of 100 years has been governed by the Social Democrats. And it does not only concern Malmö. Absolutely the most children are evicted in social democratically governed municipalities. This is a massive problem, which also exposes which municipalities have chosen to opt out of the core of the welfare instead of prioritizing it.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I think like this. Noria Manouchi talks about that there are 20,000 apartments - that does not help these children. There are 200,000 more poor households in Sweden. Those 20,000 apartments do not help them, because they cannot afford them. It is not them we are talking about. I am talking about people who are poor today - households with lower income, who cannot afford to have somewhere to live.

Noria Manouchi speaks about the Social Democrats. It is not the Social Democrats who are governing now; it is the Moderates who are governing now together with their Tidö parties. What are you doing? One must take responsibility when one governs. When the Social Democrats governed, I criticized the Social Democrats. I stood here and criticized them. But now it is not the Social Democrats who are governing but the Moderates, and therefore I stand here and ask: What are you doing when you sell the existing rental apartments, when you have legislation that makes it so more children can be evicted from their homes, and when you do not respect Swedish law, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which very clearly says that conditions should be created for a secure upbringing for children? You are making children homeless.

During the two years you have been in power, housing costs have increased by 26 percent. This year alone, it concerns 342 children. What are you doing? Stop blaming others who are not in power! It is you who are in power. We talk about a zero vision when it comes to homelessness. Despite that, more children become homeless every year.

This is a very serious problem. Noria Manouchi does not need to explain what the problem looks like. I know what it looks like in my own municipality, Malmö. My question is: What is your government doing to solve the problem and ensure that no child in this country has to be homeless?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! We have in this debate on several occasions noted the municipalities' great responsibility when it comes to housing. I hope we are in agreement on this.

Who rules in the municipalities plays a very large role when it comes to how many evictions of families with children have occurred. Does the chairman of the Civil Affairs Committee deny this? The statistics are clear: in municipalities where the Moderaterna rule, significantly fewer children are evicted than in municipalities where Socialdemokraterna or Vänsterpartiet rule. That is how the statistics look. The chairman of the committee is completely right that it matters who rules. Where Moderaterna rule, fewer children are evicted. That is how the history looks, and that is how the statistics look. It is our common experience from Socialdemokraterna-ruled Malmö. It is nothing that I or the government are making up.

But the government takes this issue very seriously, even in those municipalities where our parties do not govern. Therefore, we have tasked Socialstyrelsen to review how it can be that more and more people have been evicted in recent years. We hope that it is not just that one chooses to evict families with children in those municipalities where the left-wing parties govern, but that there are underlying reasons that we can implement national policy to change. So, we intend to take responsibility for the situation.

But to support different types of left-wing governments around the country that have had only one effect when it comes to evictions, namely breaking records in the number of evicted families with children, it is therefore not my recommendation that Vänsterpartiet should continue to do.

The representative from Vänsterpartiet stands here and scowls because the government is not taking its responsibility. But take some responsibility yourself, then! Stop supporting social democratic governments around the country that refuse to take responsibility for our common welfare system! It doesn't work when families with children are evicted. When is it going to work then?

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind once again that the address in the chamber does not include "you", "your" and "you", but it is through the Speaker that everyone speaks.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I am not so convinced that commands or a high tone of voice create more housing, if I am to be honest.

The member of parliament spoke about the fact that there are 20,000 vacant housing units in Sweden. But the member of parliament must then, in the same breath, mention the fact that there is a shortage of housing in the vast majority of Sweden's municipalities here and now. The accumulated deficit regarding housing construction continues to increase.

Then there is another part that I think Noria Manouchi should take up. The Centre Party is not among the proponents of investment support as it appeared. But the truth is that no one knows whether the investment support is effective or ineffective. There is not enough data and research behind any claim in either direction. In that way, Jennie Nilsson is right that the government must decide. You cannot say two different things in the same document.

Then Noria Manouchi highlights the need for structural reforms. I love structural reforms and think that one should devote oneself to such things. But where are the proposals for structural reforms? When will those bills reach the committee and the Riksdag? Noria Manouchi is new to the committee. I have all respect for that, but at the same time, she represents the largest party in government.

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! Alireza Akhondi is quite right that I am relatively new to the committee. Furthermore, this is my last debate with the committee, so I am very grateful that the member takes this into account.

I apologize, Madam Speaker. I am quite worked up after the latest exchange of remarks.

I agree that there is a shortage of housing in several parts of the country. However, I want to emphasize that it is not equally bleak everywhere. If we lift our eyes from Stockholm - something I have noted that the committee is somewhat obsessed with - the situation looks a bit different.

I also do not believe that we can simply build our way out of the housing shortage. We must do several things at the same time. We need to convert premises into housing. Once in a while, the opposite was done and housing was converted into premises in our central cities. Now we need to do the opposite. It could free up hundreds, if not thousands, of apartments.

We make it easier to build student housing and simplify the building rules in relation to them. But I would also like to emphasize some of what I took up in my speech. We shorten the lead times in the planning and building processes by investing in digitalization. We believe this is very important. We simplify the regulations, and we ensure that we increase the competence regarding this in the municipalities - all so that there are no further stops when we implement the new systems, but that it goes as smoothly as possible. These are some of our priorities.

What are the priorities of the Centre Party, and what do the majority conditions look like regarding them?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Noria Manouchi represents the Moderate Party, which holds the Prime Minister's post. Even though one does not lead the work at the department that handles housing policy, one still has a special responsibility to ensure that what one says here in the chamber corresponds with reality.

The truth is that the committee and the chamber have not seen any sign of the changes that Noria Manouchi is making regarding what has occurred. We are waiting with anticipation to actually see these reforms.

Speaking of structural reforms, we know that a tax reform would have a major impact on the mechanisms that essentially govern the functioning of the housing market. But no such reform is on the agenda. The proposals that the public housing sector puts forward, for example VAT on rent, are also not on the agenda. Nor is the issue of free rent setting, which Centerpartiet drives, on the agenda. When it comes to the shore protection issue, which Moderata samlingspartiet shot down and where we have been informed that they will submit exactly the same proposals as before, nothing has even been placed on the Riksdag's table two years after they were given the power to do something.

Against this background, I now ask the group leader for Moderata samlingspartiet in the Committee on Civil Affairs: Noria Manouchi, what structural reforms can we expect to deal with in the Committee on Civil Affairs during the coming terms?

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Alireza Akhondi, for the question! We participated a few weeks ago at the same committee meeting as the Minister, who was invited to report on everything the government is doing in the housing area. It was by far the longest committee meeting I have ever attended. It ran over. Many of us had to reschedule our plans and calendars because the report was so incredibly long. Point by point, the Minister went through everything being done in this area. The questions from the members in the committee were not as many as I might have thought they would be, probably because the report was so exhaustive.

Personally, I think this is pleasing. I believe that the Swedish people perceive that with this government, things are getting done.

Madam Speaker! In my budget statement, I accounted for some budget initiatives that I consider particularly urgent. They can be read about in the budget. I believe that ultimately it is about what a government can actually execute. Given that we have a government with a majority in the chamber, a good deal will now be done - unfortunately, it will not be a freer rental market, because we do not have a majority for that. Alireza Akhondi is well aware of this. But let us hope that one day we can take hold of such a proposal, so that we can move forward and ensure that we get a more just housing market in Sweden.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! A functioning housing market is a prerequisite for people to be able to move to jobs and education, for them to be able to start a family, and for them to be able to divorce. It is also an important growth engine.

The construction crisis that we now see clearly and which has major consequences does not only limit people's opportunities to make free choices, steer their lives and do what is best for them. It also threatens jobs and growth.

Stockholms Handelskammare presented a report this spring called The Bill for the Construction Crisis. In it, they sketch out that the bill could become as staggering as 1,000 billion kronor for the Swedish economy until 2030. It is such a large figure that one can hardly grasp it.

The Financial Supervisory Authority has announced that the housing shortage and the construction crisis we are currently in risk costing Swedish GDP approximately 1 percent annually. This corresponds to 65 billion kronor annually. It is a significantly lower figure, but it is still more than an entire budget space.

It is money that could and should be used for completely other things. It should be used to build Sweden stronger, to strengthen the welfare, and to equip individuals. It should be used for much better things than just being wasted. It is wasted because it is a government that does not take the construction crisis and the situation seriously. One does not want to see or is unable to see that one is actually responsible for handling a crisis of this dignity, with effects of this dignity.

We see none of this.

We have now heard several speakers' addresses. We have heard speakers from Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna from the government base. They have given addresses and replies. They have described how they view the housing market and the future in Sweden.

I can only state that I am deeply concerned. Their speeches, above all, lack great insight. They lack the will to at least acknowledge the problems that are seen. Instead, one speaks of the fact that it is now turning. That is somewhat true. The fact that interest rates and inflation are now going down in Sweden, as in large parts of our surrounding world, obviously means that there are conditions for the pressure to ease a bit, but it is from extremely low levels.

Nothing of what we have heard so far in the debate or what has been presented will in a real way meet the needs and the challenges we have. It is about ensuring that all people have access to a home. It is about ensuring that we have the conditions to get investments for new industries or new sectors, new business, in Sweden. It is about international capital and Swedish capital.

When making one's assessments of whether or not to invest, a number of things come into play - access to competence, access to energy, access to housing and access to infrastructure. These are perhaps the four most heavily weighted pieces.

We now see investors who are opting out of Sweden as a country, primarily because we cannot ensure that there will be access to housing. Of course, it is very serious. Of course, it should give cause for reflection.

I just hope that what the representatives for the government parties and the government base express from this rostrum in today's debate is not inconsistent with the discussions and the considerations that are made in other forums. For in such cases, the price for people and for Sweden will become unreasonably high.

Given this background and this concern, I can state that the Social Democrats have made completely different assessments. It is about how the situation looks, how serious it is, and what is at stake. This is, of course, linked to what we propose.

In this context, linked to the budget, we propose above all that two new measures should be introduced. They should be introduced urgently. They should have been introduced already before last year, at the latest.

The first thing we propose concerns the fact that there should be a construction stimulus based on a production support. It should primarily go to the green industrial establishments that are now taking place all around our country, to ensure that they do not come to nothing, but also to student housing. We invest a lot in Sweden in educating people and in higher education so that we can meet the competence need. It will be very disastrous if people cannot move and take the educational places offered, in the same way as it will be disastrous if one cannot move to take the jobs that are now to emerge from the new industrial investments. Our assessment is that a production support linked to this sector is both urgent and necessary.

The second thing we propose is that the state should step in and share the risk in this situation. We propose that state construction credits should be introduced. That would be reasonable in an economic situation where many testify that they cannot make the calculations work and where the availability of capital itself is one of the biggest obstacles to getting projects started. In that case, it would be reasonable to introduce a completely new measure that is precisely about sharing the risk and that the state steps in and takes the top loans. In that way, one can achieve a better calculation and get the shovel in the ground for more projects.

Regarding this, we note that the construction crisis we are now seeing has brought enormous warnings. In the first half of this year alone, 2024, over 1,500 construction companies warned of bankruptcy. That is twice as many as during the entire pandemic. One can compare with last year, when the figure was 1,700 in total. That corresponds to approximately six bankruptcies a day.

Apart from the fact that it is obviously deeply problematic that a mass of construction companies no longer exist and that a mass of people are becoming unemployed, one can observe something else. If anything was learned from the 90s crisis, it was this: When the crisis was over, when the economy turned and when the demand for staff and competence suddenly became large, people were not there. They had left the construction industry for other industries.

We see that this is also happening now.

Admittedly, the figures for Byggnads a-kassa are higher than they have been in decades. They have increased by 67 percent. GS also testifies to massive layoffs. Despite this, I believe that most of us who travel around encounter this: The industry feels a great deal of anxiety right now because this is in-demand personnel, who are being recruited to other industries and are therefore disappearing and likely will never return.

Given the loss of competence that we now risk seeing, it is doubly remarkable that the government is also phasing out the energy efficiency support that the previous government put in place. It is a support that is good for the climate. It is good when it comes to meeting EU directives and the EU requirements that will exist regarding the sector's ability to manage its emissions. By not meeting that requirement, one risks shifting the cost of energy efficiency solely onto the individual or possibly onto the company.

This is also good for the jobs. This would mean that one could keep the workforce running in an efficient way in a situation where nothing new is being built. Then one could renovate and improve energy efficiency. It would be good for the jobs.

It would also have been good for ordinary household wallets. In a situation of cost crisis where the energy cost has become very high, it would mean something to be able to influence one's own energy costs in a positive way to contribute both to oneself, to society, and to the climate. That is why it is so difficult to understand the government's prioritization.

I also note that in the government's budget this time, there is a proposal for a support of exactly 140 million kronor, something that I also asked the Moderaternas housing policy spokesperson about in the exchange of remarks earlier but did not receive an answer to. Now, therefore, a proposal is being made to invest in housing construction linked to the green industrialization in the north, and 140 million is announced. This is being done in connection with the budget.

Despite repeated questions to the Minister and to other members, it is still completely unclear what this support is to be used for. It might be good, but if it is to start applying from the turn of the year, it is high time that one starts specifying what this is for. I shall have to assume that it is not anything resembling the proposals we have and that it therefore also does not resemble the proposals that, for example, the special investigator put forward on this theme, because it is actually a variant of our proposals.

This must therefore be something completely different, because as recently as in this debate, both Sverigedemokrater and Moderater have condemned both investment grants and subsidies. Credit guarantees have also been condemned, I assume. So what are these supports? Who is to receive them, and when do they receive notification?

In conclusion, I want to say that this is a debate that concerns both housing and consumer policy. On behalf of the Social Democrats, Anna-Belle Strömberg will eventually, in a later statement, describe our proposals in the consumer policy area.

Our framework is larger than the government's, which means that we cannot reserve ourselves in favor of our own proposals even if we would like to. We will therefore choose to abstain in the decision and instead refer to our special opinion submitted in connection with the matter.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member, for a speech that was interesting and forward-looking, I would like to assert!

Sometimes one must look at the figures. Figures never lie, it is often said, and when we look at the figures for today's session, we see that the Social Democrats have 510 million more in their budget than the government does. The largest item is energy efficiency in multi-family dwellings, something that I, as a Christian Democrat, can think is an appropriate investment if any investments are to be made. I believe the member has heard me say that in debates before.

Now, it is the case that one has a budget to stick to, just as the member also has said. But otherwise, I can state that the Social Democrats are basically following the government's budget strictly overall. That means that there is not such a large difference compared to the government's and the majority's, i.e., the Tidö parties', budget.

If you want to get your policy through, you must have a majority in the chamber. If we look at the different proposals being submitted, we see that Miljöpartiet has put significantly more money into its budget, over 10 billion, down to Centerpartiet which has put in 10 million more.

I would therefore like to ask the member whose budget it is that applies in such a majority government. Would it actually be more appetizing for the Social Democrats to govern together with the Tidö parties, since you have almost the same budget?

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Larry Söder, for appreciating the commitment that both I and my party feel for these issues; that was, after all, how I perceived the beginning of the answer!

I can observe that I hear a little bitterness over that the Christian Democrats may not have had their way through in all the parts that the Christian Democrats would like, for example linked to energy efficiency support. I can have respect for this given that when one sits in government, it is about negotiating to get the space required in order to get one's budget through the Riksdag.

In opposition, however, we have a different task. That is about a party having to oppose the government's proposals, and that was, among other things, what I tried to do in my speech. I could oppose a number of things that I think are missing in the government's policy, but I think that will come naturally in other contexts and in other debates here in the chamber. We also have to clarify for the voters what it would mean for the voters if they voted for us specifically.

With a few exceptions, that is how all parties in Sweden's Riksdag act, and so do the Christian Democrats. They have submitted their own budgets, and they have argued for them.

The most remarkable thing, I would like to say, connected to practice and custom and how one must act in order to be a credible government and a credible opposition, is that we now see parties that are part of a government base, even in government, but who still do not want to take responsibility for the whole. People are quick to say that if we had gotten what we wanted – x, y, or z – it would have been much better, but now we have made a compromise.

It is unusual for me and also a bit convenient for the government parties. But it does not add so much.

I can only state that if I were to decide, it would be the Social Democrats' budget that would apply, regardless of who is behind it.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! In a debate or at an annual meeting, one can basically say anything without having to back it up in any way. In a budget, it is about backing up what you say, and we can state that if the Social Democrats had been in power, the figures would not have looked very different. Perhaps the money would have been used in different ways, but the money would have been there.

I can state that the Social Democrats have not allocated any money to an investment support in the form that existed before and which we have debated a number of times here. I therefore assume that the Social Democrats have moved away from that idea, that is, one thinks that it is better to carry out larger reforms instead.

It is exciting that the Social Democrats, and I say that with some envy, take up and criticize that a party or some parties in a government base may have different opinions and express them. I know of a party that every year on May 1st demonstrates, whether they are in a majority position or in opposition. It is proof that one can actually express one's politics even if one is in a majority position. I would like the Christian Democrats to become much better at that.

I can therefore state that the Social Democrats in this budget have significantly moved closer to the Tidparties. Therefore, my question is honest and sincere: Can a government be formed and a housing policy be found with the four parties that are in opposition today, with the Social Democrats as leader? That could not be done during the last parliamentary term, and I do not believe it can be done during the next parliamentary term either if we look at the figures; hence my wish, plea, or question: Is it not better to change partners?

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

I can start by acknowledging and confirming that every party should, of course, be able to speak about what they have come to the table with. But it is unusual to stand in a budget debate and single out one's own opinion. That was my point. It was brave of the member in that forum, I might say.

When it comes to the figures and what actually differs in the budget, the budget outcome for that year becomes something that hits home, which the member knows very well. Our proposal is based on giving the government an authorization to both increase the authorization framework by 3 billion for a production support for student housing and locations with large industrial establishments, and both tasking the government to take up loans in the National Debt corresponding to 5.12 billion for the construction credits.

It means that the difference is not several hundred million, as Larry Söder says. The difference is also not 8.5 billion, because it is still the case that the government, over a three-year period, announces that it wants to spend 1.5 billion on something extremely unclear.

There are still some representatives left who have not delivered their speeches, not least Larry Söder himself, so I hope that we will get some form of clarity on what it is one actually intends with these funds. I do not rule out that it is something that I can stand behind - it must be something that contributes to construction - but it is extremely strange and remarkable that over several months one has not succeeded in specifying what even one's largest investment in the housing policy area actually contains. But I look forward to perhaps hearing it in Larry Söder's or one of the other government representatives' speeches.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! In the large sense, all of us have at some point contacted a company to cancel a contract, such as a subscription or a membership. Far too many of us experience extensive problems in our contacts with customer service.

The Consumer Agency has received many reports and questions regarding customer services, and the agency has therefore examined the issue specifically. Consumers testify to long response times from companies, requirements for complicated contact routes, and that what is promised by the companies is then not fulfilled. Being bounced around in telephone queues is not only frustrating, but it also takes precious time from the customers. It can also be a matter of a company being so difficult to contact that the agreement continues even after the customer has wanted to cancel it.

A consumer's ability to exercise their rights according to law and agreement presupposes that he or she can contact the business operator and submit complaints regarding a product or service or terminate an agreement in the form of a subscription or a membership. According to the government, it should be just as easy for a consumer to terminate an agreement as it is to enter into one. Therefore, the government has tasked the Consumer Agency to review how the regulatory framework functions, and measures to address the issues will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, there are over 1.2 million condominiums. Every year, a large number of these are transferred and mortgaged. Statistics from UC reports show that around 70 percent of all condominiums are mortgaged, and at the end of 2021, the total amount of mortgage loans with a condominium as collateral amounted to 1,249 billion kronor.

Today, a national register for condominiums is missing, which entails risks for consumers, condominium associations, and lenders. Therefore, the government has also taken the initiative to enable a register, which is so much needed. What do I want to say with this? Yes, I want to say that the government during the mandate period has presented several initiatives that will benefit the consumer.

The government has, among other things, presented assignments regarding consumer regulation, equitable budget and debt counseling, and an assignment with the aim of stopping telephone scams, so-called spoofing. Most recently in November, the government presented an assignment regarding corporate customer service, as the government considers that it should be just as easy to terminate a contract as it is to enter into a contract. We can also note that in the bill today, there is a consumer policy goal that all parties have stood behind, which I think is good.

When it comes to the government's housing policy, which is the main item in today's debate, it can be stated that there are four quite clear goals with it: simplify the rules, shorten the lead times in the planning and building process, increase the availability of buildable land, and ensure that more people take the step towards owned housing.

How is it going with this? Yes, at the beginning of the mandate period we all know that inflation, not housing policy, took most of the attention. But now we have seen that inflation has stabilized at a normal level. We have also seen that the policy rate has decreased and now lies at an acceptable level, perhaps one could say, even if it is not as low as before. But somewhere there it may end up, and the government believes that we can begin to build Sweden safer and better.

Unfortunately, the fact is that construction costs for housing remain at a continued high level. We have heard earlier in the debate that construction costs have increased in recent years, and that is true. We believe that this too must be addressed in one way or another.

It has also been said earlier in the debate that the number of housing projects started has drastically decreased, and that can indeed be stated. During the first half of 2024, preliminarily about 14,150 apartments in multi-family buildings and 2,500 small houses were started. One can state that multi-family buildings have fared quite well, but that small houses have thus decreased by over 30 percent since last year. Here the government must do more.

In total, therefore, 16,650 dwellings were started during the first half of the year, which is an increase of 12 percent compared to last year. That indicates in some way that we might be on our way up. But we hear quite often in the debate that the government is doing nothing and that nothing is happening. However, we have also heard in the debate that the Minister for Housing was in the committee and that it was probably the longest committee meeting a minister has attended. I can confirm that; that is the case.

We can go through the government's various goals. When it comes to simplifying the rules for building, we have probably all heard about the Möjligheternas byggregler, which is coming. We hope that it will mean that it becomes easier to build. There, the municipalities also need greater help, and therefore there are funds in the budget to be able to help the municipalities manage this.

A mandate has also been given to Boverket to develop the reform for certified building design companies. It is not something we have come up with ourselves, but it was the previous government that implemented it. But we also see that there is actually a potential here that is not sufficiently utilized, and we believe that it could provide the opportunity to build faster.

Boverket has also been tasked with preparing proposals on how a type approval for small houses can be implemented, which we have heard earlier in the debate. We believe that it should be good for making it go faster.

Regarding shorter lead times in the planning and building process, an investigation on shortened and simplified permit processes according to the Environmental Code is to be presented on December 15, 2024. We hope that we can present it as a proposal before the 2026 election.

The investigation into a transition to coordinate-determined property boundaries shall be reported by June 30, 2025, at the latest. We can indeed state that it would be a revolution if one could coordinate-determine the property boundaries.

Boverket is also producing a guidance for the work with development agreements, something that can be quite problematic for smaller municipalities to manage. The Government has also decided on changes to the Planning and Building Ordinance, which means that the municipalities' comprehensive plans and regional plans shall become digital. As we have heard earlier in the debate, digitalization is important so that we can shorten lead times, and we shall use what is available. The Government has also allocated funds to Lantmäteriet for geodata and a geodata platform.

How is it going with increasing the availability of developable land? We have heard in the debate that the shore protection has been discussed. A proposal will be submitted, and no, the shore protection will not look exactly the same as before. Certain parts were, in fact, a mishmash of the opinions of Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet. We think that Centerpartiet's opinions in that case are better than Miljöpartiet's opinions, but we cannot take the bill and present it as a whole; we must take parts of it and investigate further. That is what the minister has said we should do, and it will be implemented as soon as possible.

There is also a letter commission that is to work for the divestment of state land for housing and which will submit its final report on September 30, 2025. An interim report has been made which shows that there are opportunities, and we will have to see what the final report yields. But there is a very large amount of state land, and it must also be used.

We have also heard about planning stimulus for municipalities that adopt detailed plans that enable the construction of small houses. It is out, and I hope that it has an effect so that more small houses are built a bit further ahead.

A commission on owner-occupied housing has been appointed. It is looking at why we do not build as many small houses and what obstacles it is that cause the municipalities to instead choose to make other plans. This work is to be final-reported on January 15, 2027, but it shall be reported continuously and be able to have an effect throughout the entire period.

More people should get the opportunity to take the step into the owned housing market. There is an investigation looking at rent-to-buy and ownership apartments. We know that there is an investigation that has presented proposals regarding the tightened amortization requirement and the raised mortgage ceiling. We also have the state grant to housing companies that is included in the budget that we are presenting now.

I would like to assert that the government is doing quite a lot in all these areas. The committee knows that, yet we still hear the same thing from the rostrum. One can always criticize people for not going fast enough or for not doing enough, but I think one should stick to the facts that exist. A very lot is being done. It also takes a very long time to move something from idea to investigation and further to a government bill. In that sense, I actually think the minister is doing a very good job.

I also believe it is about the fact that we have a minister who has been there the whole time. I believe that he will continue to work and deliver until the 2026 election, and hopefully longer.

I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Larry Söder, for your speech!

I had not initially intended to respond to the Christian Democrats in this debate, but some things in the speech made me feel that I still wanted to take this opportunity.

Larry Söder accounted for an investment in Lantmäteriet. The Social Democrats stand behind this investment; it is urgent. That this activity functions is an important part of the planning and building processes. I must nevertheless ask a question given the failure we have now seen at Lantmäteriet linked to security-classified information that had not been under control, which led to the need to emergency-shut down the digital registers. It is obviously serious in a security policy context. However, it is not this I intend to ask the members about, as it is perhaps primarily handled by another committee.

A consequence of the closed registers is that all the investments and projects that are underway and which have a connection to infrastructure, urban planning, and community construction are now being stopped. This is something that has been ongoing since last spring - since April or May, when these registers were stopped. I have so far not heard anything about how the responsible minister, Andreas Carlson, has acted to ensure that this gets implemented. In connection with the delays, it has been reported that up to 100 civil servants are needed to handle the registers manually. If that is true, we face enormous consequences and costs if this is not implemented.

My question to Larry Söder is whether, in light of this, and in addition to the investments that have now been made in the budget, there is a need to return with further proposals and perhaps a supplementary budget. How does one reason on this?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! One can state that we are all quite concerned about the consequences. In a time when all eight parties, I believe, want more built housing, this becomes a hitch in the works in one way or another. That a municipality cannot obtain the correct documents—or the documents the municipality needs to proceed in the process—is serious enough, I believe, for one to become concerned as a housing policy politician.

I believe that caution is the best way here. One must be a bit calm to see what has actually happened and what was actually needed.

When the then Director General of Lantmäteriet was in the committee, it was mentioned that the documents this concerns are actually in PDF. One can think what one wants about that, but there is a digitalization development work to be done there that must be sufficient so that we do not end up in the same situation again further ahead. Somewhere those costs must end up. Whether they are to come now or later can always be discussed, but we can state that we currently do not have a good situation for building more housing.

We need more housing. The construction industry also needs to get started again, as it is the engine of Sweden's economy, I want to assert. How many houses are needed, and if they are needed, is however something that the minister and his department must decide in one way or another - unfortunately, I cannot decide that.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Larry Söder for the answer.

I have respect for the fact that this is difficult. My view is that one needs to act in the short term to resolve an acute situation here and now. I mean that the responsible minister has the responsibility to ensure that this happens.

I agree with Larry Söder that this poses a real food for thought regarding how to ensure these registers in the long term. One thing, however, cannot exclude the other.

I respect that the member cannot answer. I can only hope that the minister returns in the near future and speaks about what responsibility is taken to ensure that this failure does not have socio-economic consequences beyond what is necessary. Right now, it is concerning that we do not hear anything.

In our previous exchange, I posed a more or less rhetorical question regarding the fact that no information is being provided about the single largest investment in the government's budget linked to this. It concerns a support of 140 million kronor for 2025 which is to be used to facilitate industrial establishments in the north and the construction of housing linked to these establishments. The support is to total 1.5 billion, I believe, over a three-year period.

I welcome the - somewhat late - awakening regarding the need for political tools and political action here. I still cannot help but think it is very strange that it is not clear what this support is. Given how the debate sounds here today and how it has sounded previously, I must assume that it is not about investment support, production support, or construction loans, as in the debate people continue to say that these proposals are bad. This is, therefore, something else. But what is it? Who is to utilize it? When will the announcements come?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We all want to have as little effect on housing construction as possible when it comes to the failure at Lantmäteriet. No one wants to drag this out longer than is necessary. I believe the Minister is well aware of what is expected of him, so I am not directly worried. When nothing is heard, it may be that work is being done. I believe we have to wait for the Minister to give notice on how the future is viewed. The Member and I are likely in agreement on the picture and the consequences, and I believe the department agrees with this.

When it comes to the 1.5 billion, there is of course a thought about how they should be used and how they can support the green transition in the north. Since it falls within our area, it is about housing. We must get the housing construction started. We must ensure that there are enough homes for the transformation taking place in the north. Nowadays, people are not moving away from Norrland but to Norrland, and then homes that are good, safe, and well-adapted are needed.

How these funds are to be used and distributed is something the Minister will have to return to. I can, however, state that there is a thought and that there is a goal with this.

The timeframe is narrow - it is to begin on 1 January. I believe, however, that the decision will come before 1 January. How the money is to be distributed, the minister must tell.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! My colleague Larry Söder pointed out that the Minister for Housing's latest visit to us was very long. Yes, that is true. But it was also a long time since the Minister for Housing visited us. And our committee meetings average about seven minutes per meeting, so with that as a comparison, it is simply misleading.

My Sweden Democrat colleague spoke about lamentation. Yes, I honestly feel sorry for my Tidö colleagues' position in this committee. It has been two years now, and the reforms and structural reforms and all the other fine words are conspicuously absent when it comes to committee work and to our conditions to actually conduct politics - opposition politics in this case. Then I understand that my colleagues think it becomes very difficult when opposition parties ask questions about how it is going with the various proposals that we have requested.

It is also true that the Center Party has approximately the same figures as the government when it comes to this expenditure area. All serious parties have approximately the same reform space when it comes to the budget as a whole. Then it is clear that if one is not a Left Party member who owns a printing press and can scatter money around, yes, then one has approximately the same figures to contend with. It does not mean that one cannot dispose of the money in slightly different ways and have slightly different proposals on how to address the challenges of housing policy. But today, it is primarily the frameworks and the figures that are being discussed. The actual proposals in our respective committee motions and such will be dealt with a bit later.

I also want to take the opportunity to say a few words about Lantmäteriet. I rarely react to things that people engage in on X. People attack each other over the smallest things. But Lantmäteriet's handling of sensitive information was actually difficult to witness.

I do not think that everything should be blamed on the responsible minister, because in some respects we have had an order since Axel Oxenstierna where the authorities are expected to take their responsibility. In that regard, the former director-general has obviously failed seriously with the nonchalance she has shown in this case. We heard in the previous exchange of remarks about what steel bath awaits us and what consequences this will have for an already problematic housing construction. I do not think that has received the attention it deserves.

Yes, Larry Söder, we are very pleased that you like the Centerpartiet's proposal regarding the shore protection. It actually feels really good to hear on a dark December evening like this. But from there to getting this on the Riksdag's table remains a journey, and I truly hope that we can soon debate these important issues.

I can also take a small jab at my Moderate colleague Mr. Beckman regarding the trolling on social media when the same proposal was up for consideration last time. At that time, the Moderates voted no.

To belong to a small party in this context also means that one must monitor many different issues in the committee. We do not have the advantage of being a majority of members who can take responsibility for different parts.

This debate is also about consumer policy and the budget conditions for, for example, the Consumer Agency. Even here we have approximately the same figures, but we are making a principled reallocation that is worth noting in that regard, as the Tidö parties withdrew the funding for the consumer associations last time. When someone conducts a crusade against civil society, as the Sverigedemokraterna do – we also have the folkbildningen and that entire discussion – it is clear that this issue receives a completely different spotlight when one understands what context it is about. We are, therefore, making a reallocation. We would like to ensure that civil society is given the opportunity to flourish.

I can also say that a good bill has been submitted regarding the consumer policy area, and I am very happy about that. It concerns over-indebtedness. Now that I have praised the government, I can also say that they have been forced into it. Given that it is EU directives that have been on the table, it is clear that half the credit for that bill should perhaps go to someone else.

To return to the housing policy, I can also mention something about the Center Party's various proposals.

Freer rent pricing is one part. I do not claim that freer rent pricing is the solution to all the world's problems. It is not. It addresses a small part of the extensive problems that exist in the rental market. We therefore proposed in the committee – the proposal was blocked by the Tidö parties – that a large commission should be appointed to address the collective problems that exist in the housing market. I maintain that when one picks out each issue individually, it easily leads to political deadlocks. Then we end up in a situation where no one is prepared to give and take. But if one takes up everything as a whole, perhaps each respective party is prepared to yield on its positions to achieve a better whole.

My colleague Noria Manouchi spoke about the importance of structural reforms. For the Center Party, it is crystal clear that in the area of housing policy, a large number of structural reforms need to be implemented. But these are structural reforms that perhaps are not primarily handled by the Committee on Civil Affairs. We already proposed during the last parliamentary term – it was part of the January Agreement – a broad tax reform that would aim to address a good portion of the problems we see in the area of housing policy.

We look forward with confidence to the bill concerning the tightened amortization requirement. There have been some mixed signals regarding what the government is willing to do with that investigation. Then there is the matter of start-up loans and opportunities for financing. There are also investigations in the various departments that one can actually dust off and send for consultation to ensure that something happens in each respective area.

With that, I would like to thank you for the floor, Mr. Speaker.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I make approximately the same assessment of the Centre Party's table work as I did of the Social Democrats' table work. It is only that the Centre Party's table work is closest to a carbon copy of the government's table work. There is a difference of 10 million between them.

I also noted in the member's speech that he wanted to anticipate this debate by saying that all serious parties have roughly the same framework, because there is so much money we have to distribute. He then called the Left Party an unserious party. I can state that a party that has even larger spending trousers in this budget part is the Green Party. Would the member use the same designation for them?

The crucial point is that one must be able to implement one's policy. Is the Center Party not in the wrong company when it comes to being able to implement its policy?

The Member of Parliament also spoke about wanting a broad tax reform. How would that be possible with these three parties? I can only state that they have very different views on what tax is and what money should be used for. The Member of Parliament further spoke about their enthusiasm for free rent setting in new construction, which I too will be bold enough to say I think would be a good reform. But how is that possible in a context with S, V, C and MP?

I want to pay a compliment to the member regarding the financing. It is clear that it is an important part of the housing market. We should take a holistic approach sometimes. I agree with that.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Larry Söder! Now I am granted a few more minutes in the speaker's chair.

I actually don't have a handle on Miljöpartiet's total budget, but I look at Vänsterpartiet's budget from time to time because it differs significantly from everyone else's. It is clear that if one intends to have a printing press and can spend money on all sorts of things, you won't get the whole thing to add up in the end. I heard the colleague say that if one were to sum up Vänsterpartiet's proposals, Sweden would still have among the lower public debts in the EU. But the member forgot to mention that those expenditures only apply to a single year. If one counts all the expenditure increases up until 2032, we could end up in a Greece 3.0 - and skip over 2.0.

When it comes to the issue of rent setting, it is clear that not even the government parties are given the opportunity to implement what they would consider a good reform. The Center Party has been very open and clear that we are prepared to cooperate with all parties except the Sweden Democrats and the Left Party. We have extended our hand to the Christian Democrats several times, but you have rejected it time and again. I believe, therefore, that there lies an equally large responsibility on Lars Söder and the Christian Democrats for Sweden having ended up in a situation where two fringe parties can have somewhat too much influence over politics.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In the best of worlds, the Christian Democrats would have 51 percent and decide everything, but that is not the reality. One must cooperate with different parties. I am glad that the Centre Party has realized that the broad center is not just narrow but dead. One must find other coalition partners.

I can state that we Christian Democrats have seen the landscape that exists and have tried to find coalition partners. Our basis is that we are a political party and want to implement the ideas we have. The Tidö parties have an opportunity to do so in certain areas that other parties also consider important, and we think that is acceptable.

The problem with the Center Party is that they do not want to cooperate with any of the possible groups. There is surely no illusion at the Center Party that the Tidö parties would not go to an election trying to continue governing? That means the Center Party has to choose between saying that they could imagine supporting such a government and forming a government together with the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party, who have a different tax policy and a different view on housing policy. But the Center Party has a housing policy that, in figures, is consistent with the policy the Tidö parties have today. Then one can always discuss how one uses the figures and the money.

The Center Party is splitting itself, and unfortunately, it is probably already too far down. One must choose a path. I wonder if the member can answer how one can say that a party in Sweden's Riksdag is unserious, yet still want to be part of and form the basis for a government constellation with that same party.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! I remember my first meeting with the Center Party's parliamentary group after the election in September 2018. We were at a manor house in Lidingö. We were to introduce ourselves to one another. I said at that meeting to Annie Lööf that over my dead body would racists enter the corridors of power in Rosenbad. It is a statement I stand by, proud and upright. I do not think that a party which until not very long ago stood and saluted on Swedish streets deserves to be in my team, where I am dependent on them twice a week to get my policies through and day in and day out must dance to their tune.

Together, the three government parties are fewer than the Social Democrats. If you were not to seek the support of the Sweden Democrats, the government's proposals would fall in every individual vote.

I do not sell myself for access to Rosenbad. I do not. I think that the Christian Democrats - a party that we once had an electoral cooperation with so that you could enter the Riksdag - have made a choice that is completely wrong for Sweden. You give influence to a party that makes a difference to those like me, who happen to have a different hair color than Larry Söder, and others. I believe it is crystal clear where we stand.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! What is a night in Blå hallen, when one has the opportunity to be in the chamber of the Riksdag and debate expenditure area 18 instead? It has been a fantastic debate so far.

A secure housing situation is a basic need that must be met for humans to have control over their lives. In Sweden, for that reason, we must have a long-term and sustainable housing policy for everyone. A functioning housing market means that people's options in life increase. They can move out of their parents' home, move in with their partner, or move for studies or a job in another location. For them to have the power to make these decisions about their lives and for more to be able to realize their housing dreams, more housing needs to be built across Sweden that meets people's desires.

The effects of inflation have hit very many, and the fight against it has been anything but simple. But as several have noted, that fight has now been won, and thus the Riksbank has lowered the interest rate in several rounds.

It is a relief for companies but, above all, for many households with mortgage loans. But the high interest rate has not only hit everyone with existing mortgage loans but also everyone who stands outside the owner-occupied housing market and who wants to get into it, as if entry were not already difficult enough.

Already 14 years ago, the requirements for borrowing to purchase a home began to be tightened progressively. First, a housing cap was introduced which required a 15 percent down payment, and then an amortization requirement was introduced which was scaled in relation to how high the loan-to-value ratio was. After that, an even stricter amortization requirement was introduced.

The restrictions were introduced to reduce the macroeconomic risks associated with household debt, but it can be observed that the downside has been obvious all along: The measures make it more difficult to enter the housing market, especially for young people and newcomers, but also for those who have lived in a rental apartment for a long time and have decided late in life to enter the owner-occupied housing market.

We have now received an investigation that has presented proposals to abolish the tightened amortization requirement and raise the mortgage ceiling. The report must now, of course, be analyzed, and exact levels and positions may be presented at a later stage. In my opinion, this is nevertheless a first step in the right direction, as it is important that the housing market becomes both accessible and mobile.

Mr. Speaker! Now that I am on the subject of the terms for mortgage customers, I would also like to raise an issue that has been somewhat overlooked, namely the interest rate differential compensation upon early repayment of fixed-rate housing loans. Today's rules mean that it can become very expensive to terminate a mortgage with a fixed interest rate prematurely. The interest rate differential compensation can become unreasonably high. This has not been a reasonable model, and I am pleased that a new one has now been presented to tackle these problems.

The change in itself has several positive effects. As I said, borrowers no longer need to pay unreasonable fees. It has also been an unequal treatment where borrowers with a weaker bargaining position have paid more, but now that is being countered.

The most important thing about the change is, however, that one no longer needs to wait to buy the dream home that suddenly became available or that one, for example in the case of a separation, does not need to wait with the sale to wait for the binding period to expire so that one can avoid an extra cost. This is pleasing.

Mr. Speaker! At the end of the 19th century, the home ownership movement was formed – a popular movement with the goal of giving the working class their own housing. As an East Goth, I must take the opportunity to mention what has, in any case in hindsight, been said to be the most significant home ownership association. It is found at the pearl of Vättern, and it is specifically the seaside town Motala, which is said to be the very seed of the movement. In Motala, many properties were purchased which were subdivided into home ownership plots, and the same method was then continued to be used in several different places in the country. The dream of a home of one's own became true.

Today, over a hundred years later, this dream is still just as big for many but at the same time also inaccessible. We have heard several representatives stand here in the speaker's chair and say this, but it is worth mentioning again: A majority of the Swedish people would prefer to live in small houses.

Today, detached houses constitute only about a quarter of the newly produced housing. A major reason for this is that the municipalities have for a long time almost exclusively prioritized multi-family buildings in their planning. This has led to the supply of plannable land not matching the demand. More people should be given the opportunity to realize their housing dreams.

I am therefore pleased that we have now begun the work by tasking the housing commissioner Stefan Attefall to look at how we can realize these dreams. The interim report in the autumn was clear: there is an imbalance between households' preferences and the actual construction. This in itself was no news, but I look forward with pleasure to the final report.

To address this, much will need to be done, above all, I believe, by simply giving municipalities economic incentives to promote the construction of small houses. It is difficult when the land is limited within the municipal boundaries.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that the government wants it to go faster to build. Construction needs to become more cost-effective, and companies in the construction sector need to be given greater opportunities to find new innovative solutions that increase efficiency in construction. New building and construction rules are now being presented which have the working title Opportunities' Building Rules. It is a small step in the right direction.

The outlook for housing construction has, as many have mentioned, been bleak. We are coming from a period of high inflation with a high interest rate level. Talking about regulations may then seem to be a secondary issue, but in the long term and on an overall level, it is however very important that there are the right incentives to meet consumers' demands for both cheaper and faster access to housing.

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

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Member Karlson is talking about issues that have fallen a bit into the shadows, and then I thought I would take the opportunity to bring up another issue that I think has fallen into the shadows in this entire debate.

The Liberals are responsible, through Minister for Environment and Climate Romina Pourmokhtari, for reduced climate emissions and climate work. The Minister for Environment and Climate usually speaks about measures from a broad palette and that one should not put all eggs in one basket.

We know that the construction and civil engineering sector accounts for approximately one-fifth of Sweden's climate emissions and that emissions are increasing today instead of decreasing. According to SCB, emissions within the sector increased by 28 percent during the second quarter of 2024 compared to the same quarter last year.

I therefore want to ask Member Karlson: Is he satisfied with the budget that we are debating? Are certain parts not missing to help in the work of reducing environmental and climate impact?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The member asked if I am satisfied with the budget. I must start by answering yes. Otherwise, we would not have stood behind it but left the budget cooperation. But I can, like several others, state that one might have wanted to tweak it if one had had its own majority. However, my party does not.

It is of course worrying that emissions are increasing, but the government has addressed this, among other things, in the budget. We see that in the long term we need to work on reducing emissions in our country. It is also about sending signals to our global community.

Regarding the situation we find ourselves in, the member's party, which was part of the previous red-green government, was driving for us to shut down one of the most important types of fossil-free energy we had. As the member says, we are in a time where we need to reduce emissions and carry out a historical transition with electrification of cars, industry, and infrastructure. Then they shut down nuclear power, completely unnecessarily.

This has led to the fact that we now have increased emissions because we have, among other things, had to run coal power plants completely unnecessarily. It is a situation that I can only regret and which I hope that we will change. We have seen this in Europe. Germany did exactly the same thing. It also contributes to skyrocketing electricity prices and a volatile electricity market. The situation is far from satisfactory.

I see the concerns that exist, but we have begun to take action to address them.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to emphasize that we are debating committee area 18, which deals, among other things, with the construction and civil engineering sector. This sector alone accounts for approximately one-fifth of Sweden's climate emissions.

The construction industry wants to work on reducing its climate emissions. Fossilfritt Sverige has, together with the construction industry, developed a roadmap for emissions from the construction and civil engineering sector to be reduced by 50 percent by 2030. There are quite a few different measures there, but there are also a number of recommendations to the Riksdag and the government.

The recommendations concern, among other things, energy efficiency, circular construction, and limit values for the climate impact of buildings. All of this could drive the work of reducing climate emissions until the year 2030.

Has this been a priority for the Liberals in the negotiations for this budget? What measures would you like to see the construction industry continue to work on? Do the Liberals want to see the construction industry receive some type of help and support from Sweden's government in this work?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! One must see a budget for what it is, namely a whole. Climate emissions are not explicit for a specific sector. I see no oddity at all in talking about the energy systems that are linked to both the construction and housing markets.

I agree that it is super important to reduce climate emissions in the construction sector, which accounts for such a large share of the emissions. We are in agreement there. I also see the work that is ongoing. Construction in wood has increased significantly. When I am out and meeting representatives for construction companies in different places, I can see that reuse in the construction of new buildings is common. We shall continue to encourage that from a political standpoint.

We must continue to have a fossil-free and carbon-free energy production now that we are electrifying the entire industry and the entire society. In that case, it is a bit strange that the member has this focus, where one cannot include the whole. It does not hold up all the way.

Let us once again focus on achieving a fossil-free and carbon-free energy production in combination with finding encouraging methods and ways of working to reduce climate emissions within the construction and housing sector.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are talking, among other things, about housing dreams - the dream of a home. Sweden's national construction and housing policy should be on the table at the Committee on Civil Affairs, but it is not directly a thick wad of cash that has landed with us in the Committee on Civil Affairs - at least not yet. Why do I think that is a problem?

Let us begin with the Green Party's housing policy. In broad strokes, it is about us increasing the opportunities for more people to live in the way they want throughout their lives. One should be able to move out of the family home when it is time. One should not have to turn down a job or studies because one has nowhere to live. One should be able to live so that the children have space or move to something good when the villa begins to feel too large. One should preferably be able to move to a place where one can feel at home. The minimum requirement is that everyone should have somewhere to live. Without a fixed place in life, the rest of life can become quite messy. And we are not there today.

In Socialstyrelsen's latest mapping from 2023, over 27,000 people were found who lack their own stable long-term housing solution. Over 9,000 children were affected by homelessness, and over 5,000 children had at least one parent who was in acute or temporary homelessness. It is not worthy of a welfare country, and it is something that we need to solve.

Even if we were to choose to look away from the group of homeless, there are many other problems in the housing market to address. In many municipalities, the housing queues are long and the construction rate is too low, and in some places, it is completely non-existent. The gap between what a newly built home costs and what one can afford to pay is increasing. Housing that is in demand is sometimes not available. Today, there are many who are overcrowded who would need to live in larger homes, and there are many elderly who, instead, would like to live in better adapted homes in a larger social context. Then there are all those with lower incomes, not least younger people, who have difficulty entering the housing market at all.

Working with the housing supply today is challenging but so incredibly important. If you have nowhere to live, the rest of life becomes chaotic. We need to conduct mappings and obtain better statistics on the needs. We need municipal and national action plans, start-up loans, rental guarantees, support for housing savings, support for construction, support for authorities, clear regulatory frameworks - yes, a whole palette of measures so that people can gain access to the housing that is so greatly needed.

The government has now presented its third and next-to-last budget this mandate period. What do we find there? Not particularly much, unfortunately – not this time either. But there is one thing I would like to praise the government for, namely that this year they have dropped their total opposition to contributing to housing construction. This concerns, of course, the measures for housing construction around the growing industrial municipalities in the north that we can actually find in the budget. It has been clear for a long time that smaller municipalities with a rapid expansion rate cannot stand alone when entire communities are outgrowing their suits.

Already last year, Miljöpartiet directed a larger investment support for both residential construction and community construction to municipalities that are at the center of the green industrial transition. We are doing so again this year, and I am pleased that the government this year has listened to the investigator Peter Larsson and has picked up some proposals that are in his investigation. It will make it easier for more municipalities moving forward if they do not have to stand alone with the responsibility for an enormous need for new investments that do not necessarily benefit the municipality directly.

We believe that further investments are needed, and we have therefore, in addition to the government's measures, continued a targeted investment support for green community building along with a general investment support in our budget. This can contribute to urban development and housing at lower costs.

The government, in the part concerning the budget follow-up, has some sweeping formulations about the lack of evidence that the investment support has led to increased construction. Furthermore, it is clear that the previous investment support has led to lower rents in the housing that has been built. This is something that is relevant in this context and which the government does not mention at all.

The government has also squeezed in a headline stating that the construction sector's climate emissions are large but are decreasing. They are not - not with the government's policy, which we knew clearly already at the beginning of 2023. But unfortunately, the claims go hand in hand with the government's current policy, where one does not need to adhere so much to what is true or not.

But if one wants to see this from the positive side, one can be pleased that the government sees and acknowledges that the construction sector is a large emitter. But it is of course more disappointing that they do not want to implement any major measures to reduce the sector's climate impact when more than one-fifth of Sweden's climate emissions come from the construction sector. There are also many proposals for reduced emissions on the table. It seems that the government lacks a sense of crisis when it comes to the climate crisis and housing construction. Nothing else is evident from the government's budget either.

When it comes to climate emissions, we are waiting, among other things, for the government to proceed with Boverket's limit values for the climate impact of buildings and measures to increase circular construction. But I unfortunately suspect that nothing will happen in the area because there does not seem to be any major interest in the climate issue from the Minister for Housing or the government, nor in the Committee on Civil Affairs.

They continue to put spokes in the wheels of all measures that could benefit the green transition by, for example, removing the tax reduction for solar power, the so-called 60-öre, and also not reintroducing any support for energy efficiency in multi-family buildings now.

When it comes to energy efficiency, there are several calculations showing that more energy than what Ringhals produced during the year 2020 can be released solely through energy-efficient measures in housing and premises. Furthermore, those measures could protect us from high electricity prices for many winters to come.

Miljöpartiet takes money from our green investment budget and invests 5.6 billion annually to reduce energy use in both homes and premises and contribute with 60 percent of the cost for energy efficiency. In addition to this, we include a new support for renovation measures. This could involve measures that need to be carried out together with energy efficiency specifically to prevent people in economically vulnerable areas from being affected by large rent increases.

We also think that the state should support the municipalities in a better way in the work with climate adaptation in the already built environment. We know that Sweden needs to be much better prepared for climate changes, and that has also been clearly shown to us in 2023 and 2024. We need to ensure that all municipalities can be prepared for both large amounts of rain and longer heatwaves. Nor here do we think that the state can leave the municipalities completely in the lurch.

In order for the municipalities to be able to apply for funds for climate adaptation measures in the physical environment, we are allocating 523 million for various types of such measures. We are also allocating 300 million for urban greenery. We also consider, unlike the government, that the city architect needs a budget for their work and are allocating 10 million for this.

In conclusion, we need a sharper consumer policy. Cutting back on the organizations that work to facilitate things for all of us consumers only creates new problems. Over-indebtedness, not least from consumption, is increasing, and all of us sitting here today know that the consumer market is only becoming more and more tangled and difficult to navigate. We need more support and help as consumers, not less.

Sveriges Konsumenter and Konsumentverket need to be allowed to continue their work. Svanen needs to continue working with its environmental labeling. The work with debt and consumer counseling needs to be strengthened and expanded.

When it comes to both consumer issues and housing issues, there are investigations and proposals on the table. We have repeatedly seen how the proposals are butchered and separated, and they arrive bit by bit, if they appear at all. It would be interesting, for example, to know which party it is that is blocking the rental guarantees for families with children or perhaps the starter loans for first-time buyers on the housing market.

Now I have highlighted some of our initiatives in the area. More than half of the parliamentary term has passed, and given the great challenges we face in many areas, I truly hope that the government, as it claims, speeds up to try to make a difference. Then this budget is not enough.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet does not have a printing press, but we borrow money. We borrow 100 billion, not just for the Committee on Civil Affairs but to be able to invest in the future and in coming generations. We do this so that the coming generations will not have to take the loans that we take today.

That is why we are investing more money than the government in our budget, which means that I cannot reserve myself against the government's budget. I therefore wish to refer to the Green Party's specific statement in the report.

(Applause)

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Expenditure area 18 Urban planning, housing supply and construction and consumer policy - what do I have to say about that? The Sweden Democrats are part of the Tidö agreement, and that means we stand behind the government's budget. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in report 2024/25:CU1.

The Sweden Democrats have also, during the current parliamentary session, submitted a committee motion on the consumer area, where many good and well-considered proposals are presented. We Sweden Democrats work relentlessly and persistently to get these proposals through. In the Sweden Democrats' parliamentary group, I have been assigned responsibility for consumer policy, and therefore this speech will focus on consumer issues.

Mr. Speaker! How do we protect our children from aggressive and manipulative advertising online? What can we do so that gambling companies do not exploit children's inability to understand the economic consequences of their gambling?

As a newly appointed member of the Consumer Agency's oversight council, I received an overview during my first meeting of the gaming industry's manipulative and borderline unethical ways of getting children to purchase upgraded game versions and so-called skins. Relevant questions were asked in the oversight council, for example the following:

How do we handle hidden marketing in social media?

How do we handle misleading and addictive web design?

How do we handle the effects of personalized marketing?

The questions asked at the Consumer Agency's oversight council were many and relevant. The answers and proposed solutions were even fewer.

In my speech here in the chamber on April 25, in the debate on consumer policy, the issue of children's gaming was raised – that is, long before the Consumer Agency submitted its report to the oversight council.

Gambling for money belongs to the Minister for Finance's area of responsibility, but it could just as easily be a consumer issue. I did, however, raise the issue of children's gambling for money here in the chamber on April 11 this year. I then asked the Minister whether current rules and laws capture the problem regarding gambling with skins aimed at children. Since children find it harder than adults to filter and be critical of messages online, they are extra susceptible to advertising messages, especially regarding the trade of skins in various video games.

I believe that the rules for games aimed at children must be stricter than they are today. Skins are bought and sold for large sums, and this is de facto a form of gambling for money.

How then should one approach the problem? Gambling for money is actually illegal if one has not turned 18. I believe there is a solution to the problem. If requirements were placed on BankID for all transactions and purchases of games, skins, and updates, it would make it more difficult for minors to gamble away large sums of money. There is no chance of bypassing such a system because those behind the keyboards have not turned 18, and thus no purchases would be made.

Mr. Speaker! It is not only children who are being manipulated and defrauded in the digital world. Recently, it has become increasingly common for elderly and vulnerable people to be tricked out of large sums of money. All too easily, anyone can trick their way into money through digital signatures and BankID. Here, the banks must take greater responsibility, and if they do not, we in the Riksdag must change the legislation. It cannot continue like this.

Even offensive and manipulative lottery sellers plague our country. I do not intend to go into this further, but the Social Democrats have a great deal on their conscience when it comes to tricking poor pensioners out of their last bit of money.

Mr. Speaker! The analysis is as follows. BankID must be applied more frequently to prevent children from gambling. Furthermore, the banks must build up security systems that block transactions when it is completely obvious that fraudsters are at work. Aunt Astrid, who has not touched her bank account in 30 years, could in no way suddenly want to transfer all her savings to a suspicious account abroad. When all the warning bells ring, the banks must act. A tightening of the control systems is the least one can demand.

Mr. Speaker! During my first year as a Member of Parliament, I served on the Committee on Environment and Agriculture as responsible for chemical policy. Now that I sit on the Committee on Civil Affairs, I realize that the Swedish Chemicals Agency and chemical policy have several common denominators with consumer policy.

In today's society with thousands of industrially manufactured products, both people and the environment are exposed to chemicals and harmful substances. There is therefore a need to regulate and control the presence of these. After Sweden's entry into the EU, it is not only our own national laws that regulate chemicals but also a very extensive and bureaucratic EU legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Despite all efforts by the Swedish Chemicals Agency, uncontrolled e-commerce still occurs, which means that countless products containing harmful substances enter the country. It is especially serious when cheap toys containing harmful substances are imported. To protect our children, the Swedish Chemicals Agency must urgently and purposefully accelerate the work to prevent these harmful products from entering the country.

In addition to harmful chemicals in toys, the uncontrolled e-commerce from countries outside the EU entails diminished consumer protection. Deception, lack of quality, and products that do not meet EU standards and legal requirements are results of the increased e-commerce. There are countless examples of this, but I will content myself with stating that there is a problem in the area.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Björn Tidland, for the speech!

We Social Democrats have in our budget prioritized measures to strengthen consumers' position. We want to increase our appropriation to the consumer organizations to 2023's level by 15 million kronor. SD and the government have in their budget for 2025 reduced the support to 1.5 million in a somewhat unclear residual item that does not go to the consumer organizations at all, and from 2026 the support is completely phased out.

My question to the member is: Can you explain why this support will no longer be prioritized by SD and the government? And what is the explanation for why 1 million extra was invested in 2023, but only half a year later the support is completely gone?

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

Regarding the changed budget items, I can say that consumer protection will remain just as great, given that we are investing more in the National Board for Consumer Disputes instead. The investments are being scaled up gradually. There is, therefore, a chance for the organizations that deal with consumer issues to adapt their operations to the existing budget. That is, well, the short answer.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer!

I note two things here. In his first speech, the member mentioned his commitment to issues regarding chemicals and plastic, which he had worked on in his previous committee. That is one thing. The other is that he now mentions that the money goes to Arn, because more money is needed there to handle the increasing cases. But Arn does not have the same activities as the civil organizations. Arn deals with complaints and disputes. The civil organizations do not.

Sveriges Konsumenter has launched two projects called Mitt kemikaliesmarta hem and Plastkampen. Sveriges Konsumenter participates as experts in government inquiries. They respond to consultations. They participate in hearings. They sit on councils and contribute to stricter legislation. They are an active member of the European consumer organization and cooperate with other consumer organizations, not least within the Nordic region. They provide consumer advice and information in various media. They own the newspaper Råd och rön. We are absolutely not talking about the same activities that Arn carries out.

Was any impact assessment conducted before the decision was made to phase out the support? If so, what did the analysis say, and if not, why was none conducted? Or is it the case that the member knows that there are other actors expected to fill the vacuum that Sveriges Konsumenter leaves behind?

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One can see the political work as having ideas and seeing what the problem is. One probes and sees which authority is responsible for it and so on. A part of the statement is about visions of what problems exist. Then we come up with solutions in committee motions and when we see that there are budget funds. These are, so to speak, two different questions.

Regarding your specific question about budget items, I can say that we have budget coordination, and then we have a committee chair who asks questions. It is a long series of processes and people involved in this, so I cannot go into what the reasoning was in that specific question.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Expenditure area 18 includes, in addition to social planning and housing supply, consumer policy. It is a policy area that increases in importance when Sweden's consumers are facing much tougher conditions than in a long time. It is about higher housing costs, higher energy costs, high food prices, more technologically advanced products, more complicated services, a global market that is expanding, increasing SMS loans, and pensioners who are deceived by fraudsters as well as scam invoices and misleading advertising.

The list of challenges can be long, so we need a strong and clear consumer policy. We welcome the new objective with clear rules for businesses, strong consumer protection, and sustainable consumption.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have in our budget prioritized two important measures to strengthen consumers' position.

Firstly, we reject the government's proposed reduction or abolition and restore the grant to the consumer organizations to the 2023 level of 15 million kronor.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the sudden shift from the government, which in 2023 announced extra support for actors in civil society. It was an extra 1 million to organizations for economically vulnerable consumers. The government expressed at that time that they wanted to increase support to actors in civil society who in various ways promote consumers' interests. Half a year later, in the budget bill, the message from the government was the exact opposite: These organizations were not needed at all. What is the meaning?

In 2024, the appropriation was halved compared to previous years, to 7 million kronor. For 2025, it decreases to 1.5 million kronor in a somewhat unclear residual item, and from 2026 onwards, it is completely phased out. The obvious question becomes, of course: What happened in such a short time, and what justifies such a radical reallocation – that a need for increased support suddenly transforms into no need at all? Now these organizations are trying to survive in order to be the consumers' voice and to be able to influence politics.

Mr. Speaker! Consumer organizations carry out preventive work directly towards the general public through independent reviews and public education initiatives. The EU Commission also emphasizes the importance of national consumer organizations participating in the development of new legislation.

Sveriges Konsumenter is the organization that the EU Commission designates as a partner in Sweden. Sveriges Konsumenter is a strong consumer voice that has influenced laws on warranty rights, over-indebtedness, chemicals, sustainability, and product safety.

It is about our money, our health, and our privacy. That is why Sveriges Konsumenters European work and membership in the European consumer movement are so important. But from next year onwards, the representation of Swedish consumers is at stake, as the government has choked off the support.

Mr. Speaker! Secondly, we are focusing on consumer guidance in all municipalities. The closure of consumer guidance services is now proceeding at a rapid pace. When the Consumer Agency's guidance started in 2015, there were consumer advisors in 270 of the country's 290 municipalities. In today's situation, it is only 161 municipalities that offer consumer guidance, to varying degrees.

Municipal consumer guidance constitutes an important complement to the Consumer Agency and functions as a protection and a support for the most vulnerable consumer groups. It is primarily a matter of democracy and rights to have access to a municipal consumer advisor. It should not matter where in the country one lives in order to be able to receive support.

We Social Democrats propose a new appropriation of 85 million to increase incentives for sustainable consumption. The municipalities can ensure that this becomes a reality by having their own consumer guidance, purchasing the service, joining forces across municipal boundaries, or finding another functional model.

We can remind ourselves that failed purchases of goods and services cost consumers 50 billion kronor annually. That people make bad deals and end up in debt traps hits hard not only the individuals but also their relatives and society.

If we want to prevent over-indebtedness, increase incentives for sustainable consumption and stand on the side of vulnerable consumers against unscrupulous companies, there is only one way to go: All consumers must have access to a well-functioning guidance in their vicinity.

Mr. Speaker! We welcome that the government, in light of the announcement, has tasked the Consumer Agency with strengthening and developing the support for municipal consumer guidance, for example through inter-municipal cooperation, in order that more people shall have access to municipal guidance.

The assignment includes mapping the cooperation between municipalities and spreading knowledge about and good examples of municipal collaborations. The Consumer Agency shall also support the cooperation between municipal consumer guidance and budget and debt counseling, analyze the conditions for cooperation with other local actors, such as companies and the state service centers, as well as analyze to what extent municipal consumer guidance contributes to more complete reports to Arn. The assignment shall be reported by March 1, 2025, at the latest.

We welcome this. But we are a bit concerned that more municipal consumer advisors may have already been laid off before the investigation is complete, and that the government wants to cut the budget of Statens servicecenter by 150 million over the next three years. The consequences of this are that either service offices are closed or opening hours are reduced, which will have a negative impact on the possibility of collaborating with the municipal consumer guidance.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker! Since our framework is larger than the government's in the expenditure area and our budget must be seen as a whole, we will refrain from participating in the decision. Instead, we have submitted a separate statement.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Belle Strömberg, for the speech!

One can be honest and say: It is not in consumer policy where the greatest ideological differences exist between the red parties and the blue parties. Fundamentally, we safeguard a strong consumer protection.

But now the Social Democrats, as a party, are employing at least two agencies, as we know. It is the Gambling Authority and the Consumer Agency, both of which have opened supervisory cases regarding the Social Democrats' lotteries.

When it comes to subcontractor chains, there are very engaged members, not least in the Committee on Civil Affairs, who usually criticize the construction industry for this. They are also present in the Committee on Civil Affairs, even though it is a Committee on the Labour Market issue.

Then it becomes more than remarkable when the Social Democrats have now answered the Gambling Authority: No, we had no written agreement with the sales company, so we cannot provide any basis to the authority.

A professor in civil law says that this is very remarkable and serious.

I must then ask: How does the member think the Social Democrats' ambitions in consumer policy align with the Social Democrats' own actions?

I heard that the member was concerned that many elderly pensioners can be deceived by unscrupulous actors. I agree with that. It is terrible. But the problem is that the Social Democrats, at least since 2001 according to an article in Gefle Dagblad, have had a script that has aimed with surgical precision at precisely the elderly. According to the article in Gefle Dagblad, it has often been people who have been confused.

I would like to ask the member: How does the member think your policy and your own actions are connected?

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lars Beckman, for the question!

I want to start by saying that our party, the Social Democrats, has made a mistake regarding the lotteries. This must never happen again. It is reprehensible. There are many of us who feel anger. We feel upset about this. We have reacted and acted regarding the information that has emerged about how this telemarketing company has acted in the sale of Kombilotteriet's lottery tickets.

The agreement between Kombispel and the telemarketing company has been terminated. We have stated that we will not use external telemarketing companies at all in the future. We have acted. Kombispel's CEO has been forced to leave his post. All board members have resigned, and a new board has been appointed.

I want to express my regret for what has happened, and we say that this must never happen again.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! The problem for the Social Democrats is possibly that you have said at least five times earlier that nothing must happen.

But what is remarkable here is the criticism that, among others, members of the Social Democrats in the Committee on Civil Affairs have directed at the construction industry. You have said that they are unprofessional subcontracting chains. You have directed quite serious criticism at the construction industry, among other things.

But when an authority requests an agreement to see what it looks like and what the scripts for the scam calls look like, you tell the authority: No, there has been no written agreement. We have not done any follow-up on the call scripts, so we cannot provide the call script to the authority.

Doesn't that feel very strange? You have stood here and given speech after speech and criticized subcontractor chains in the construction industry, but yourselves you have done exactly the opposite of how you think others should do it. It must feel very strange.

Then the question is: How will the credibility in other issues be?

The Social Democrats made a move today. A journalist asked the question: How many of those who have been deceived have had their money returned? Then Mikael Damberg answered: It is a huge number who have had their money returned. I know that MP Jennie Nilsson was at that press conference. Other media reports say that no one has had their money returned.

I would very much like to know what the situation is regarding the deceived elderly pensioners. Can the tickets be cancelled? Do the people automatically get their money back? Some media reports show that elderly people have tried to get money back from the lottery but have not received it.

How does your own actions relate to your consumer policy?

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lars Beckman, for the question!

Lars Beckman raises questions about unserious and credible actions. Are we credible as a party?

Then I am wondering a bit about Lars Beckman's own credibility. I am thinking, for example, of when the Sverigedemokraterna were caught running a tax-funded troll factory and spewing out threats and hate. I am also thinking of when Gunnar Strömmer tried to bypass transparency in party financing and tipped off a potential donor that one can bypass the rules with. What happened then? Well, he got a ministerial post.

What do you do when Jimmie Åkesson invites gang criminals to both weddings and his own parties? You do pretty much nothing. Yes, you accuse the investigating journalists of being part of a giant influence operation, and you announce loudly that you intend to continue running the troll factory as usual. You think it is perfectly okay with a half-day's education. Then you swap desks with each other.

Is it credible? Is it serious? Those are my questions back to Lars Beckman.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have a consumer policy debate here in the Swedish Riksdag. Sweden's consumers have had some really tough years behind them with high inflation and a purchasing power that has been eroded.

Men, Mr. Speaker, I would like us to think back to 2022 and how it could have been even this year. I googled a bit on diesel prices and noted that under the Social Democrats' rule, 1 liter of diesel cost approximately 28.37.

Today it costs 17.50. This means that diesel is 10-12 kronor cheaper per liter. Two families in Norrbotten who have two cars and drive 1,500 miles each have therefore saved 30,000 kronor compared to if the Socialdemokraterna had been in power.

It is just one example. Now we are restoring economic policy and household purchasing power with a wise and well-thought-out economic policy. There are large, broad tax cuts for households and pensioners, and the Riksbank can lower the interest rate thanks to the fact that we have had such effective inflation fighting. It will make a difference for households. When we in the Committee on Civil Affairs visited the Sveriges Riksbank, the Riksbank stated that they saw the light at the end of the tunnel. They saw ahead that Sweden's consumers would regain purchasing power.

It is important for households, Mr. Speaker, but it is also important for trade. Trade is one of Sweden's largest employers with approximately 600,000 employees and 140,000 jobs, according to figures from Svensk Handel. These are important entry-level jobs, not least for young people.

Tomorrow we will vote on a new consumer policy goal, and just like the member from the Social Democrats, we do so in broad political agreement. The goal for consumer policy shall be well-functioning consumer markets, balanced and clearer rules for businesses, a strong consumer protection, and sustainable consumption.

This means, among other things, that we want the Consumer Agency and other authorities to make the same journey that the Swedish Tax Agency has made. The Consumer Agency shall be an authority that works actively together with the business community and other actors to safeguard competition on equal terms. That is consumer policy for real.

We just had an exchange of remarks regarding Kombilotteriet, where the Social Democrats have driven thousands of pensioners to the Enforcement Authority. Previously, there was special legislation, Mr. Speaker, which exempted the social democratic lottery when it came to telephone sales. This exemption has now been removed. Step by step, we are improving consumer protection even for lottery buyers in Sweden.

The Government has given the Consumer Agency a clear mandate to review how municipal consumer guidance can be strengthened, and on February 5, the Consumer Agency will present this investigation. Municipal consumer advisors have a very important function in the municipality. Regardless of where one lives in Sweden, one should receive consumer guidance, and even if I live in the outermost village in Norrbotten, I can receive it because I can call Hallå konsument. It is very good.

As Larry Söder said in his post, the government has given a new assignment to the Consumer Agency which means that it should be just as easy to cancel an agreement as it is to enter into it. I believe more than I have stood in an endless telephone queue to try to cancel something. In the best case, you eventually get through, but the ambition is therefore that it should be just as easy to cancel an agreement as it is to enter into it. If I can enter into an agreement online, I should be able to cancel it online. That is consumer policy for real, Mr. Speaker.

We have also given a clear mandate to the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority to counter telephone scams. That is real consumer policy.

The government has given Arn a large financial supplement so that consumers can have their disputes reviewed in a timely manner. The small symbolic fee that we introduce also means that Arn can devote its time and effort to those disputes that are actually to be reviewed.

We have, through EU legislation, strengthened passengers' rights on train journeys. We have introduced a new law where car dealers must inform consumers about fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. It is also consumer policy in earnest.

Ahead of the Christmas shopping season, I would like to remind the consumer who might be watching this debate at 10:30 PM that you hold all the power. Shop locally during the Christmas shopping season! If you have the opportunity to shop locally during the Christmas shopping season, do so, because it is your local retailer who sponsors the sports club. Your local retailer is a part of your local community, so please buy your Christmas gift locally.

A large and accelerating consumer problem that has emerged in recent years is the Chinese e-commerce platforms. If you who see this shop there, you should know that it can be directly life-threatening. You might buy a doll that contains poison. You might buy an electrical product that causes the cord to explode. The government is now working to try to address this at the EU level.

I have personally visited toy stores and pet stores during the autumn, and there they showed concretely how consumers can be deceived. On the platform, for example, a rabbit cage is sold that is said to be extra large, but in reality, it does not comply with Jordbruksverket's regulations. You cannot even have a hamster in that rabbit cage, but as a consumer, this is completely impossible to find out.

I think that the serious payment processors themselves should consider not giving legitimacy to these platforms. A company like Klarna, for example, could say "no, we do not want to be here, because we do not believe it is a good business."

So we make a difference in consumer policy also in this area, Mr. Speaker.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Mr. Speaker! Lars Beckman highlights all those who have been deceived in difficult-to-terminate subscriptions. I share the view that this is a major problem.

That is why we submitted a committee initiative in the Committee on Civil Affairs to limit telephone sales by introducing a reverse Nix register. Lars Beckman and the Moderaterna voted against it.

I would therefore like to have an answer from Lars Beckman. Why do you not want to act in this area and introduce a reverse Nix register?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez!

I can understand the frustration that all political parties feel over how the Social Democrats have systematically deceived elderly pensioners. In an article in Gefle Dagblad, a man told how he, already in 2001, as one of his first jobs, was tasked with deceiving the elderly. He spoke anonymously in Gefle Dagblad and said that it was terrible. He had resigned after three weeks, because he felt so physically ill from sitting as a telephone salesperson and systematically calling the elderly.

It was a very popular list, Mr. Speaker. It was such that the hit rate for those who called people who were 80-plus was 97 percent, I believe it said in the article. 97 percent said yes to buying that lot, while the opposite relationship prevailed if you called 30-60-year-olds. Then it was 97 percent who said no.

I understand the frustration, and I understand that many may find it annoying to be called. But I think it would be a serious intrusion into the market economy to legislate against telemarketing, which is one of many sales tools, just because the Social Democrats have systematically abused this over the last 30 years. I think that is going too far.

When we visited a newspaper group a few years ago, they told us how extremely important the telephone tool was for selling subscriptions. The telephone is therefore a tool to safeguard freedom of speech, democracy, and local newspapers.

I have great respect for those who feel that they do not want to be called, and in that case, just as the member said, there is an excellent opportunity to register with the Nix register. It is very important that that self-regulation works.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Lars Beckman!

When I hear Lars Beckman's answer, it becomes clear that you do not care about those who are actually being deceived. What you care about is hitting the Social Democrats and their lottery. That is the very core of the argument, and I find that distressing.

If you had actually cared, you would have actually supported the measures that we have proposed, partly in the Committee on Finance when it comes to measures against bank fraud which is also carried out via telephone as a tool, and partly in the Committee on Civil Affairs regarding what we proposed there.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that it is populism of the Left Party to say that they want to ban telephone sales.

I do not know what impact assessment Vänsterpartiet has conducted. What would it mean, for example, for Sweden's morning newspapers if they were not allowed to call presumptive customers in their area and ask them to sign a subscription? What would it mean for the democratic situation in Sweden if we weakened Sweden's media? Some of the largest users of telephone sales are newspaper groups, and that has been the case for a long time.

When I use the Social Democrats as an example, it is partly because Magdalena Andersson herself said in a statement that she thinks we should ban telephone sales because the Social Democrats have abused the tool - or whatever it was she said. I have a transcript of it. I do not think it is a strong enough argument to ban telephone sales that the Social Democrats have systematically deceived the elderly for 30 years.

I also think that a proper impact assessment should be made of what it would mean for Sweden's media houses if we adopted the Left Party's model. What would it mean for journalism in Sweden if, for example, Sydsvenskan in Malmö were not allowed to call customers and acquire subscriptions? It is one of their primary sales tools.

I think therefore, at least right now, that it is going too far. There we have different views, and I respect that, of course.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is not easy to be a consumer in today's Sweden. The recent years have been characterized by rapid price increases on basic goods such as electricity, food, and housing, and Swedish households find themselves in a situation that is, to say the least, pressured. When the costs for housing and food have increased more than the wages for both workers and white-collar employees, more and more people have found it difficult to maintain their livelihood. This is shown, not least by the increased number of evictions, as well as the fact that more and more households are stuck in destructive debt spirals.

It should be the responsibility of politics to take us out of this crisis, but instead of tackling these societal problems, the government chooses to prioritize tax cuts for the very richest. Next year, for example, the Prime Minister will receive approximately 4,000 kronor in reduced tax every month. The rest of us will have to settle for 3 kronor cheaper plastic bags. That is not what I call a responsible policy.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party's budget is the exact opposite of the government's. We propose investments that will take us out of the crisis. It is a policy that refurbishes the railway, builds housing and develops, does not dismantle, the Swedish school system and healthcare. It is a policy that both creates jobs and takes us towards a greener and more sustainable society.

In our budget, we do our utmost to stand guard for the consumers. We add, among other things, 50 million kronor more than the government to the Consumer Agency, which is money that is to be used to ensure that all people have access to good consumer guidance. We also see the importance of a civil society with a strong consumer movement, and therefore we increase the financial support to the consumer organizations by a full 18 million kronor – money that we know will do good in their invaluable work.

I can only regret that the government in these times, when more and more households are struggling financially and the number of frauds is increasing, does not see the need for a strong Swedish consumer movement. It is undeniably much that we need to address after the 2026 election, when we take office in a government position.

With that said, I see our budget as a whole and therefore have no motion here today. I do, however, naturally stand behind our specific statement.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 11 December.)

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