Urban planning, housing supply and construction, and consumer policy

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 18 Urban planning, housing supply and construction and consumer policy.

The budget is a holistic solution that contains tax cuts and reforms that will seriously make a difference in people's everyday lives. This comes after several years of forced restraint in the budget, because we took over skyrocketing inflation and, at the very least, extreme prices on both fuel and electricity – which, not least, affected construction in Sweden in an extremely negative way. When the double-digit inflation also led to sharply increased interest rates, it hit the construction industry enormously hard, which experienced what can best be described as a sudden standstill.

But, Mr. Speaker, even though we still have a long way to go before we can call the situation bright, we can now see that the situation has at least stabilized in what is best described as a low-key recession.

In such a situation, it is crucial to strengthen the purchasing power of households, to get the wheels turning, and to create confidence in the future and security. When people have more left in their pockets, the possibility to consume, to invest, and to plan long-term also increases. Therefore, we make it more profitable to work, and we lower both taxes and fees in several areas.

An average family is expected to receive over 5,000 kronor more per month next year. It is not small change, but this is the difference between postponing necessary expenses and being able to say yes to the children's activities, winter clothes, or that long-awaited repair at home. It is also the difference between being forced to move to cheaper housing and being able to demand an owned, better home.

We make a difference to improve people's finances. We lower the electricity tax, and we make it cheaper to drive a car. We halve the food VAT, and we lower the preschool fee. We implement broad tax cuts for both wage earners and pensioners.

Economic policy is not just about taxes, however. It is also about investing wisely in that which makes Sweden stronger. In expenditure area 18, we are taking clear steps to manage our resources in the best possible way and to be able to meet the social needs that exist in the housing market.

We continue to make it easier to build and renovate your own house. More than 1 million rotavdrag were approved during the first half of the year after the increase, which was a much-awaited injection that the industry needed at that time. Now, simpler rules have entered into force for the renovation of houses. This means that people will avoid expensive and unnecessary building permit costs for smaller changes and extensions.

We also continue on the established track of regulatory simplifications for ordinary people. We are making it easier for people to both own and build homes. Next year, Boverket will present the investigation on what we call Sverigehus – beautiful Swedish houses that can be built throughout Sweden without building permits from the municipalities. Sverigehus can truly change the way we build. It can open the door to a private villa for entirely new groups in society.

The basic idea is as simple as it is powerful. Instead of every individual house being tested and assessed in detail in every municipality, a central assessment is made. It is significantly more efficient than 290 municipal assessments and thousands of officials having to look at the same house model over and over again.

Today, most small houses are built as catalog houses in rational factories. Houses that are not unique do not need a unique assessment every time they are built. By assessing the houses centrally instead of thousands of times out in the country, there are enormous efficiency gains in both time and money.

Simplification of regulations is not everything, however, capital is also needed. We are therefore strengthening the Norrland Fund with an additional capital injection – this time of 380 million kronor. In the year-end budget, as you may remember, 300 million were added, and now it will therefore be an even larger injection. This is an investment that shall contribute to producing more housing where industrialization is now creating new jobs and new arrivals, and despite the name, it does not only apply to northern Sweden. With this capital injection, more developers can get started, and we can simultaneously strengthen the economy in the construction sector.

We also want to increase security for those who risk being left out of the housing market, and therefore we are taking steps to enable mandatory rental guarantees for families with children. No family should have to be stuck in insecurity because there is a lack of a way into the rental market.

A consistent common thread since the Tidö cooperation began has been, and continues to be, our joint work against crime, cheating, and fraud. The previous laissez-faire attitude, where such things were allowed to continue and where crime was allowed to grow further into all structures of society, is now gone. Instead, we act forcefully with both resources and legislation to stop both criminal gangs and individual fraudsters. We are therefore also strengthening consumer protection in the housing cooperative market by giving Boverket more resources to monitor certifiers. For us, it is absolutely fundamental that the person who buys a housing cooperative apartment can also trust that the financial plan is serious and sustainable. Cheating and criminal schemes shall be stopped in time.

We are also strengthening Lantmäteriet. This will shorten the waiting time for the issuance of documents and shall tighten identity checks when applying for title deeds. It strengthens legal certainty and counters economic crime.

Even in the consumer area, we are taking new steps to meet a modern market and prevent crime. Björn Tidland will tell more about this later in the debate, so I will not go deeper into the consumer area now.

Overall, this is a budget that both strengthens households here and now and builds a more robust Sweden in the long run. It is a response to the economic situation, to the families' needs, and to the structural challenges that we must solve.

We believe in a Sweden where work pays off, where families get the opportunity to demand owned homes and where housing construction meets the demands of the future without costs spiraling – quite simply a Sweden where families have a stronger position. That is the direction we take with this budget.

Mr. Speaker! I look forward to a continued debate where the opposition answers the question of how their proposals can be merged into one. It is, in fact, very fragmented in the opposition's various amendment proposals, where both investments and savings are often proposed for the same appropriation.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! What the government has primarily failed to do is to protect ordinary people during this recession. If we compare ourselves with other countries in the EU, we have had lower growth and higher unemployment.

When it comes to the expenditure area we are debating today, housing and construction is a central part of maintaining both growth and mobility in the housing market. I would therefore like to say that the economic failure that this government leaves behind is also largely reflected in the lack of housing policy.

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate that the member raised the issue of small houses and the possibility of a simplified regulatory framework. These are important issues for many. But if we are to understand why construction is failing and the housing shortage is increasing again, we need to look at people's material conditions. That is where the very core lies. When interest rates rise, construction costs increase, the credit market tightens, and municipalities find it harder to bear risks, it matters less how strong people's desire for their own house is.

My question to Mikael Eskilandersson is therefore quite simple: If many of those who lack a suitable home primarily due to their economic situation demand a good and affordable rental apartment, what is the Sweden Democrats' plan to meet that need and actually reduce the housing shortage for real?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Joakim Järrebring for the question.

A few comments regarding the higher unemployment and lower growth are that we took over in a situation where there was double-digit inflation and that the higher unemployment is directly linked to the irresponsible migration policy that was conducted for many years under Social Democratic rule.

It is almost the entire basis for my party that for a very long time, an irresponsible migration policy was pursued which caused Sweden to have high unemployment even during economic booms. Now that we are also entering a recession, it hits even harder, because now even ordinary Swedes are starting to become unemployed. But if one goes in and checks the figures to see who it actually is that is unemployed, it becomes quite clear that it is primarily the immigrant groups that have very high unemployment, while the unemployment among native Swedes is not particularly high. It shows how irresponsible the policy was previously.

If I am to answer the question a bit quickly: Social Democracy has, throughout almost the entire last decade, pumped money into the construction industry so that housing, above all rental apartments, should be built all over the country. Even my home municipality now has rental apartments that stand empty because they are simply too expensive. The cheap rental apartments are not produced by building a lot of new rental apartments, but that was a way to solve the refugee issue. The cheap rental apartments are instead produced by those who can afford to live in a villa and owned housing moving out of rental apartments.

We also have a very large proportion of rental apartments in Sweden.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! If Mikael Eskilandersson's reasoning had held up to a fact-check, it would have been a strong contribution, but if we compare ourselves with other countries in the EU – even countries that have received as many or more refugees than Sweden – we see that the development in their economies looks completely different. That depends on what type of cyclical support policy one pursues.

If one, like this government, chooses to lower taxes for the richest and protect their economy, demand also falls broadly, and that is what we have seen in Sweden. If one instead, as we did, had chosen to protect ordinary people's incomes and ensure that the money actually does good in the economy – does not end up in an already fat savings account – the economic situation would have looked different. Had one additionally continued to invest in maintaining housing construction, it would also have led to a higher growth rate and a better functioning housing supply.

My question therefore remains, Mr. Speaker: How do the Sweden Democrats intend for the housing supply to be managed if they do not ensure that construction keeps pace with the existing housing shortage? There, the government and the Sweden Democrats lack answers. How do the Sweden Democrats intend to tackle this challenge before the election and the next parliamentary term? I would like to hear the member answer that.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is an interesting inverted rhetoric when one believes that increased taxes and punitive taxation of the Swedish people, taken as a whole, is intended to result in an improved economy for everyone.

The Social Democrats have presented a proposal that involves nearly 30 billion in increased taxes on labor. To that, one must add approximately 50 billion that they haven't even addressed how they are to be paid. It is therefore enormous tax increases that will be needed with the Social Democrats' policy, and it will hit the ordinary workers very hard. It is simply not possible to tax the rich so heavily, as it is expressed. There is a lack of about 70–80 billion, which is not even close to what can be extracted in tax if one is only to tax the rich.

The housing shortage does not exist in the whole country, but the housing shortage exists in certain places. It exists, for example, in Stockholm, and it also exists in Gothenburg and Malmö. In my hometown and in almost all medium-sized municipalities, however, there are plenty of vacant apartments today. To then pump in enormous sums as a commitment just to persuade developers to build in markets where housing is not actually needed will not benefit anyone. You are talking about entering with 3 billion already next year, Joakim Järrebring, that is, 3,000 million. At least that is what stands in the text. Already today we see that the empty apartments are driving up the rents for other apartments in Sweden because one must recover that cost through the rents.

We have 33 percent who live in rented apartments. If we look a bit at other countries, we see that for example Norway has barely 20 percent.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is important to be alert in the chamber.

I had hoped that the Sweden Democrat member Mikael Eskilandersson would have the courage or the decency to engage in a bit of self-criticism given the developments, particularly in the construction sector, during this parliamentary term. In the month of October alone, 182 construction companies went bankrupt, Mikael Eskilandersson. During the first three quarters, 1,442 went bankrupt. The member claims that the situation is under control. Can the member elaborate on in what way he believes the situation is under control?

What is the Sweden Democrats' message to all those people who have lost their jobs just in time for Christmas? What is the Sweden Democrats' message now as we enter the election year, when every single claim will be fact-checked? I am quite sure that is how it will happen. It is very clear that despite 80 billion in unfunded investments – that is to say, election pork – you do not lift a finger to address the challenges that have existed in housing policy for many decades.

Again: What is the Sweden Democrats' message to the voters and to those who work in this industry?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Alireza Akhondi, for the question!

I do not know if I even made any statement about the situation being under control in my speech. However, I said that we are now in a low-key recession and that we possibly have the worst behind us.

I believe there is a big difference between my and the Center Party's view on the world and the current situation. Not least, the Center Party seems to completely lack self-criticism. It was, after all, a government supported by the Center Party that left behind double-digit inflation and skyrocketing interest rates, which we have subsequently had to manage.

I believe I speak for the entire government base when I say that it has never before been done as much as it is being done right now on the construction side to address all the problems that the previous government refused to tackle, such as concerns with long lead times and with getting the entire system to function more smoothly. It is now that we have made these simplifications in the Planning and Building Act. We continue with simplifications and with reviewing how we shall shorten lead times so that we can get started and build when there is an opportunity, now that interest rates have stabilized again and we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I can regret that we inherited such a bad situation when we took over. It has led to the fact that there are now many people who will become unemployed or have already become unemployed. I cannot, however, really see that this would be due to the sitting government, given that it took over in such an extremely bad situation. How often does one have an inflation that is double-digit?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! The member seems to lack basic knowledge in economics and, for all its parts, also regarding how the world looks. When it comes to inflation, and thus also the higher interest rates that become the central banks' weapons when it comes to fighting inflation, it has been the same everywhere in Europe and around the world. This came in the aftermath of the pandemic and all the support measures that governments of all stripes around the world had to take to combat the economic consequences of the pandemic.

Whoever looks at how each respective country has chosen to handle the problems that have arisen sees that Sweden stands out. We have quite often stood here in the speaker's chair and called for the government's proposals to alleviate the economic consequences that inflation has brought with it, and every time it has been said that they are continuing to work on it. At the same time, we see that 500,000 people are unemployed. We also see that they have 80 billion in unfunded initiatives. They are, therefore, borrowing the money.

None of this will reach this sector. We are still seeing bankruptcy after bankruptcy. The Sweden Democrats beat their chests and say that things are being done. My question to the member is: Exactly what is the Sweden Democrat-led government doing to alleviate the distress in this industry?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite cheeky, and almost reckless, as a member of the Center Party to stand up here and claim that one would do more than the government does. In the Center Party's budget proposal, savings are made point by point. Savings are made on Boverket and on Konsumentverket. More savings are made than investments. The investments are at best modest and at worst completely absent. The savings become worse year by year, according to what I can read from the Center Party's proposal.

To stand up in this situation and say that the government is doing too little, contributing too little, and has the wrong starting value is, for me, almost laughable. What the Center Party intends to do through its budget is, in that case, worse.

I can only state that it is 32 million that are to be cut in expenditure area 18 in 2028. In 2027 it is 20 million, and in 2026 it is 9 million. It is not any large investments we see in the Center Party's proposal, to put it mildly.

We have made significant investments, above all in improving the regulatory framework to ensure that processes move faster and to achieve a functioning system at its core. We have been in agreement that this is what we want. We do not want people to step in and pay with subsidies to force construction companies to build in municipalities where apartments are not even needed.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! This is the government's final budget for expenditure area 18 and its last opportunity to shape Swedish housing policy. Let me begin by saying that it is a relief that it is the last time. After four years with the right-conservative government, it is clear and evident that this is a government that gave up its responsibility – a government that saw the housing crisis burning and chose to look away.

Mr. Speaker! During the Tidö parties' time in power, housing construction has plummeted to bottom levels. The construction industry is on its knees. Evictions are skyrocketing. More and more children are being evicted from their homes in one of the world's richest countries. More and more households are forced to ask the most humiliating question of all: Shall we pay the rent or eat our fill?

The crisis is not a natural phenomenon. It is not inevitable, but it is created by a politics that has stopped caring about ordinary people. The budget we are debating today is yet another proof. This is a budget written by politicians who have lost touch with reality.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish economy has stalled for several years, with low growth, high unemployment, and real wages that have fallen. Sweden is today one of the OECD countries where inequality has increased the most since the 1980s. As if this were not enough, the growing unemployment has struck directly against the very foundation of our social construction. Thousands of construction companies have gone bankrupt, and thousands of construction workers have lost their incomes. With them, we have lost a socially important competence that takes decades to build up but only four years of right-wing politics to destroy. It is a tragedy for every family that is affected, but also for Sweden's future.

In the midst of this, the government repeatedly chooses to prioritize the richest. Taxes have been lowered by 110 billion kronor during the mandate period. It is 110 billion that has been taken away from welfare, families with children, tenants, and security.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party chooses a different path. We tax the banks' excess profits, not the children's food or bread. We raise capital taxes so that those who have the most also contribute the most. We invest in housing for ordinary wage earners, not in luxury-renovated terraced houses for the well-off. We introduce energy efficiency support for rental properties. We convert ROT into a green deduction for owned homes. We invest 9 billion more than the government on the child allowance and 1.3 billion more on the housing allowance. And we state clearly: No child in Sweden shall be evicted. Never.

Mr. Speaker! That is how you build a stronger Sweden: with justice, with courage and with responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! What has the government actually done for those who struggle the most? It has made it easier to evict people, even completely innocent tenants. It has made sublets even more expensive in an already insanely expensive market. It has abolished energy efficiency support for multi-family buildings. It is pushing through conversions that reduce the number of rental apartments. It has removed the investment support, which made it possible to build rental apartments with reasonable rents.

This is not housing policy. It is a betrayal, a betrayal of 3 million tenants.

Mr. Speaker! A second-hand housing unit is not a home. It is a robbery – a robbery where one often pays three times more than what the housing actually costs. The right-wing parties speak of increased opportunities to rent out, and the Minister for Housing pretends that it is a solution. But private renting does not create more homes; it creates more problems. It feeds a market that exploits young people, newcomers, single parents, and everyone else who cannot afford to buy themselves security.

Mr. Speaker! The government leaves behind a more chaotic secondary market, an untouched interest deduction, an increased deduction for renovation, and an energy efficiency support only for detached houses – all to benefit themselves and their own. We others, who are also involved in building the country and paying taxes, have to foot the bill.

Mr. Speaker! Rental housing is the most democratic form of housing we have. One does not need rich parents or large bank accounts. Everyone is welcome here, from single workers to high-income earners. That is how a society is held together. A mixed city is a safer city, and a mixed population is a stronger population.

A society without secure rental apartments is a society where division grows. The government lacks the courage to build away segregation and to stand up for ordinary people.

Mr. Speaker! That courage exists in the Left Party. I stand here today for all those the government does not want to see and whose reality the government does not want to acknowledge. I speak for the person who lives ten years shorter because of their income and their zip code. I speak for the single mother who never breaks even at the end of the month. I speak for the retiree who is forced to move after a 50 percent rent increase. I speak for the young person who cannot start their adult life because housing is lacking. I speak for the worker who saw ten years of wage increases eaten up by inflation. I speak for the immigrant who cycles home food for others but is thrown out by the same politicians he serves. I speak for all children who are evicted from their homes. Their reality is burning while the government blinks. It is a gigantic betrayal.

Mr. Speaker! Security begins with something as simple as food on the table and a roof over one's head. No one in Sweden should have to choose between dinner and housing. No child should have to worry that the key suddenly does not fit in the lock.

But it is exactly this reality that the government has created. What it stands for is the opposite of security. The government stands for division, inequality, injustice and, above all, racism. Bit by bit, our society is crumbling.

Mr. Speaker! It is time to turn the page, not just for the sake of housing policy but for the sake of all of Sweden, for all those who build the country but never get anything back and for all those who have given up hope that the government will see them and recognize their reality.

The Left Party's policy is everything the government's is not. We stand for justice, security, solidarity, and a society that holds together, does not fall apart. That is what Sweden deserves, and that is what Sweden will get.

Mr. Speaker! Now I turn directly to the people, because the government does not care what the Left Party or other opposition parties say. In nine months, you will go to the polls to vote out this incompetent government. You will then have the chance to say: "Enough is enough. We want change. We want security. We want a Sweden that works for all of us, not just for the rich."

I turn to all of you who struggle and toil, who build, who care, who drive, who teach and who save lives: Thank you for everything you do! You deserve better than this government. Thank you for taking your leave of this government in September!

You in the Tidö parties had four years. You promised security and gave insecurity. You promised solutions and gave excuses. You promised to give us a better Sweden but gave us a worse and more divided Sweden.

Now it is time to hand over to those who can do better. We are ready and Sweden is ready, and the future begins when you leave and we take over. We are prepared to take over and change Sweden for the better.

Mr. Speaker! Since the Left Party's proposal for appropriations within the expenditure area exceeds the decided level, I cannot reserve myself in favor of this proposal. The Left Party's budget alternative should be seen as a whole, and therefore we choose to refrain from taking a position and instead submit a specific statement regarding the Left Party's policy within expenditure area 18.

Vänsterpartiet does, however, have a reservation regarding the housing policy goal, and I therefore move for approval of reservation 1.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Early this morning, alarm clocks rang all over Sweden. Sleepy people had a cup of coffee and yogurt with muesli for the morning TV and had a few minutes of calm before the stress of taking the children to school and preschool and getting themselves to work began. This morning, students also hurried to lectures at the college while retirees, who have worked their whole lives, treated themselves to a calm morning. Police officers and nurses finished their night shifts and took the bus home. It was conscripts who woke up frozen in a tent in the wilderness – to defend our country, our freedom, and our democracy for one more day.

It is hard-working people who toil – for themselves and their families but also for Sweden. It is people who fulfill their part of the social contract and expect us elected representatives to fulfill our part. It is those people we must keep in mind when we in the Riksdag make decisions on the budget for 2026.

Mr. Speaker! When the Tidö parties gained the people's trust in 2022 and the government took office, we did not come to a set table. After eight years of Social Democratic rule, Sweden was characterized by insecurity and gang shootings. Inflation had gained momentum, and food prices had become a concept around the kitchen tables. The price of gasoline was 23 kronor per liter.

On the housing side, Sweden had for decades been characterized by a housing shortage, low mobility, and constantly rising construction prices. Despite a booming economy and zero interest rates, it was only in a few individual years that housing construction reached the levels that Boverket assessed as necessary to meet the needs.

At the same time, the pace of reform within housing policy had been low. Apart from an investment subsidy that fueled the price development and pleased primarily the property developers on the stock exchange, the largest reform concerned the introduction of some permit-free construction on balconies.

The only thing that maintained a high pace was the changes of housing ministers. The moving boxes were carried in and out of the housing minister's office faster than in a second-hand apartment in a student town.

Mr. Speaker! In just three years, the Moderate-led government has come a long way. Inflation has been broken down. According to the preliminary statistics presented on Friday, the inflation rate is now down to 2.3 percent, stumbling close to the Riksbank's target of 2.0 percent. The price of gasoline is stable below 16 kronor per liter. And when the police at the beginning of last week presented the situation report on the number of vulnerable areas, it was noted that the situation has improved in both the vulnerable areas and the country as a whole. The shootings and explosions are decreasing, and likewise the crime profits from fraud.

Housing construction has also increased cautiously. During the first three quarters of 2025, construction increased by 8 percent compared to 2024. Much work remains, but slowly we are getting Sweden in order. We have moved from a Sweden that was becoming poorer and more dangerous to a Sweden that is now slowly becoming wealthier and safer.

Mr. Speaker! Seven out of ten Swedes want to live in their own house, with their own garden where the children can play. Unfortunately, it is not small houses that have been built the most during the last decades. Today, it is almost impossible for two young adults with ordinary jobs to afford to buy a terraced house or a villa on their own salary.

That it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to buy their dream home is something that has been noted a lot recently. Arena Idé recently launched a nurse index where they calculated which homes one can afford to buy with a nurse's salary. 25 years ago, a single-living nurse had the opportunity to take out a loan to buy over 85 percent of the homes sold in Sweden. In 2024, that figure had fallen to 57 percent.

Mäklarsamfundet has instead developed a matching index for detached houses where the households' ability to pay is compared with the price of an average villa. The result is depressing: In Stockholm County, only 6 percent of working-class households can demand an average detached house.

Mr. Speaker! This is something that we Moderates want to change. That is why we have overhauled the housing policy – so that more housing dreams can become true. That is why we are preparing reforms of the credit restrictions, where the third amortization requirement is abolished and the mortgage ceiling is raised. That is why we are now making it tax-free to save up to 300,000 kronor in an investment savings account, money that we know is used for a down payment on a home. And that is why we have appointed a homeownership commissioner to get a modern homeownership movement started, a movement that tears down barriers and enables more modern garden cities. Above all, Mr. Speaker, that is why we are lowering the tax for ordinary people – so that one can actually afford their own home.

A typical Swedish family with a police officer and a nurse who have two children of preschool age and who live in a regular villa will get approximately 1,800 kronor more in their wallet per month next year. Altogether, that family will get over 3,500 kronor in reduced tax per month in 2026 compared to 2022.

It is precisely those people whose alarm clocks rang early this morning. This is justice in the true sense. This is how we make the social contract hold. It is through self-sufficiency that people get the opportunity to make their own dreams a reality, for example, to afford a house with a small garden where the children can jump on a trampoline.

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

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, David Josefsson, for the speech!

I hesitated a bit in my previous exchange because the member from Sverigedemokraterna unleashed a number of allegations that I did not have the opportunity to answer. I therefore intended to give David Josefsson the opportunity to show why Moderaterna is still the governing party on the right wing.

It is not particularly serious to blame the high inflation on the previous government. We must be completely in agreement on this, given that it was a situation that prevailed throughout the entire world. And when we look at the unemployment under this government, we see that it is higher in Sweden than in other comparable countries in Europe.

When it comes to the claim that we would have a hole of between 30 and 50 billion in our budget – a figure that Svenskt Näringsliv has calculated, where different assumptions are made regarding employment effects due to the abolition of the care day – it is based on a theory that Swedes would behave completely differently in the event of illness than people do in our Nordic neighboring countries.

This is not particularly serious or characteristic for a governing party, but now the members from the Moderaterna have the opportunity to raise the discussion surrounding these issues and perhaps truly answer the question: What is it that has caused Sweden to perform worse in terms of both growth, unemployment, and housing supply compared to other countries in the EU?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the question! It is an interesting debating technique to say that one did not have time to answer a number of claims from the previous speaker, and so I shall answer the claims that I actually have not made.

If one is to clear up a number of things, one can start by noting that in some previous statement, there was talk of a lack of self-awareness or self-criticism. One can at least not claim that the Social Democratic member is particularly self-critical when it comes to how inflation was handled during Magdalena Andersson's premiership and, for that matter, during Stefan Löfven's premiership.

We therefore took over with double-digit inflation figures. There was also high inflation in the rest of Europe, but we can state that Sweden was characterized by high inflation when we took power in 2022. Sweden was also characterized by high unemployment. One can discuss what it was due to, but that was the starting point.

The interesting question is what would have happened if the Social Democrats had been allowed to remain at the helm. The really interesting question is: Would continued billion-dollar subsidies to, for example, the construction industry have counteracted high inflation, or had they actually fueled the inflation?

I am, together with the entire body of national economic research, convinced that the only effect of adding high investment subsidies and high government stimuli in a situation with high inflation and high cost developments within the construction industry will be that inflation increases further. The Riksbank was very clear: For every krona that the policy gave through fiscal policy, they would have to hammer down through monetary policy with even higher interest rates, and then we would have had a completely collapsed housing production.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to correct the member's statement from the rostrum that the explosions would be on the way down. On the contrary, we unfortunately see that the explosions in Sweden are increasing.

Additionally, I would like to highlight the fact that this government has spent many billions during this high inflation and in this recession, but has chosen to invest the most money in those who are already wealthy. That room could have been advantageously used to ensure housing for the Swedes.

Socialdemokrater and Moderater are usually in agreement that functioning housing supply is a prerequisite for both growth and for people's opportunity to actually get a home. I think that was also a reason why the Moderater went to the election on getting the housing market in order. In addition to promising simpler rules, which we welcome from a Socialdemokrat perspective, they also promised more housing and better conditions for construction.

But the result is clear. It is not some kind of political rhetoric but objective statistics. With the government's policy, the balance has worsened year after year, and Boverket's figures show that the housing shortage continues to increase.

The entire increase in housing production that we achieved during our eight years in government has, in practice, been erased by three years with Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister. Can this mandate period really be called anything other than a major failure when it comes to housing policy?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the contribution!

It is well within the remit of a Social Democratic opposition politician to say that a Moderate-led government is a failure. It probably wouldn't have mattered what we had done; Joakim Järrebring would still have thought that we had failed.

What I find interesting is that people talk about us lowering taxes for the rich. In Joakim Järrebring's world, it is therefore such that a police officer and a nurse with two children of preschool age are the rich. They are the ones who have received the large tax cuts. They are the ones who get 1,800 kronor more in their wallets per month next year. They are the ones who have received over 3,500 kronor in reduced tax compared to when Joakim Järrebring's party ruled. They are ordinary people whom we prioritize and protect, and we ensure that they will actually be able to afford their own housing.

What I find most fascinating in this discussion is that while we are standing and talking in this chamber, there are four party leaders meeting at Ulf Kristersson's home in Strängnäs and discussing what we should do in the next mandate period, how we are to tackle society's challenges. On the theme of the governing party, my questions to Joakim Järrebring are then: What do his government alternatives look like? What will his budget look like? What will a social democratic government look like after the next election? Will there even be a social democratic housing minister, or will it be a Left Party housing minister?

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind that it was a closing statement.)

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Someone may have wondered previously what it would look like to have a right-wing government. Now everyone knows. Now the entire Swedish population knows what a right-wing government can do and what the consequence will be.

Let us clear up a number of things. In 2021, the construction of 54,000 apartments began. In 2022, when you took power, it went from 54,000 to 43,000. In 2024, the construction of 28,000 apartments began.

From 54,000 that were started in 2021 to 28,000 today – that is almost half. How is that better? How can it be better that much fewer apartments are being built today than when you took power? People are not stupid. People understand. It is simple mathematics. We need to build 70,000–80,000 apartments. This government managed to start 28,000 apartments. It is a failure.

During 2024, investments in new housing fell by a full 20 percent, which means that the volume has been halved since 2022. In what way has it become better? I cannot see that.

Does the member truly believe that the funding levels in this budget are sufficient to ensure a functioning housing supply in Sweden? I do not think so. Construction has plummeted. Thousands of construction companies have gone bankrupt, thousands of construction workers and tradespeople have lost their jobs, and the construction industry has lost competence.

Why does the government not present any program or any policy to stimulate construction and restore the lost expertise? I would like to hear that. I believe that everyone who has lost their jobs would like to hear the answer. What solutions do you have? We have not seen any so far.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, for the questions!

Malcolm Momodou Jallow says that people are not stupid. That is how it is, and that is what I think is interesting.

The number of newly built apartments is therefore not the solution to the housing shortage. One must also build the right type of housing. Malcolm lists how many thousands of homes were built during the last parliamentary term. I can begin by stating that one still never reached what the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket) said would be needed to reach balance. And, above all, what type of housing was it that was built? Was it the type of housing that people demanded? Seven out of ten Swedes want to live in detached houses. What was built were small apartments, because that is what the investment support favored. The consequence we see now is that we have a housing shortage in Sweden, but we also have high vacancy rates because the wrong type of housing was built.

That is what distinguishes the right wing from the left wing. Where we believe in free economy, the left wing believes in planned economy. It is often said that with planned economy, there will be a shortage of sand in the Sahara. I would say that with Malcolm Momodou Jallows' logic, one should build a sand factory in the Sahara.

It is therefore not the number of housing units that is relevant, but the most important thing is that we build the right type of housing. Seven out of ten Swedes want to live in detached houses, but that was actually not the type of housing that was built. Consequently, we are facing a failed housing policy. The big problem with Swedish housing policy is that we do not have a functioning market. We do not have a regulatory framework that works. But Malcolm Momodou Jallow does not want to change the regulatory framework.

It is my questions to you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow. What changes would you like to see? What regulatory simplifications, what lead times, and what more buildable land do you stand behind so that we can actually build more housing at a reasonable price?

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! The member says that he wants free economy or market economy.

This market fundamentalism has led to us having Taliban terrorists, market Taliban, in this chamber. They are people who truly believe in the market even though the market has done nothing other than harm the population.

I can say this: 200,000 more are poor today – 200,000 people! With your market logic, households have to borrow money to pay their bills. It results in higher food prices with your market logic. It results in higher energy prices with your market logic. People cannot afford to pay their bills when it is cold. This winter, people will struggle to be able to pay their energy bills. There will be more evictions of children with your market logic. It is clear that I am not for that type of market logic. I am not, because I will never agree to that.

There will be lower growth with your market logic. There will be higher unemployment. You claim that it will pay to work, but today there are 600,000 people who want to work but have no work to go to with your market logic. People in the construction industry are unemployed, and thousands of construction companies have gone bankrupt with your market logic. That, you insist, is what is best for the Swedish people. How can it be best for the Swedish people when life has become worse and worse for masses of people in Sweden?

During a year when all households have been hit by skyrocketing rents, high living costs and record-low construction rates, the government chooses to present the least ambitious housing budget Sweden has seen in several decades. How is the government going to explain to the Swedish people that it is making cuts in the middle of a housing crisis and at the same time claims to want to solve it? I cannot understand that. Answer! Give me and the Swedish people a statement! What do you intend to do to solve the problem instead of focusing on market logic, which does not benefit the Swedish people?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are in the Swedish Parliament, in the chamber, the most beautiful thing we have in our democracy. I think we should have a substantive debate about our political proposals, and we can discuss arguments against each other. But I actually distance myself from being called a Taliban and a terrorist in the speaker's chair. It is unworthy of Swedish democracy, and it is unworthy of the political conversation.

I have thoroughly reviewed what the Moderates stand for, how we are restructuring Swedish housing policy, and how we see that it is not working. There are long housing queues, people who are referred to expensive secondary housing, and people who cannot start a family or move for jobs because the housing does not exist. Therefore, I do not want to be called a Taliban or a terrorist.

I can state that under the red-green government, extremely few reforms took place in the housing policy area. Today, extremely much is happening. We are reversing the development in Sweden, and we are getting the development in Sweden in order. It is not to be a Taliban or a terrorist.

But it is also interesting that the red-green bloc consists of four parties that stand very far apart from each other, and one of the parties describes itself as Sweden's most market-liberal party. It is the party that Malcolm Momodou Jallow wants to form a government with, but it is the one he calls Taliban and terrorist.

I think this debate deserves better, and I can state that the Swedish people deserve better. This is what we have implemented over three years, and we will continue to implement this during the next mandate period. The Tidö parties are four parties that agree on what the problem is and what the solution is, and together we will get Sweden in order.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member David Josefsson for the speech.

I have listened carefully to the speech, and I think that one must listen to what is said but also to what is not said at all. Climate and how we can reduce climate emissions have not been touched upon by the member in their speech. One-fifth of Sweden's climate emissions come from the construction and real estate sector. In addition to the fifth, there are many consumption emissions.

There are climate declarations that measure how much of the climate emissions come from buildings and real estate. There is also a completely ready-made proposal on limit values for climate emissions that can be applied to buildings and real estate. The proposal was completely finished with a path for implementation – it was only a matter of implementing it. But the government has chosen to postpone this until 2030, which is far beyond this mandate period.

Now we see that there are companies in the industry that really want the limit values. They have loaded up and are ready to start, but they are now having the rug pulled out from under their business models. There is no profitability in implementing the proposal unless the politicians set requirements.

There are also proposals from Boverket to introduce a paragraph in the Planning and Building Act to promote reuse in the construction sector. There are enormous amounts of waste in the construction sector that we could use as a resource instead.

Then we have the question of investment support for rental apartments, which would promote climate-smart rental apartments. It would therefore involve both regulations and investment support.

Is the government prepared to introduce the climate limits?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Amanda Palmstierna for the question. It is an important question, and I completely agree that both the construction sector and the real estate sector are important for making the transition.

I was there last week and met representatives from Örebrobostäder, who have made a fantastic journey in reducing their climate footprint by streamlining electricity consumption, heat consumption, and water consumption.

What is interesting with examples like Örebrobostäder is that there is actually no contradiction between saving energy, electricity, and heat and saving money. They showed that fairly small efforts can have a very large effect. If I remember correctly, the payback period for the total investments was two years. What they had invested, they saved in two years with simple things, for example, replacing household appliances, controlling ventilation systems so that they became more energy-efficient, and insulating where it was needed.

But I do not quite share Member Palmstierna's view that it would pull the rug out from under the business sector and companies that we do not introduce the requirements for climate declarations now and instead push them forward to get good data. On the contrary! I do not believe that requirements in the climate declarations are needed to get the companies to do this because it is fundamentally sensible and good.

What is important to do – and the government is working on this now – is to ensure that there are no regulatory frameworks that hinder, that make the investments impossible to carry out, that one does not get building permits to make the changes, or that different regulatory requirements make this impossible.

Now I am a bit outside the budget issue, but producing a good proposal on climate declarations is more important than producing a quick proposal.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank David Josefsson for the answer.

When it comes to energy efficiency, the crux is often that one needs to make an investment first in order to then be able to save money in the operation.

I have visited many actors in the real estate sector and seen that efficiency is problematic. One often needs an investment support, a push, to get started. There was an investment support specifically for energy efficiency for multi-family housing, but the government chose to completely scrap this and redirect it to small houses. The support was incredibly in demand for multi-family housing. That is why it is a bit strange that the member brings up the issue of energy efficiency because it is not an area that you have strengthened. You have rather removed support and weakened it.

Then there was the question of the transition of companies. The government often raises the argument that companies themselves should be allowed to lead the way and that the government does not need to support them with different types of regulations. This is consistent across the housing sector and in all other policy areas.

If there are no regulations, there will not be a level playing field for the companies that actually have good climate work. Then there will not be a demand for their products and services that are slightly more expensive. The reasoning does not really hold up.

The proposal on climate declaration has already been introduced, but the limit values are now to be put in place. It is a well-elaborated proposal that has been referred, and there are a number of checkpoints where the content can be developed and adjusted over time. The proposal is not poorly elaborated, but it is finished. It just needs to be started so that it can meet the real estate industry.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Amanda Palmstierna for the question.

Obviously, I expressed myself unclearly. I said that we are placing an extremely large focus on the regulatory framework, on developing a well-functioning regulatory framework that provides the right incentives. It is also about reviewing which regulatory hurdles exist. Which regulatory hurdles must we change to enable that type of investment?

Let us move on to the question of reuse. The most important reuse is not to demolish houses and build new ones. It doesn't matter how many times we reuse the bricks if the house could have remained standing. In my hometown Gothenburg, there are many examples of houses that were built as residences, were converted into offices in the 80s, and which the property owners now say should be restored to residences. But there are obstacles in the detailed development plans that make it difficult, and if there are no obstacles in the detailed development plan, it becomes new construction standard – and then they still cannot be restored to residences.

It is there that I believe we legislators should place our focus: on enabling.

Member of the Board Palmstierna said: First you make an investment, and then you make a saving. That is how it is with all corporate economics. You make an investment, and then the saving or the return comes.

Of course, receiving an investment grant always improves a calculation. But our point, and what drives me as a Moderate, is that we must be careful with the taxpayers' money. There are a lot of investments here that actually pay off even without an investment grant. In that case, I think it is important that we spend the money on things that actually get done.

However, there is a huge potential in making energy efficiency improvements that are also good investments. This is demonstrated, for example, by Örebrobostäder. And that is something we in this chamber should encourage.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a question that is the very core of what Sweden is as a country: housing. That is where everything begins. Without a secure home, it hardly matters how hard you work, how much you want to move forward, or what dreams you carry. It is the home that determines what job you can take, what studies are possible, how children grow up, and what security characterizes everyday life.

It is the reality for people in our entire country. Therefore, politics must take responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! In the government's own report on results, it states clearly that the goals for housing policy are not being met. The insecurity in housing areas is too high. Overcrowding is significant. Many households do not have their housing needs met. And housing construction is far below the need that Boverket reports for Sweden.

It is a fact. And it is a fact that should make any government act with force. But for three years we have seen a government that has stepped aside, as if housing policy would solve itself, as if the market would fix this entirely on its own.

But that is not how it works, Mr. Speaker. The housing market is not just any market. It is a prerequisite for a functioning society, for a strong labor market, for growth and for sustainable development.

Let us be clear. At the same time as the economy slumped and the construction crisis hit, the government chose to abolish the investment support for building rental apartments with reasonable rents. They also chose to abandon the Sweden negotiations, which were intended to link housing construction with jobs and infrastructure. They simply chose passivity when the situation demanded leadership.

We see the results today: a standstill in housing construction, layoffs in the construction sector, cities and municipalities that cannot grow as they need to, and people who can no longer take a job or start studies because they have nowhere to live.

When we have the final budget debate this mandate period today, regarding housing issues, there is no other conclusion to be drawn than that this is a lost mandate period. On four occasions, the government has had the opportunity to present constructive proposals. Unfortunately, they have deliberately refrained from taking the responsibility that rests on a government. The construction industry, the construction workers, the municipalities with growth plans, and not least all people in need of a home can place their hopes on a Social Democratic-led government after the 2026 election.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have a different view on housing than the current government. We believe that housing is a social right. It is part of the social contract. A secure home should not be a privilege for those who have capital and connections. It should be something that every person in Sweden can take for granted. Therefore, we propose a coherent and proactive housing policy for all of Sweden.

To begin with, we want to introduce a new housing supply act. Today, far too much responsibility falls on the municipalities, without the clear tools that are needed, without national steering and without long-term goals. It is not sufficient. The state must take greater responsibility for the whole.

We want every newly appointed government to present a national action plan at the beginning of each mandate period. It should be clear which housing is needed, where it should be built, and which tools should be used.

We want to introduce state construction stimulus programs and state construction credits to get construction started across the entire country. It is about securing jobs. It is about retaining expertise in the construction sector. And it is about making it possible to build rental apartments with reasonable rents even when interest rates and construction costs pressure the calculations.

It is also about giving students and young people a chance to enter the housing market and giving families with children the opportunity to have a suitable home.

We want to continue building rental apartments that ordinary people can afford to live in. We want to put a stop to extortionate rents. We want to limit the scope for unserious actors who exploit the subletting market. And we want to strengthen the security of tenure and give people security in their housing. It is true freedom, to know that one can afford to stay.

We also want to facilitate the path into home ownership through starter loans for first-time buyers, rent-to-own models, a new owner-occupied housing initiative, and a state bank that is used more actively to increase competition in the mortgage market. No one working full-time should be excluded from the possibility of owning their home, if that is what they want.

Mr. Speaker! This is what is missing in Sweden today. This is what the government is unable to deliver: a whole, a direction, a leadership.

When this government came to power, it promised to take responsibility. But instead, it has abandoned people. Housing construction has collapsed. Overcrowding is increasing. Safety is decreasing. And it is ordinary people who pay the price for a policy that lacks both direction and responsibility.

More young people are staying at home, even though they have permanent jobs. More families are stuck with secondary rentals that eat up the entire income. The housing shortage stifles the possibility of taking the jobs that the industry, the welfare sector, and the construction sector are screaming to fill.

But it can be changed, Mr. Speaker. This is not predestined. It is about political priorities and political decisions.

We Social Democrats stand for a housing policy that builds Sweden stronger. It is a policy that sees the home as a right, not a speculative commodity. It is a policy that makes it possible for people to work, study, start a family, and live their lives in security. It is a policy that gives industry and the labor market the opportunity to grow. It is a policy that holds our country together.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden can do better than the housing policy that this government delivers. And Sweden will become better when we once again get to take responsibility for the housing issue.

(Applause)

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Joakim Järrebring for his speech.

Seven out of ten Swedes want to live in their own house. But high prices make it an impossible dream for many ordinary Swedes.

Unfortunately, I heard quite little in the member's speech regarding this specific issue. My questions to member Järrebring are therefore: Do the Social Democrats share the Tidö parties' ambition that more families should have the means to buy their own house? Do the Social Democrats share our ambition to increase small house construction, so that we can build more garden cities? Do they share our ideas on Sverigehus and type-approved houses? Do they share our idea of regulatory simplifications?

In short: What policy does the Social Democrats want to pursue to get more small houses that ordinary people can afford? How are the police officer and the nurse going to be able to afford their dream home if the Social Democrats and the red-green parties were to decide?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank David Josefsson for the questions. The simple answer is yes. We Social Democrats see the same need. More small houses need to be built. We need to create better conditions for people who want to live in their own home to own their own home. That is also what I said in my speech.

The great challenge today is the material conditions under which the Swedish people live. I think this government completely misses that. We have low growth and high unemployment. Prices for food and other everyday goods have skyrocketed. Ten years of real wage increases have been erased. Consequently, it is to a large extent the case that the material conditions prevent people from taking the step into owned housing.

The housing shortage is large, so more needs to be built. We need to build more of both rental apartments and condominiums – perhaps not as many condominiums, as that is primarily what has been built in recent years. But we also need to build more small houses.

The question for which the government is still answerable is: How are we to get the material conditions to grow and come to everyone's benefit? It is not possible with one of Europe's lowest growth rates. It is not possible when there are half a million people in unemployment and there is no active labor market policy that helps people into work. There, the government is answerable to the opposition and the Swedish people.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Joakim Järrebring for the answer. It is positive that we agree both on the fact that we need to build more small houses and that household finances are crucial in order to be able to afford it. But in that case, I have a follow-up question. The Social Democrats propose in their budget motion that a mortgage tax of a total of 12.6 billion kronor should be introduced. These are funds that households will need to pay through increased mortgage interest rates, because the banks are taxed on their interest margins, which will therefore unambiguously need to increase.

The mortgage tax is comparable to a property tax but is fundamentally even more unfair. The fact is that the person who is most heavily indebted is also the one who pays the most in tax. If one has a loan of 3 million kronor, which is not an unreasonable amount in a large part of Sweden, the mortgage tax becomes over 600 kronor per month. If one has a mortgage of 5 million kronor, which unfortunately is not an unusual loan amount for a family with children who have just bought a house in Stockholm, Gothenburg, or Malmö, the mortgage tax becomes over 1,000 kronor a month. If one, on the other hand, is a CEO in their 60s with grown children and completely debt-free, one avoids the tax entirely.

Therefore, my questions to Joakim Järrebring, Mr. Speaker: How will this tax ensure that more families with children have the material conditions to buy their own house? And what is the fairness in that the family with small children who has just bought a house has to pay the most, while the director without a loan does not need to pay anything?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank David Josefsson for the opportunity to clear this up.

The Moderates and large parts of the government base are spreading the claim that this would be some kind of punitive taxation on housing loans. For it to work exactly in the way the Moderates outline in their scenario, one must first assume that there is no functioning competition on the banking side. Secondly, it would mean that the interest net, which is what it is about to tax, continues to be as large as before and that the banks maintain the same large difference between the deposit and lending rates. It would presuppose that one does not take into account our entire policy, with an active state bank that ensures that competition functions.

I am not worried about the scenario that the Moderaterna are painting of the effects of our bank tax on the interest net. If the tax were to have the effects that the Moderaterna and the Tidö base claim – à la bonne heure, then one can change it. But we see no signs at all that it would be the effect of our proposal.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! To provide a framework: In the budget that the Riksdag has adopted for 2026, our expenditure area is not an island of its own, but it interacts with others. And history plays a role.

Through a restrained fiscal policy, the government has fought inflation, which was over 10 percent when we took over. It is now down to nearly 2 percent, which is a level we desire – even a little lower.

In 2026, an average family with two children living in a villa, with a police officer and a nurse, will have 1,800 kronor more in their wallet per month compared to 2025. The reduction in the price of fuels, corresponding to 500 kronor per tank for diesel, we have heard about earlier in the debate.

We are adding an additional 200 billion to this budget to make a historic investment in the infrastructure, which has been neglected for a very long time. In total, we are investing 1,200 billion in it. We are also making a historically large investment in technology research.

The government has announced a proposal in the budget to temporarily lower the employer contributions for persons between 19 and 23 years of age. Parts of the major benefit reform will be implemented during 2026, with activity requirements for social assistance and the job premium. Through the benefit reform, both the incentives and the opportunities for people to enter employment and leave social assistance are strengthened. We are also investing in the expansion of education that leads to jobs, for example, labor market training and education at universities of applied sciences and vocational adult education.

This will obviously have an effect. GDP will, according to the figures available, increase by approximately 3 percent during 2026.

This is the actual situation in the budget as a whole.

Let me now move on to the housing issue. It is 61–62 percent who own their home – 39 percent detached houses, 21–23 percent condominiums. How does that then square with how people actually want to live? Seven out of ten want to own their home. Primarily, it is for the sake of security. It feels stable, and one has the opportunity to adapt their housing according to their own needs.

The greatest challenge is obviously in the large cities, such as Stockholm and Gothenburg. There, the supply of owner-occupied housing is less than the demand. A large majority of the housing that the municipalities in and around the large cities build are rental apartments. According to Boverket's analyses and SCB's statistics for 2024, approximately 70–75 percent of all new homes are built in the large city counties: Stockholm, Skåne, and Västra Götaland. The rental apartments account for between 50 and 65 percent there.

Seven out of ten want to own their home, but six out of ten of the homes we build are rental apartments. We are therefore building something that people do not want to live in. During 2025, only 5,700 small houses will have been built. Everyone understands it: If we are to build based on where people want to live, we must make more of an effort to build more small houses.

On December 1, a new regulatory framework for building permits came into force. The changes mean that more measures can be carried out without a requirement for a building permit. The purpose is to create more housing and increase the property owner's opportunities to decide over their own property and how it should be developed. I mean that it is the biggest change of PBL in 15 years. It was a Christian Democratic minister who did it last time.

The government has made it a priority to maintain the line one had from the beginning to simplify rules and to create opportunities for the individual property owner to be able to develop their property in a simpler and smoother way. During the mandate period, it has been a priority area for the government to address the structural obstacles that characterize the housing market, so that the Swedish construction and housing market is better equipped when the economic cycle finally turns upwards again.

During the mandate period, several steps have been taken to allow the garden city to emerge in more places. This has occurred both by appointing a cottage owner commissioner in the form of Stefan Attefall and through new tasks for the county administrative boards to not only inquire about what is being built in the various municipalities but also why it is not being built based on what people demand, that is, private homes.

Trädgårdsstaden is not just a type of housing but a mixed development that creates opportunities for safety and a calmer environment. The Government has also reviewed which land the state owns that can be sold to the municipalities to build more small houses.

One of the authorities that people have had views on is Lantmäteriet. We have discussed it quite many times here. People think it takes too long and is too expensive to get permits. The Government has appointed an inquiry into Lantmäteriet's organization. The inquiry was appointed by the Government for the purpose of improving the conditions for both the state authority Lantmäteriet and the municipal land survey authorities to conduct an efficient, uniform, and legally secure land registration.

What we have seen since the investigation was appointed is that processing times have decreased, which is good. But more measures are certainly needed for the individual citizen to feel that the changes are sufficient.

The government has initiated and implemented a change so that coordinate-determined property boundaries can now be used. Coordinate-determined property boundaries have several advantages. Among others, it can mean a reduced workload for marking work and thus lower land readjustment costs for the individual.

This is an important step to shorten the lead times of the land survey authorities. There is also room for significant streamlining of the community construction process when the system becomes digital. It enables new working methods, which in turn can streamline the work of the municipalities and Lantmäteriet and shorten the lead times.

In the budget, the government has also, just as we heard earlier, signaled an increased mortgage ceiling and reduced amortization requirements. This will facilitate mobility in the housing market and make it easier for young people to enter the housing market. It is welcome for very many people and will certainly increase the demand for small houses.

Student housing is also something that has been worked on. Now, it is possible to build more efficiently and cheaper for the individual tenant. This is because a number of changes have been made aimed at using every square meter in the best possible way. Not all student housing needs to be accessibility-adapted, but 20 percent must be. This means that more apartments can be obtained on the same areas, and thus a lower cost for the individual can be achieved. Despite this, the accessibility adaptation can be provided for those who need it.

As we heard earlier, the government has used a number of indicators to assess the results of the previous year's efforts, just as Joakim Järrebring from the Socialdemokraterna said. Overall, the government assesses that the measures taken have contributed to the goals but that the goals have not been achieved.

The government assesses that we must continue with the direction we have. It is a lack of available building land and long processing times within planning and construction. Many households do not have their housing needs met. This is due to a lack of competition and a lack of long-term perspective regarding sustainable construction, as well as the fact that the insecurity outdoors is all too high.

Therefore, the government's work must continue to focus on increasing the availability of developable land and simplifying in order to reduce the lead times from idea to finished house. But one also needs to look at the total cost of building housing, where the state and municipal fees are a large part that is unfortunately skyrocketing.

It is also difficult to penetrate what the costs themselves consist of in the municipal fees, and they differ very much between municipalities. It is a task that the government must do in the future in order to be able to make it cheaper and better.

Another part we are going to discuss today is consumer policy. I will move on to speaking about that. Fraud over the phone, SMS, and other electronic communication services is a widespread problem. During 2023, approximately 29,000 telephone frauds were reported to the police, and the total gross profit was estimated at over 700 million kronor.

It is terrible to say gross profit, because it is people who have been affected. Among private individuals, the frauds hit primarily older people, and the costs for the business sector as a result of all types of fraud were estimated at 4.5 billion kronor during 2023.

New proposals have been submitted by the government to prevent telephone scams. This can, among other things, be achieved by requiring operators who provide telephony and SMS to be obliged to block calls and messages suspected of being used for scams or to mislead a larger group of recipients.

Food prices hit the entire population, but they hit families with children the hardest. The continued high food prices are particularly noticeable for households with lower incomes that spend a larger share of their income on food. In the budget bill for 2026, the government announced the proposal for a temporary reduction in VAT on food, as one of several measures regarding Swedish food prices. With that proposal, the food basket for a family with children will be 6,500 kronor cheaper per year.

But the government is not content with merely reducing the VAT on food; it also focuses on ensuring that this has an impact for the consumer. The government has tasked the Consumer Agency, together with thea Konjunkturinstitutet, to monitor and analyze the development of food prices, as well as to analyze whether the temporary reduction of the value-added tax on food from April 1, 2026, will be fully reflected in food prices. Consumer protection needs to be strong. Even when we make VAT reductions, it must benefit the consumer directly.

We are also working with consumer protection in online sales. The Government has previously strengthened consumer protection online through a number of proposals, including through clearer information and facilitating the ability to cancel a purchase. Additionally, websites and apps shall introduce a withdrawal button that makes it easier to cancel an entered agreement. It should be easy to do the right thing, as someone said. That is roughly the principle that applies here as well.

The government has proposed changes to the Travel Guarantee Act aimed at strengthening consumer protection and reducing costs and administration for the travel industry's actors. The travel guarantee system is changed in such a way that a collective fund is established, and the individual guarantees that each travel actor arranges are reduced in size. This is a requested change that in the long run will strengthen both the consumer and the companies, even if it becomes slightly more expensive for the companies at the beginning.

The government has placed a special focus on children and young people, and this is clearly evident in the work of focusing on the impact on young people in marketing through influencers. Almost all children and young people in Sweden use and spend a lot of time on social media platforms. There, they are reached by advertisements and purchase prompts that are more or less clear to children, not least in the form of influencer marketing. The fact that platforms fulfill important social functions makes the commercial messages extra powerful. It also has a direct impact on children's and young people's ability to maintain a critical stance and defend themselves against the messages.

Influencers who do advertising need to be scrutinized further and more clearly, not least against the background that children and young people are often the recipients. It can be difficult to understand that it is indeed advertising when the message comes from someone that one looks up to, especially for younger people. Algorithms, filter bubbles, and the amount of content on social media can at the same time make it even harder to see through unserious marketing, compared to, for example, commercial breaks on TV where it is quite clear that it is advertising.

Consumer policy is about finding an interaction between consumer and seller in a clear way that is good for both parties. But above all, it is about limiting frauds that occur both by being deceived through advertising or on the phone and by selling a product that is dangerous.

We have some work left to do together, but I believe the government has worked to ensure that we as a nation catch up with the new ways of selling and advertising products.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Larry Söder, for the speech!

I and Larry Söder have had similar debates earlier regarding this fact that seven out of ten want to own their homes. However, I am not getting any wiser, so I thought I would try one more time so that I might get a better explanation that makes me understand. Seven out of ten want to own their homes; they want small houses, as is often talked about, condominiums or villas. I want to clarify that from the Vänsterpartiet side, we want mixed housing. We think it is good. As I said in my speech, it becomes a better society when one has mixed stocks of rental apartments, condominiums, small houses and villas. It is positive for society with a mixed housing.

There is, however, something that I cannot understand. We have a situation where 200,000 more people are poor. We have a situation where households borrow money to afford to pay for basic needs, namely food and rent. We have a situation where one cannot afford to buy food because food prices are increasing. We have a situation where one cannot afford to pay the electricity bills because energy prices have gone up, especially now during the winter. We have a situation where more children are being evicted than ever before. In my home municipality Malmö, there are several children who are homeless after having been evicted.

How are people in this situation supposed to afford to buy their homes? I just want to understand. What opportunities are there? What is the policy you want to pursue that will help the single mother who risks being evicted because she cannot afford to pay her rent or buy food for her children? How are you going to ensure that this mother can buy a villa?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We heard earlier in the debate that a common family with two parents with average income and two children do not have the opportunity to request their own owned home. That is where the problem itself lies. If more had been able to own their home, we would have had rental apartments available for those who actually want to live in a rental apartment.

I believe that this is what is stopping the movement in the housing market. We have people living in the wrong type of housing. We must help those who want to live in owner-occupied housing to take the step, and we can do that with lower amortization requirements and higher mortgage ceilings. But we can also try to help people get into work so that they can move forward to an owner-occupied home.

I agree with you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, that it is terrible that children are being evicted. There are three municipalities that stand out in this: Göteborg, Stockholm and Malmö.

I would like to ask Malcolm Momodou Jallow: How can we help your party colleagues so that they can stop evicting children in these municipalities? We do not want children to be evicted. But in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö, this is being done. We need help from the opposition to find the keys so that these municipal politicians understand that this is not the way we can move forward. All people are equally worthy, and we must ensure that they have a roof over their heads.

I want to ask another important question to Malcolm Momodou Jallow. Condominium owners have received increased fees of approximately 10–15 percent for three years in a row. That is a fairly large part of the costs in their lives. Many of them are forced to sell their homes. How does Vänsterpartiet want to help these condominium owners to be able to stay in their homes?

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with much of what Larry Söder says about children. I share his view. I am passionate about children, and I think it is important that children are not exposed to such things. Children have nothing to do with the matter; rather, it is society that is built in a way that does not create conditions for children to be able to live a decent life. We politicians have a responsibility to work to improve the situation so that children do not have to be homeless, all this primarily according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is law in Sweden.

Larry Söder does not answer my question. He states that there are households that cannot afford to buy their homes. I know that, and there are more of them today than ever before. It is okay if people want to own their homes. But since there are more and more who cannot even afford to buy food – how are we then to ensure that they go from being poor to buying their own homes, which cost millions of kronor? To me, it is not reality-based. If a person or a household cannot afford to buy food, the first thing one thinks of is not to buy a villa that costs 5–10 million. Therefore, I cannot understand the idea of and the entire enthusiasm for everyone owning their homes.

I want very much, and many people want so much. But one must also take into account what conditions exist to be able to achieve what one wants. In the situation we find ourselves in now, the majority of households cannot afford to buy their homes. Then we must focus on creating jobs so that people can afford to buy food and pay their rent. Then we can talk about whether they can buy a villa that costs 10 million. That is more reasonable in my world, at least.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think that everyone wants to live in their own owned home, but I believe that seven out of ten want to.

What we are trying to do is to make it easier for them by securing more buildable land and by making it easier for people to manage their amortizations. We want to ensure that inflation goes down so that interest rates fall and people can pay their interest. We are constantly trying to move in that direction.

Vänsterpartiet does the opposite. When seven out of ten want to live in owner-occupied housing, you would prefer to build so that seven out of ten homes in Sweden become rental apartments. It is in the opposite direction of what people want.

Malcolm Momodou Jallow did not answer my question. What is the Left Party's message to those who live in condominiums and who also face increased costs? They do not live in rental apartments, they live in condominiums, and their fee increases by 15 percent every year just because they own their home. Is that right? Does the Left Party want to introduce some type of subsidy for them so that they can stay? Or does the Left Party think they should move? It is, after all, their home.

I also did not hear what alternatives Malcolm Momodou Jallow had for me so that I can help the municipal politicians who rule in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö, where more children are being dumped than in the rest of Sweden. What are the incentives we can help them with so that they do not expose the children in this way?

I care about the children, not with the lips' confession but with the heart's confession. One must find measures for this, even if one sits in a government.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! It looked as if Larry Söder tried to flee from the rostrum, but I hope that was not due to me! It is always pleasant to debate with Larry Söder.

We are four parties in this assembly who, due to the Riksdag's working methods, are only allowed one speech in this budget debate, even though there are two different areas that we are discussing. In my first speech, I therefore intended to take the opportunity to ask questions regarding the consumer organizations.

Last week we had a committee initiative from Miljöpartiet that the united opposition wanted us to motion for approval of. Unfortunately, the government parties chose to brusquely reject it, and therefore one cannot even continue the further preparation of the good proposal. Similarly, this has been the case with almost everything that the respective parties have proposed during this mandate period.

Larry Söder pointed out very clearly and pedagogically the importance of safeguarding consumers' rights given how society has changed. But beyond the EU proposals that the government has been forced to implement – the travel guarantee is a bad example, Larry Söder, given that the travel industry as a whole has been deeply critical of it – what do you plan to do during the remaining time of the mandate period so that it does not become four completely lost years?

It is my question in this round. I have other questions in the next reply.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to consumer organizations, it is actually Sveriges Konsumenter we are talking about.

The government alternative saw quite early during this mandate period that the National Board for Consumer Disputes needed more money and that it had to be solved in some way within the framework that was available. Therefore, money was simply taken from the organizations and added to the National Board for Consumer Disputes. We also gave the National Board for Consumer Disputes an opportunity to charge a fee for the cases that come to it. In this way, they can strengthen their funds to be able to work on the cases so that they do not take so much time. Cases can also become cold, that is, it takes too long for the consumer to be able to get justice at the other end.

It is that which is now being phased out, that is to say, Sveriges Konsumenter will receive no grant from 2026. We stand by that part.

I do not want to say that we "abruptly" rejected the committee initiative, but we rejected it directly based on the discussion we are having today. We have a budget debate, and every party has the opportunity to include its parts in its budget and argue for them. We did not think that having two debates was necessary. We think it is good to keep it together in one debate, and therefore we chose to reject that committee initiative, quite simply. Since the majority looks like that in the committee, it was perhaps not so strange.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Larry Söder – I promised to stick to another issue in this reply, and I shall honor that.

The Christian Democrats sit on the right portfolio to address the decades-long challenges that have characterized the housing market. The result of this has been three or four propositions that have been submitted during 3 ½ years. When it comes to the many tax cuts, I, as a member of the Centre Party, naturally add that people should get more money in their pockets, so that is not where the shoe pinches.

When we speak with property owners, developers, tenant organizations – everyone who works and operates in this industry – they raise one aspect, and that is the macroeconomic issues, that is, the crowns and cents in the calculations. That is where the shoe pinches, and during this mandate period, unfortunately, these investments have been conspicuously absent. People talk about removing the tightened amortization requirement, and there is probably a fairly broad consensus in this chamber that it should be removed.

But where is the rest? Where are the restart loans, the housing subsidies, and the reduced taxes for this sector that is now bleeding? Where are all the investments that could lead to reduced costs for construction and thus lower rents, but also lower costs for the people who we all want to be able to fulfill their dreams and live in their own home?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! A government does not have only one tool to use, namely propositions to the Riksdag, but one also has other paths to take. One can also issue a number of directives that the authorities are to work with, and in that regard, the government has worked quite a lot. Boverket has received a good deal of assignments, and so have the county administrative boards.

One of the clearest assignments that not only this government but also the previous government has given concerns more modern building regulations, where one moves away from speaking exactly about how it should look to instead speak about function. I believe that will make it possible to build innovatively and, in the long run, much cheaper.

By changing the PBL, we have tried to make the lead times shorter, that is to say, if we can remove a large part of the building permit management from the municipality, they can use the time for what they are supposed to do, that is to say, larger plans that result in more housing. This can also reduce the costs for the individual to build.

That the state sells off some of its land is also an example of such things that are done. It does not need to go through the Riksdag. It is done to produce more land, because it is more land that is needed in order to be able to build. We know that many municipalities sit on land that they would gladly keep because the market price is constantly increasing and they want the last crown. We think that is wrong, but it is the municipalities themselves that can decide that.

I think it is unfair to say that nothing has happened, because I believe that quite a lot has happened. On the other hand, we have never had a focus on the individual year being the most important, but it is the long-term perspective that is the most important.

When we enter the next recession, Sweden must be better equipped so that we can build in a more efficient way and perhaps not see such a decrease in the construction rate as we have done this time. That is what has been important for us, not that we should win the individual year.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Larry Söder, for the speech! In this exchange, I thought we would talk about consumer policy.

I am completely convinced that Larry Söder in his heart protects the consumers, that he stands on the side of our children and young people and that he finds value in standing up for those who do not have a strong voice themselves.

Therefore, I cannot understand the historical reversal. Correct me if I am wrong, but there was once a Christian Democratic consumer minister, Inger Davidsson, who introduced the state support for Sveriges Konsumenter because you saw the value of an independent consumer voice both in Sweden and in the EU.

Now you stand behind a budget that removes all of this support. The consequences are completely clear: fewer audits, fewer referrals, less presence in the EU and a quieter consumer voice, now that the market is more aggressive than before.

My question to Larry Söder is how this aligns with your tradition of safeguarding civil society and standing on the side of the weak. Why do you choose to silence this consumer voice which a former KD minister, who truly wanted to safeguard this organization, himself built up?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam President! I will honestly say that my memory probably does not stretch back that far. During the years 1991–1994, Inger Davidson was Consumer Minister. It may very well be as Anna-Belle Strömberg says, that this was introduced then. I take the member's word for it.

In this question, we have a framework to stick to. We are in a situation where inflation is quite high, and we need to bring it down. We need the money to do other things in Sweden. There was no possibility to increase the framework, so one must do something within the budget.

For me, it was quite important that the consumer who reports to the National Board for Consumer Disputes receives an answer within a reasonable time. What applied to the National Board for Consumer Disputes just then was that the processing time was long. The number of cases increased significantly, and we felt compelled to allocate more money to the National Board for Consumer Disputes. We took them from the consumer organizations. I had personally, of course, wanted to keep both, but the situation is as it is sometimes.

Now one can see that the National Board for Consumer Disputes has used the resources they received. Anna-Belle Strömberg and I have seen figures showing that things are going much better for the National Board for Consumer Disputes. They are working down their queues. People are getting answers to their complaints earlier. It has had an effect. How it will be in the future we can always discuss. But that was the historical picture, and that is why it has become as it has become. There is no money for the other organizations in 2026.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Madam President! Thank you for the answer, Larry Söder! It is quite true that things are going fairly well for Arn right now. But we must remember that Arn is an authority that adjudicates disputes between consumers and companies. Sveriges Konsumenter is an independent voice to influence consumer protection in society and ensure both economic and ecological sustainability. They do not have the same mandate.

Sveriges Konsumenter is the only Swedish organization that represents our consumers in the EU. My question is how Larry Söder intends for Swedish consumers to have a voice in the EU's legislative process. You are abolishing the actor that sits at that table, reviews proposals, and balances the power of the business sector. Arn is not sitting there.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam President! Sweden as a whole simply must take greater responsibility. I would have wished that we sometimes trusted civil society more in many different issues. I believe that civil society is a good support, even though it can never replace the own organization. Sweden as a nation must take greater responsibility in order to be able to keep track of even these issues in the EU.

Arn and Sveriges Konsumenter have two different missions. Arn is an authority that we must protect and ensure that it functions as intended. The money was needed so that Arn could manage the hump that has grown. We see that the number of cases has gone down a little bit. It was a necessity to do it in that way. How it will be in the future can always be discussed, but I would obviously have wished that both of them remained. We shall see how it turns out next year. But the budget is fixed; there will be no money for Sveriges Konsumenter, unfortunately.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Honored colleagues! Today we are debating two areas that are crucial for people's freedom and Sweden's long-term development: housing policy and consumer policy. These are not peripheral issues. They are issues that determine whether people can live their lives on their own terms, whether they can move to where the jobs are, whether young people can take their first steps into adulthood, whether families can plan their future, and whether consumers can trust the markets they encounter every day. For me and the Center Party, this is ultimately about freedom and about the state creating conditions, not obstacles. The state should not spend valuable time dividing us into ordinary Swedes and unusual Swedes.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in a housing crisis that is now entering its third decade. It is a crisis that has been amplified and worsened by the current government's sluggishness. We see how construction is failing, how young people are forced to stay at home, and how companies across the country have difficulty recruiting because there is a lack of housing. It is not worthy of a modern free society.

When people cannot choose where they want to live, their freedom is diminished. When a couple cannot take a job in another location because they cannot find a home, their freedom is diminished. When students turn down places of study because of the housing shortage, their freedom is also diminished. When the state additionally makes housing construction more expensive, slower, and more complicated, despite everything we have heard from this rostrum – then it is the politics that is the problem. How long shall we watch while the public milks the housing sector for the last krona before we react?

Our planning and building system is a patchwork of rules. That is what Boverket says. It is appeals and bureaucracy. Municipalities want to build but get stuck in processes that take years. Lantmäteriet's processing times – when they are not occupied with strange things, as was the case a few months ago – are sometimes longer than the actual construction time for the entire project. It is a system that hinders people, municipalities, and companies.

What does the Centre Party want? We would like to see simplified rules for municipalities that want to streamline the construction process, perhaps allow some pilot projects and evaluate them. There are municipalities that have desired an expanded commitment with municipal land registries but have been met with a cold shoulder from the government. That is what we want to change.

We want to shorten processing times at Lantmäteriet through targeted resources and assignments. We want digitalization and private initiative rights to relieve the municipalities and accelerate the planning process. It is almost 2026, after all.

Madam Speaker! These are not technicalities. These are political choices. They are choices that determine how fast Sweden can grow. The countryside is often the silent part of the housing policy. There, the problem is not high prices, but that construction is not happening at all. The market is withdrawing, and the municipalities are left alone – but people actually live there, believe it or not. People should have the same right to security and faith in the future there as in the large cities.

Madam President! Ten years ago, I heard a wise person say that what gives people hope for the future are construction cranes. Think about that for a moment! It is a thought that has characterized me during this parliamentary term. How do we create faith in the future for people who see that the state has withdrawn in the countryside, where it is becoming increasingly difficult to be a productive part of society?

Centerpartiet wants state credit guarantees. This is something that recurs in several policy areas, not just within this budget area. But right here, we want credit guarantees for housing construction in weak markets. We also want the accounting rules to be reformed so that one can build even when private finances make it difficult. It is a fundamental question of equality. The whole country must be given the opportunity to live.

Madam Speaker! All around Sweden, abandoned houses and farms stand and crumble away. These are resources that we cannot afford to waste. We therefore want to introduce a model that allows one to take over abandoned houses if one moves in and lives there for at least five years. It is a reform that creates vitality, security, and development, not least in rural areas. A more liberal society takes advantage of people's initiative. It is a reform that ensures that our entire elongated country can continue to flourish.

Rent control is a dear subject for us Center Party members. The use-value system is a compromise that worked 50 years ago but not today. It creates queues, lock-in effects, and a lack of mobility. I know that my bourgeois colleagues agree with this, but unfortunately, nothing has been done about it during the mandate period.

A student who wants to move after graduation is stuck. An elderly person who wants to switch to something smaller is hindered financially. A young couple cannot get a first-hand contract but must accept second-hand rents which are often 40–60 percent more expensive. To increase mobility, we therefore want to see more demand-driven rent setting. As we know, we want free rent setting in new production so that new construction occurs. We want to see a special focus on student housing and housing for the elderly. We must be very aware of the demographic development that Sweden faces. Freedom is mobility, and mobility requires a more modern system.

Madam President! Now I intended to move on to the second part of the debate.

A free society requires free consumers, but freedom only works when the market works. Today, consumers face an increasingly complex reality: global e-commerce, dubious pricing structures, unclear terms, products with unknown risks, and large actors who can stretch the regulatory framework without consequences. When people do not know what they are buying, the market is not free. When companies can deceive consumers, the market is not healthy. When small actors are wiped out by unscrupulous competition, the market is not fair. Without a functioning market, there is no real freedom of choice.

Madam Speaker! Time and again we see fake sales and misleading marketing. At the same time, we have an authority that is insufficient. 70 percent off, regular prices that have never existed, products marketed as sustainable but are not, and subscription services with hidden costs, which are also difficult to cancel. Because of all this, the Center Party wants a review of the regulatory framework for price information and marketing, stricter sanctions against companies that mislead consumers, and a reinforcement of resources for the Consumer Agency for supervision and control. We also want to see a restoration of the situation for consumer organizations. A market without supervision is not a free market. It is a jungle.

Just regarding consumer organizations, I would like, Madam Speaker, to deepen the discussion a little. When the large companies become more powerful, when the flow of advertising increases, and when digitalization makes everything more complicated, consumer organizations are needed more than ever. They are not a special interest, but they are the citizens' voice against abuse of power. Therefore, it is serious that the appropriation for consumer organizations has been cut. When their resources are weakened, it affects all consumers.

Now one can realize that it is enormous sums that we are talking about. Seen as a whole in the state budget, the support for the consumer organizations is a drop in the ocean. Against that background, it becomes extra sad to hear the Kristdemokraternas defense of a decision that they reasonably should not stand behind.

In conclusion, Madam President, I would like to address housing policy and consumer policy. They are two sides of the same coin. A society only functions when people have power over their own lives, when people can choose where they want to live, when they can move to where the jobs are, when they can trust the goods and services they buy, and when the state does not stand in the way but opens doors.

Our policy is a freedom project, a reform project, and a responsibility project for a Sweden that needs to be built, not slowed down. We want to see a modern planning process. We want to see a functioning rural housing market. We want to see a model for taking over abandoned houses. We want to see a rental pricing reform that increases mobility. We want to see stronger consumer protection. But we also want to restore the means to consumer organizations. We also want to see a Consumer Agency with muscles to defend the citizens. Last but not least, we also want to see concrete macroeconomic proposals that tackle the challenges that have permeated the Swedish housing market over the last three decades. This is policy that makes a real difference. This is policy for a more modern Sweden. This is policy for freedom, responsibility, and faith in the future.

Madam Speaker! As is customary, the Centre Party respects the Riksdag's working methods. We therefore have no reservation but refer to our special statement in view of the fact that our proposal for budget frameworks has fallen. But that does not mean that we lack concrete and proper proposals for a better housing market and consumer policy.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I listened to Alireza Akhondi and can state that there is much that we could agree on, simplify and improve, for example when it comes to reducing times, releasing land and creating more money to build. There we are often in agreement, but perhaps not regarding what concerned abandoned houses. There is someone who owns them, and I think that ownership rights take precedence.

But what I want to bring up now is that the budget, ultimately, is about numbers. Rhetoric is all well and good, but the numbers must work in reality. The Center Party's numbers perhaps speak not so much about investments but more about that, in practice, one is to cut back on everything. The largest cut the Center Party makes is at Boverket, with a cut on everything related to wage adjustments. One can wonder how fun it would be to work within the state when, with Center Party policy, one apparently suddenly is not to receive any wage increases in the coming years.

The really large reduction is 10 million kronor and is made within appropriation 1.3, which concerns Boverket, and it is called more efficient office use. The appropriation is then reduced from 2027 by an additional 15 million and in 2028 by 20 million. How can one achieve a more efficient office use that can provide such an enormous profit as 45 million when one has 13 million in rent per year?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! When this government took office, we had a state budget that was 200 billion lower than today's. During the coming year, this government chooses to give everything to everyone. Furthermore, we shall be very clear that everything is temporary. But everything shall be given to everyone, just in time for the election.

Centerpartiet is a responsible parliamentary party. We were involved in cleaning up Sweden's economy when it happened in the beginning of the 90s. We do not spend money we do not have. We want to see an efficient use of every tax crown that hardworking entrepreneurs and workers contribute to the state treasury. That we reduce administration and want to see an efficient use of tax crowns should be applauded, not questioned, by every bourgeois or economically sane politician.

Regarding the Center Party's proposal, the member knows very well that we have the government's budget proposal to adhere to. That is how parliamentary work proceeds. When the government parties, with the Government Offices' resources, put forward figures in various columns, it is these that we have to adhere to, accept, and work from.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Applaud – do not question, says Alireza Akhondi. Yes, I can applaud that one succeeds in saving 45 million when one has a rent that totals approximately 39 million. But these are not figures that have been unknown to the Center Party; one has known about this.

I do not understand how one can even suggest that we should streamline the use of the offices. We have visited this building with the Committee on Civil Affairs. The Centre Party has also been there and seen the building and what it looks like. We have found out what it costs. I wonder how one can suddenly say that we should not rent a part of the building – or what is the thinking?

There is no basis in the Centerpartiet proposal where it is written how they have actually calculated this. They only write that they will invest in more efficient office use. It concerns an office that is rented for 13 million. There, they are to save 10 million in 2026, 15 million in 2027 and 20 million in 2028.

I must applaud that one manages to save 20 million through more efficient office use when one has a rent of approximately 13 million. It may indeed be adjusted somewhat until 2028, but one cannot just cancel the contract and move somewhere else. In that case, I would like to know where the Center Party believes one should place Boverket, because one will not be able to remain in the premises one has. The premises one had previously were larger but cost approximately the same, but one cannot move back there either.

My question to Alireza Akhondi remains: How does one make this mathematics add up? How do you save 45 million on a rent of 39?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! It is entirely possible that the Sweden Democrat member is correct on this minor point. I honestly do not know. But – and this is the core – is this what is important to discuss when we talk about housing policy, Boverket's internal rental model? After three and a half years and three propositions, the Sweden Democrats choose in the final budget debate to focus on a technicality regarding the internal rental for Boverket. It says, fundamentally, how nonchalant the Sweden Democrats are regarding vital issues for everyone living in Sweden, regardless of whether they are ordinary Swedes or unusual Swedes, as Mikael Eskilandersson wants to make it sound like.

Where is the Sweden Democrats' proposal on how to ensure that construction costs are reduced? It is fantastic to stand here and say that one wants more housing, Mr. Speaker. But reduce the costs then! It is you who sit in government. It is you who have the opportunity to influence taxes and fees. Yet the Sweden Democrats choose to try and make a point of the fact that the Centre Party may indeed have made a small mistake in a budget line somewhere. No.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! The representative of the Center Party said they were responsible. I do not doubt that for a second. I do not doubt for a second that all eight parties are actually responsible. Our common problem is that we may see things a bit differently and that we have solutions that are a bit different.

My problem with the Center Party is that they most often do not see the problem or the solutions any differently than we do. Take, for example, free rent setting in new construction, where the Center Party and the Christian Democrats are quite in agreement. I can also argue that one reforms reporting rules for the countryside to make it possible to build in the countryside.

I am a bit curious about how the Center Party thinks regarding abandoned houses. The Christian Democrats have a proposal regarding abandoned houses, namely that the municipalities, as a last resort, when the right owner cannot be found, could expropriate them, make them nice, and then sell them, quite simply. But the Center Party has a different solution regarding that question.

The reason I took the floor was actually that Alireza Akhondi said that we have a housing crisis. I have a question, but first comes a small assertion: Our population increased by 100,000 every year between 2017 and 2020. It is clear that a need for new homes arose. During 2025, we have received 5,000 more in the population in Sweden. Could it be that the future housing construction does not need to be 65,000 but perhaps can land on 30,000–35,000, as we have today? Then perhaps we can more easily build to keep up with the need we have, even with the normal housing construction we have now.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam President! Thank you, Larry Söder, for the question!

I also do not doubt that the Center Party and the Christian Democrats in many ways have a similar view on a number of the societal challenges we face. That is not the core issue here. The core issue is that the Center Party, unlike the Christian Democrats, is currently in opposition.

That means our opportunities to actually make a concrete difference are extremely limited if one compares them with the Christian Democrats, who also sit in the relevant ministries. What makes me sad – I use the word sad – is that this policy has consequences for very many people whom Larry Söder says he protects. It is children who are evicted. I know that Larry Söder has a burning commitment regarding homelessness in general.

When inflation soared, there was great pressure on food distribution organizations. There are people in our society who are truly struggling. When one sits in government power, one also has an obligation to act. Larry Söder chose to say that municipal politicians in Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö must do something. Can one not turn the question around and say: Larry Söder, do something! When one sits in the majority in this assembly and also sits in the Government Offices, one has concrete tools to make a difference in ordinary people's lives.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Alireza Akhondi chose attacks instead of discussing the housing shortage in Sweden. That is unfortunate, I think. But we will take that ball.

Planning monopoly exists in the municipalities. Housing is an issue that the municipalities shall handle.

Who is it that evicts children in Sweden? It is not the state; it is the municipalities. Who is it that governs in Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö? It is not the Christian Democrats. Therefore, my question to the Left Party, which governs in all three of those municipalities: How can I help your party comrades? I do not think it is a strange question.

But Alireza Akhondi does not want to discuss the housing shortage in Sweden, which he spoke about in his main submission, but instead he thought it was a better idea to attack. I find that to be unfortunate.

I have seen Alireza Akhondi as a responsible politician who can reason in the speaker's chair. But here he chose to do otherwise. It is very disappointing.

I return to the question I asked in my first speech and hope that I receive an answer from Alireza Akhondi. We therefore have a population growth that is lower today than it was in 2017–2018. In 2023, it was 198 out of 290 municipalities that said there was a housing shortage. Today, it is 127 municipalities that say they have a housing shortage. Where are those municipalities? Well, they are in the vicinity of the large cities. It is not in the countryside, but in the vicinity of the large cities.

My question to Alireza Akhondi, which he may be able to take the trouble to answer from the rostrum, is: Does Alireza Akhondi believe that there will still be a housing crisis in the future if we build 35,000–36,000 homes, or does he believe that the construction rate needs to decrease in line with the number of people moving to Sweden? It was a simple question.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall reassure Larry Söder that when there are several issues in circulation, one cannot manage to address all of them at once. But have a little patience, and the member will receive an answer to the specific question he asked!

I do not know what the need for housing will look like moving forward. Boverket makes forecasts. If you look at those forecasts, you see that we have an accumulated deficit that we must first work to reduce. That is where our reality lies here and now.

I do not know what the population growth will look like in 20 years. Could any of us have predicted what happened in 2015? I cannot stand here and forecast a future need for housing. I have no idea. It is possible that we need to build fewer homes.

Larry Söder might be right. But what I see before me here and now is that we have an accumulated deficit that we need to make up for. I see before me that we have a demographic development that means we may need other types of housing.

There are a number of issues that one must address when one is in a position of government. It is not an attack, Larry Söder. It is actually accountability. That is what opposition parties are for. The opposition is there to put the governing parties against the wall and say: Okay, fantastic that you did this and this – but that and that you have not managed to do. Why?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! It is possible that Alireza Akhondi will become a little irritated now when I inform him of a small error that the Center Party has in its budget. And it is not such a small error either. Words and actions must, of course, go together.

I heard that the Center Party praised society's civil organizations. On that, we are in complete agreement. We Moderates and the other Tidö parties think that Sveriges Konsumenter does a very good job. But the keyword here must reasonably be "civil organizations." An organization that is formed by PRO, Hyresgästföreningen, and LO and has essentially been tax-supported for all these years, is that really a civil organization?

Just as Larry Söder has said in the exchanges here, the state must, of course, finance its operations. We have allocated large resources to the National Board for Consumer Disputes. We are also increasing the appropriation to the Consumer Agency in the budget.

But the reason I requested a reply is that it is bordering on remarkable that Alireza Akhondi has not read the Center Party's budget. It is actually quite remarkable. The reality is, therefore, that the Center Party is cutting 3.5 million from the Consumer Agency. You are cutting 300,000 here and 200,000 there, and you have appropriated zero kronor, just like the government parties and the Tidö cooperation, to Sveriges Konsumenter. It does not align at all with what Alireza Akhondi said here in the rostrum. There, he said that he wanted to increase the support to Sveriges Konsumenter compared to the government. Yet, his own party has appropriated zero. I actually do not think that is honest.

I would like to ask: Why does the member say one thing when the budget looks completely different?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I was waiting for Lars Beckman to come up to the rostrum and try to find clips for Twitter. But Sweden's budget is not always so Twitter-friendly, Lars Beckman.

The budget is a whole. We in Centerpartiet have actively chosen not to use our framework fully. We could have done as the government parties did and promised everything to everyone and filled our framework. But we chose to send a clear signal that it is not responsible to do so: That is not how a governing party acts. We have a responsibility towards future generations.

When it comes to the support for the consumer organizations, the Centerpartiet has 2.5 million in the budget, regardless of what Lars Beckman says here in the speaker's chair. Last week, Miljöpartiet chose to take a committee initiative, where they would work to restore the support to the consumer organizations. This is what we in the Centerpartiet support.

To stand here and say that I have not read our budget is beyond rude. What Lars Beckman needs to do is actually to listen and influence his party colleagues at the Government Offices, so that we get real politics and propositions to handle in this chamber.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! A budget is not something hip and trendy. A budget is cold, hard figures. It is very easy to read about this for those watching this debate. Appendix 2, the Government's and the proposers' appropriation proposals, is in the report. Alireza Akhondi could spend five minutes reading it. It is easy to read the tables and see the government's policy and the other parties' policies in relation to the government's policy. There are significant cuts with the Center Party's policy precisely in the consumer policy area in relation to the government's policy.

Then one can do as the Social Democrats do, introduce a mortgage tax of 12 billion, as we heard in another exchange here. This could cost a family with children in Stockholm 1,000 kronor a month. This can be done. But the Center Party has not done it. You have not proposed large, broad tax increases. Vänsterpartiet has proposed 80 billion in tax increases in its budget. You have not done that.

I assume that one submits a budget in the Swedish Riksdag in order to have it approved. That is why you take the trouble to submit a budget. If the Riksdag were to approve the Centerpartiets budget, the money for Sveriges Konsumenter would be zero kronor.

I can think that it is honest. I am thinking of LO, PRO and Hyresgästföreningen. Hyresgästföreningen wants 10 million extra in the election campaign to campaign for the Socialdemokraterna. It is therefore a matter of putting 10 million extra into a budget to campaign for the Socialdemokraterna. If one thinks that consumer policy is important, one gives those 10 million to Sveriges Konsumenter. It is not that LO, Hyresgästföreningen and PRO lack money – on the contrary. They are very important organizations for those who are members there, and they have formed Sveriges Konsumenter. Then they should naturally pay for Sveriges Konsumenter – and not the taxpayers.

But the fact is, Madam Speaker, that if the Riksdag approves the budget that Centerpartiet has presented, Sveriges Konsumenter will receive zero kronor in extra appropriations.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I am not conducting a crusade against civil society, as this government seems to be doing. I want to be very clear about that. For me and the Center Party, civil society is incredibly important.

Who has formed what and who has interests in what is irrelevant. We can also mention civil society organizations that the Moderaterna have great interests in. The civil society organizations are nation-builders, and we protect them.

It was the first.

The second thing is that the budget is a whole. Has Lars Beckman missed the 500 million kronor that Centerpartiet has put into another budget item to support civil society organizations? He obviously has. It becomes dishonest when one picks out things to make a point that does not exist.

Centerpartiet has 500 million kronor in its budget to strengthen civil society, including Sveriges Konsumenter. We supported Miljöpartiet's committee initiative to restore the funds to that specific organization.

Again: The war that this government has waged against popular education and against civil society organizations in general is a dark spot in Sweden's history.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam President! The fact is that the vast majority in our elongated country dream of their own small house with a piece of land to call their own. But for a longer period, the development has gone in the opposite direction. Small houses are built in increasingly smaller proportions, and more and more families see their dream of their own villa remain just a dream.

This is something that the government wants to change, and the government has already appointed a small-house commissioner with a mandate to give new impetus to a modern small-house movement. In his first partial report, several of the obstacles that today hold back the construction of small houses were pointed out. In the continued work forward, focus will be placed on measures to increase the share of small houses in housing construction and promote new garden cities. The goal is clear. More people shall be able to achieve their dream, regardless of whether one lives in the countryside or in the city.

At the same time, Boverket is now working on developing a proposal for type-approved houses, the so-called Sverigehusen. It is a model where the house type can be tested and approved against the building regulations once and for all, so that the same model of house can then be built in different locations without new testing.

If we can develop a good model for this, I am convinced that such type-approved houses will push down construction costs, cut processing times, and make it easier for smaller actors to enter the market.

Madam Speaker! The freedom to own one's home is not just about building the houses themselves. It also requires that we lower the economic thresholds that prevent people from buying their home. For far too long, particularly young adults and families with children have clashed head-on against credit rules and requirements that, although well-intentioned, have become unreasonably strict. The Government is therefore now implementing several reforms to make it easier for people to save and to borrow for their home on more reasonable terms.

Firstly, we have increased the tax-free savings on investment savings accounts, ISK. Up to 150,000 is tax-free. From next year, we will double it to 300,000 kronor. This means that an ordinary small saver can build up a larger down payment for their future home. It should simply become more profitable to save for one's own home.

Secondly, we address the rigid lending requirements that exist today. We have already announced changes to the mortgage ceiling and the amortization requirements which will truly make a difference, especially for first-time buyers. The mortgage ceiling will be raised to 90 percent of the property's value. For a young person or a couple who want to buy their first or a larger home, it truly makes a big difference in the amount one has to save up. At the same time, we are removing the strict amortization requirement, which in practice has shut many out from even coming close to a loan or pressured them to borrow for unreasonably high monthly costs. By abolishing that requirement and only keeping the basic rules for amortization, households get some breathing room.

Madam President! Security is also a central part of a liberal housing ideal – security in knowing that the family has a roof over their heads and that one can stay even if life were to take an unexpected turn. Therefore, the government is now presenting socially oriented security measures for the households that are having it toughest today.

One such part is the introduction of mandatory rental guarantees for families with children across the entire country. No mother or father should have to worry that the children will not have a secure home just because one happens to have a fixed-term employment or a credit report. A rental guarantee simply means that the municipality steps in as a guarantor for the rent for a period, so that families who today are denied contracts for private reasons can still get a chance. I think that is extremely important.

Madam President! The housing allowance is intended to help economically vulnerable families with children afford a good home. But the connection between the allowance and the actual housing costs has become increasingly weaker over the years. The upper limits for housing costs on which the allowance is calculated have not been raised since 1997. It is almost 30 years ago. Today, a majority of the families with children who receive housing allowance pay significantly higher rent than what the allowance takes into account.

In the budget proposal, we suggest an increase of the housing allowance for those families with children who need it the most. Families with one child will be able to receive up to 800 kronor per month, and those who have two or more children can receive 1,000 kronor per month. This is truly good. As said, it is a well-targeted support that hits the families who have the hardest time making ends meet.

I also want to take the opportunity to state that today's model for housing allowance has flaws on the whole. In the long run, I believe it needs to be fundamentally reformed so that the support can in some way follow a cost development – for example towards KPI or by being indexed against rental levels – so that families with children do not fall behind simply because political decisions are delayed.

I want, in order to safeguard security and self-determination, to have a long-term and secure model where the support retains its value over time. Families should know that society's support does not evaporate as rents rise.

Madam Speaker! I also want to highlight the work that the government is doing to release more land for housing construction – especially the state-owned land. We often talk about financing and regulations, but we must not forget that land without buildability does not become any housing.

In several parts of the country – not least in our metropolitan areas – land shortages and land prices are a major obstacle to increased construction. At the same time, the state owns significant areas that one can truly state are not being used efficiently, especially not from a housing perspective. It is not reasonable that municipalities have a housing shortage, while the state, perhaps due to old plans or sluggish processes, sits on plots of land that literally collect cones – rather than dust in this case.

To meet the housing needs, it is not enough to just subsidize and plan. We must take a larger step to reform the regulatory frameworks surrounding construction. Today's planning processes take an unreasonably long time. It is heavy bureaucracy with protracted appeals, complex rules, and sometimes perhaps unnecessary special requirements. This delays even the most pressing projects. It is therefore a high priority for us in the government to simplify and shorten the planning and building permit processes. Part of this was, among other things, a debate quite recently here in the chamber.

On December 1, an entirely new regulatory framework for building permits came into force. It is one of the largest simplifications in the area in the last 15 years.

Madam Speaker! In addition to building new, we must also become better at utilizing the existing housing stock. There are already today empty or underutilized premises that can be converted into housing. The Government has previously introduced planning incentives for municipalities that want to convert unused offices or commercial premises into apartments. Converting these premises is resource-smart and can relatively quickly provide an addition to the housing market. I hope that we will see several of these initiatives, especially now when e-commerce and new work habits mean that certain areas and offices are no longer needed to the same extent.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam President! Thank you, Member Patrik Karlson, for the speech!

I am pleased that the member raises the housing situation for families with children and the housing allowance. However, it is very concerning that the government, in a situation where many families with children are having a very difficult time, has chosen to remove the temporary housing allowance that was introduced during the pandemic. When the member says that the housing allowance is being increased, it is actually being lowered. It becomes a kind of numerical trickery that I find a bit dishonest.

The housing allowance needs to be reformed and indexed so that it keeps pace with costs over time. It actually needs to become a real increase and not just something that looks good right now but which is actually a reduction.

How does the member view actually raising the housing allowance instead of engaging in number-tinkering that looks good in an election campaign?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Let us first clarify that what Member Amanda Palmstierna is talking about is the temporary extra housing allowance. It was intended precisely as a temporary housing allowance. It was an emergency measure introduced under exceptional circumstances. We did extend the support in rounds up until this year, albeit in a tapered form.

We are not replacing it, however, with any kind of numerical trickery. In the budget bill for 2026 that the government is now presenting, there is a permanent reinforcement of the ordinary housing allowance for the families who have it the toughest.

Just as I said in my speech, it means that a family with children can receive up to 800 kronor more per month if they have one child and up to 1,000 kronor if they have two or more children. These are, as mentioned, funds that will come every month as long as the need exists. It is not just a temporary supplement depending on what the reform space allows.

I say it again: This is the first time since 1997 that the levels of the housing allowance are being raised. It is something that all governments, even the one my party previously was part of, have completely neglected. I think it can be a bit rich, from the opposition's side in this case, to criticize us for taking responsibility and implementing lasting solutions. It actually surprises me a bit.

We want to provide real security – not keep people in dependency on temporary benefits. I also maintain that I hope we can take an even larger step in this area in a very near future. It is obvious that the housing allowance, which when it was introduced reached 11 percent of the population, today is down to 3 percent and absolutely does not reach where the needs are.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam President! I thank Patrik Karlson for the answer.

We in Miljöpartiet really think that the permanent housing allowance needs to be increased. It needs to follow the cost increases, and it needs to be reformed and indexed so that this is properly in place. We can probably agree on that – except that we in Miljöpartiet want to see a larger increase.

What I find to be stomach-turning is that you are raising [it] at the same time as the temporary increase disappears. This year, it will therefore mean less money in practice, and that is something one has to take responsibility for. It doesn't matter what we say here in the chamber today if it is still the case that there will be less money in the wallet right now.

Then one might rather say that we are now transitioning to this system, that it is a reduction right now because we have had something temporary that is now disappearing and that an attempt is now being made to make this a more long-term support. It is better to say that it is a reduction from last year, because that is what is truly felt in the household economy when one sits there and tries to make the finances work with money for both housing, food, and everything else that is needed.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite agree with what the member claims – strangely enough. This government has indeed taken several parallel measures to support households. We are, for example, implementing a temporary reduction of the VAT on food from 12 to 6 percent. Reductions in fees for preschool and after-school care are being implemented, among other things, and we are now also moving forward with a permanent increase of the housing allowance.

Let me remind you once again that the reason there was an acute need for extra grants was that several governments over many years simply let this fall behind. It was not adjusted in line with the development of rents over almost three decades.

We are addressing that deficiency now. We are taking responsibility to ensure that the support is long-term and becomes more equitable. As I mentioned in my speech, we are also working on socially oriented measures so that no children have to be evicted. We do this, for example, by introducing mandatory rental guarantees for families with children.

I just want to say that we have a great commitment to this. We believe that politics should be able to help for real over time and not just build on short-term solutions that risk evaporating over time instead. Our focus lies on keeping the cost of living down generally and on strengthening the permanent safety nets so that all children can grow up safely and securely even when the economy is strained.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Members and listeners! Climate change is here and now, and it affects us all.

I remember how it was a few years ago, that very hot summer of 2018. It was incredibly hot in the elderly care homes in my home municipality Järfälla. The elderly really had difficulty coping with the situation, and the elderly care home was not equipped and had to set up cold foot baths. And just recently, enormous rain fell in Västernorrland that washed away roads and railways. No one has also forgotten the incredible rains in Gävle a few years ago, when many buildings and properties – people's homes – were destroyed.

The vast majority of people want to contribute when there is a crisis. They flock to help. It could be a forest fire, a flood, or the corona pandemic – people unite and want to help. We see that people step up and want to contribute when it comes to the climate transition as well.

There is a road in my home municipality that I usually call solar cell street. I have walked there many times to drop off the children at school. One day there was a villa there that had solar cells, and a few weeks later there was another house. Then it sort of spread along the street as the neighbors inspired each other.

However, it is not enough that there is only a will to contribute to the climate transition; the policy must back up the will. It must step up and make this possible. Policy must simply ensure that it becomes cheap and easy to be a part of the climate transition.

When Miljöpartiet was in the government, we implemented many different types of support and backing to make it possible to be part of the climate transition.

We had a huge support for energy efficiency of multi-family housing. It was very sought after and was used up very quickly. It led to both reduced climate emissions and relief for the wallet, but the Tidöregeringen removed the support completely.

We also had initiatives on climate adaptation so that the largest risks could be mapped and climate adaptation measures could be planned. It was about investing in green areas and being able to stop rainwater so that it does not flow further, or be released into the sewage system so that it becomes completely overloaded, when large, proper rains occur. Even those funds the government removed completely.

There was also a proposal regarding climate requirements for buildings. It was a completely finished proposal, investigated and referred, which one could have simply implemented and thereby give the market incentives to reduce climate emissions in the construction and real estate industry. A proposal has now also come from Boverket regarding a legislative change to make it easier to increase reuse in the construction and real estate industry. But the government took these proposals and put them in a filing cabinet that they locked, and then they threw away the key.

It is simply a matter of stating: The Tidö government is a catastrophe for the climate transition, and the Tidö government is a catastrophe for people who want to be able to be a part of the climate transition and make a change – people who need to be given the opportunity to do this in a simple way and in a way that does not cost too much.

I am leaving the climate issue and moving on to housing. What is the Tidö government doing so that people can get a home? One thing I think is unworthy is that you are lowering the requirements for accessibility adaptations of housing so that it becomes even harder for people with disabilities to get a home. I do not think that is something we should engage in in Sweden 2025.

The current government is also terrified of the thought that a villa and a multi-family apartment building are, God forbid, neighbors. This issue of mixing seems to be very sensitive. From the perspective of the Miljöpartiet, we think it is a self-evident matter to mix condominiums, villas, and rental apartments. One should mix urban areas with green spaces and parks. One should mix culture, grocery stores, and everything that is needed in a person's life.

The thresholds to the housing market really need to be lowered. We are in an acute housing crisis, and the housing allowance needs to be reformed. It needs to work long-term, and it needs to be a permanent solution where the housing allowance follows the other costs. To say that it is an increase while a temporary allowance is lowered – to pretend that there is more money in the wallet just this year even though that is not the case in practice – I do not think that works.

Families with children should never be evicted. That is something we cannot have in Sweden.

In our shadow budget, we have support for the construction of new housing with reasonable rents. We also have investment support for the green transition taking place in Norrbotten and also in many other parts of Sweden, for example Karlskrona. We also have all the supports I have just told you about, such as energy efficiency and climate adaptation, and we want to introduce the limits for the climate.

It is also important with a strong public service and that the municipalities work with public service in a proactive way. When it comes to the housing queue, we need to regulate the priorities in the housing queue so that they go to those who really need them. It could, for example, be about women who are trying to get out of violent relationships.

We also think it is important to invest in politically neglected areas. There are huge renovation needs and huge needs to improve energy efficiency, but when that is done, the rents must not skyrocket so that people lose their homes. Here, instead, the politics needs to take its responsibility and provide funding, and we have included that in our budget.

We are also investing in green, safe outdoor environments and in security funds for property wardens.

When it comes to unserious landlords and slum landlords with residential buildings where people are exploited and thrown out of their homes, we really cannot accept such things. The regulations here must be tightened. Those who do not behave simply need to be stopped. Tougher controls are needed, and it needs to become easier to carry out compulsory management if a landlord does not behave. We have very recently seen appalling examples in the media. There is actually an investigation proposal here that could be implemented, but the government has not done so. We truly hope that the proposal will be moved forward.

That was what I was going to say about housing policy. I will move on to the next area, namely consumer policy.

We see that more and more people are becoming indebted. The mountain of debt in Sweden has doubled over the last ten years, and since only last year, it has increased by 19 billion. These are truly enormous sums, and more and more people are also ending up with the Enforcement Authority.

It is very problematic with the SMS loans that exist. Some tightening has been made, but we think that these loans need to be removed entirely. They are, in fact, aimed at vulnerable people who do not get loans from serious actors, and in that way, people end up in a spiral of indebtedness.

Telephone sales are also incredibly problematic. I met with the Association of Consumer Advisors, and they told me that it is very common for them to meet elderly people who have been subjected to telephone sales and have not been able to defend themselves. It doesn't really help if they have very good arguments, saying exactly as it is with the contracts and so on, but it can be the case with the companies that it requires a consumer advisor to step up and say that this is not okay. Telephone sales are therefore something we think should be banned entirely, which the Consumer Agency has also suggested in its report.

It is incredibly important that there is consumer guidance. It is not just about the consumer guidance that the Consumer Agency offers, which is at a general level, but one also needs to get personal contact. One needs to be able to call or email so that someone can look at the agreement that one has entered into. It is only then that one can truly get help.

Debt counseling in the municipalities is mandatory, but consumer guidance is voluntary. We see that consumer guidance has been phased out in municipality after municipality over a fairly long period. We believe that it needs to be investigated to introduce mandatory consumer guidance for the municipalities and look at how much it would cost. Until such an investigation is complete, we want to allocate funds to the Consumer Agency so that the authority can support the municipalities in local consumer guidance.

Consumer organizations have been raised several times in the debate. We think it is incredibly important that the support to civil society, Sweden's consumer organizations, and Sveriges Konsumenter is restored. When Sweden joined the EU, the Commission urged Sweden to have a party that the EU apparatus could speak with. As these forms look, that party cannot be an authority. Therefore, Sveriges Konsumenter was formed from the very beginning.

We need to restore the support for Sveriges Konsumenter so that Swedish consumers' interests can be monitored within the EU apparatus. Civil society's consumer organizations are needed for consumer guidance and for promoting ecologically and socially sustainable consumption.

The weakening of civil society does not only concern the consumer organizations, but this is happening in all areas. This is an early warning signal that democracy is deteriorating. This is truly something that we need to address and stop while there is still an opportunity to do so.

I cannot support any reservation, and I must therefore refer to our specific statement.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Amanda Palmstierna, for the speech! I was startled by a few things and thought that we could coordinate on them.

I assume the member was talking about student housing when she spoke about making housing accessible. The reason I think this is a good idea is that those who have a need for accessible student housing constitute approximately 1.5 percent of students. We take 20 percent, which means there would be quite a lot more housing that is accessible than what corresponds to the actual need.

I do not see it as us in any way excluding anyone from higher education if the person needs a student residence that is accessible. Furthermore, other residences can be made more efficient so that we use the square meters better and so that one gets cheaper rent, which those who build the residences have been able to demonstrate.

The Chairperson is welcome to say a few words about what she meant in her speech regarding accessibility, as those were rather harsh words.

The member spoke about politically neglected areas. I wonder if the member is positive about the BID cooperation that the government will be moving forward with quite soon. Property owners get an area to take collective responsibility for. If they do not manage to handle it, the municipality steps in and ensures that it is organized. This does involve a cost for the property owners, which they do not think is good, but someone has to bear that cost in one way or another. I believe this is a fairly good way. Then you do not get politically neglected areas. I can agree that politics has sometimes withdrawn and not really known how to handle this.

I have more questions, but I will take them in the next turn.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam President! Thank you, Larry Söder, for the questions!

When it comes to accessibility adaptations and student housing, I am aware of the 20 percent. I do, however, see it as very difficult to make this work in practice. Are they to be thrown out who live in apartments that are accessibility-adapted when people with disabilities arrive? One hardly keeps these apartments completely empty. It feels very doubtful that one would be able to make this work in practice and make it fit.

In my speech, I also referred to another measure, namely that it should be possible to convert, for example, office buildings more than today. There is talk of regulatory simplifications that would involve deteriorations regarding daylight and accessibility rules in order to make it easier to convert office buildings. I agree that office buildings need to be converted. However, I think it would be very unfortunate if one compromises on the requirements for accessibility and daylight, which are indeed things we really need in order to feel good in homes.

When it comes to student housing, I find it difficult to see how it would work in practice. When it comes to the renovation of office premises, I think it is important that it is an environment where one feels good in, because one spends a very large amount of time in one's home.

I assume the member was referring to mandatory site cooperation, but that was not what I was getting at here. I was referring to property managers who do not behave themselves and make people move so that they can rent out to illegal hotel activities and so on. That is where the rules need to be strengthened properly.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam President! I would like to assert that the Tidö cooperation has not targeted civil society. One is trying to ensure that civil society follows the democratic rules of the game that we have, and therefore changes have been made in civil society. Who receives grants has also changed. Some things have been done that one perhaps would not have wanted to do but has been forced to do; I agree with that. I still think that civil society has been reshaped in a way that allows it to survive over time, which I think is good. Civil society is needed – it is nothing that should disappear in any way.

I became interested in the member's thoughts on banning telephone sales entirely. I believe there are a number of industries that live on exactly telephone sales. We can wish that certain industries would not engage in telephone sales, but if one were to ban it entirely, quite a few jobs would disappear. I would rather see a limitation in some way so that not everyone is affected.

It is quite drastic to say that one should ban all telephone sales. Some people might want some telephone sales, for example, the sale of telephone subscriptions, which many can probably feel they need on the phone.

I believe this is a way to go. Many are concerned that telemarketing leads to people being tricked into buying something, but a pure ban might perhaps be too much. The Member of Parliament is welcome to elaborate on that a bit.

I think that Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna should be honored because these parties are the only ones who have allocated money to Sveriges Konsumenter in their budget. The others have not allocated money to this. As I have said in previous speeches, I think that Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet should in any case receive a commendation for having allocated money to this.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam President! I thank Larry Söder for the questions.

I think it would be fantastic if one could reach a long-term agreement on strengthening civil society, but I do not find that in the budget that is currently before us. I view with great concern that the support for the consumer organizations is being reduced in our expenditure area and that proper cuts are also being made in other expenditure areas.

I really hope that we can find ways forward, away from this budget and how things look now, because as it is now, it is very concerning. We need to strengthen democracy. Civil society gets people to engage, organize themselves and acquire their own knowledge. That is why it is so important. It is the foundation for democracy; that is where it begins.

After having read the Consumer Agency's report and investigation, I think it can be reasonable to ban telephone sales. The Consumer Agency states that in a time when there was no internet and one could not shop digitally, it was reasonable to have telephone sales because one could not as easily get to a physical store. But today, one has the possibility to shop via channels other than just the telephone. What is concerning with telephone sales is that one is caught off guard and receives calls late in the evening when one does not want to hear from salespeople. Since the Consumer Agency, as the expert authority, thinks it is reasonable to completely ban telephone sales, we believe that it is a reasonable balance.

When it comes to money for Sveriges Konsumenter, we must ensure that it becomes better in the future, because this organization is very important and is needed.

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! Expenditure area 18 covers urban planning, housing supply and construction, and consumer policy. These are large and important topics that affect many people. Everyone needs somewhere to live, and preferably, the home should be pleasant and affordable. Furthermore, all Swedes are consumers, and the same applies here: Everyone wants what we buy to be affordable and of high quality. Unfortunately, it is easy to be deceived, and for that very reason, we need laws and authorities that monitor consumers' interests.

In the Sweden Democrats' parliamentary group, I have taken responsibility for consumer policy, and it is these issues that I will address today.

Madam Speaker! The goal of the Tidö parties' consumer policy is well-functioning consumer markets, balanced and clear rules for businesses, strong consumer protection, and sustainable consumption.

In Sweden, there are several agencies that work with consumer issues, including Konsumentverket and Allmänna reklamationsnämnden. Today we are debating the budget for 2026, and the question being asked is: Do these agencies receive sufficient appropriations to fulfill their mandates? The appropriation for 2026 is 197.9 million for Konsumentverket and 68 million for Allmänna reklamationsnämnden. Is this money enough? Yes, it depends on what goals one sets. If Konsumentverket is to answer all phone calls concerning consumer information and stop all imported prohibited and dangerous goods, the answer is no.

But a budget is about priorities, and based on the level of ambition set out in the regulatory letters, these appropriations are balanced. There is even an extra appropriation of 5 million to ensure that the reduced food VAT takes effect in the stores. This is important because we have seen that food prices are rising a bit too much and a bit too unjustifiably.

Madam Speaker! As a member of the Consumer Agency's oversight council, I get a very good picture of the agency's activities. The agency's reports provide support and guidance for us Members of Parliament regarding challenges and needs in the consumer area. On September 1, Lena Aronsson took office as the new Director General of the Consumer Agency. This occurred through a government decision, and I can vouch for the fact that there are now good conditions for a well-functioning agency.

Madam Speaker! How do we handle hidden marketing in social media? How do we handle the effects of personalized marketing? What age limit should we have on social media? Children find it harder than adults to filter and be critical of messages online and are therefore extra susceptible to advertising messages, especially regarding the trade of so-called skins in various video games. I believe that the rules for games aimed at children must be tightened.

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 BankID were required 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 the person behind the keys has not turned 18, and therefore no purchases would be made.

There are also proposals to introduce age limits on all social media. There is reason to look closer at where this limit should be set. There are advantages and opportunities with social media that must be weighed if one wants to limit children's screen time through age limits and bans.

Madam President! Fraud via telephone sales is a major societal problem. To ban all telephone sales would be a step in the right direction to stop the frauds. The Consumer Agency has highlighted the problem with telephone sales in a report and recommended a total ban. The report is on the government's desk, and how a potential ban on telephone sales would look needs to be further investigated. Personally, I believe that a ban on telephone sales is a good proposal. All arguments are in the Consumer Agency's report. The business community's concern is exaggerated as there are many other ways to market oneself now that everyone is connected via mobiles and computers.

Madam Speaker! Recently, it has become increasingly common for elderly and vulnerable people to be deceived into losing 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 by building up security systems and blocks when it is completely obvious that fraudsters are at work. Uncle Arne, 80 years old, who has not touched his bank account in 30 years, could impossibly suddenly want to transfer his entire savings to a suspicious account abroad. When all the alarm bells ring, the banks must act. A tightening of the banks' control systems must be implemented as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker! In today's society, with thousands of industrially manufactured products, both people and the environment are exposed to chemicals and harmful substances. Many bans are in place, and these must also be complied with. After Sweden's entry into the EU, it is not only our own national laws that regulate chemicals, but also very extensive EU legislation.

Madam Speaker! Despite all efforts by the Swedish Chemicals Agency and the Swedish Customs, uncontrolled e-commerce still occurs, which means that countless products containing harmful substances enter the country. It is particularly serious when cheap toys containing harmful substances are imported. If the level of ambition is to be raised and more harmful substances and prohibited products are to be stopped at the border, the Swedish Customs and the Swedish Chemicals Agency must be provided with more resources.

Konsumentverket will receive an extra appropriation of 4 million in 2026 to stop dangerous products. The work to stop dangerous products is important and must be taken seriously.

In addition to harmful chemicals in toys, the uncontrolled e-commerce from countries outside the EU involves a deteriorated consumer protection. Deception, lack of quality, and products that do not meet the EU's legal requirements are a result of the increased e-commerce. There is a great deal of work to be done here.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 18. I intend to stick to consumer policy, which is absolutely crucial for people's security in everyday life at a time when consumers face more risks than ever.

We Social Democrats are making two very clear and strategic investments in our budget for consumer policy. It is about strengthening security for ordinary people in a time when consumers face more risks, more unscrupulous actors, and more digital pitfalls than ever before.

First and foremost, we strengthen the Consumer Agency. We allocate 45 million kronor more than the government to the Consumer Agency. We do this because reality demands it and because both the agency itself and we Social Democrats point to the same thing: the supervision is not sufficient today.

It is easy to mislead consumers today. Subscription traps, digital scams, fraudulent invoices, unreasonable contractual terms, food fraud, privacy violations, and unprofessional gambling and credit advertising – the list can be long. We also see how AI risks being misused for manipulation, disinformation, and fraud. Therefore, we believe that the Consumer Agency must be given better tools, better competence, and more resources to be able to exercise effective supervision and protect people.

We also note that digitalization and globalization have fundamentally changed the market. International companies with advanced business models and algorithms create shopping environments that pressure consumers into buying things they did not plan or intend to buy, while customer services disappear and companies' responsibilities decrease. It is simply harder than ever to be a consumer.

Against that background, the Consumer Agency needs additional resources. Therefore, we propose more money for more inspections and new tools so that more cases can be received. It is also completely in line with the Consumer Agency's own budget basis for 2026, where the agency clearly states that today's resources are insufficient to handle the growing amount of cases. The agency itself points out that many consumers do not receive the support they need today.

Madam Speaker! Our second priority is that we reintroduce the state support to Sveriges Konsumenter, 15 million kronor. When the government abolished the support in January 2025, the entire country's consumer voice was weakened. Sveriges Konsumenter is the only independent, broad consumer organization in Sweden. They have represented Swedish consumers since the 1990s, both in Sweden and in the EU, and their work has contributed to sharper legislation, better supervision, and strengthened consumer protection.

The state support has existed uninterrupted since EU entry, but when the support was removed, much of the consumer power that Sweden needs today fell silent. The consequences are already being felt: referrals are left unanswered, invitations to important meetings in Sweden and the EU are declined, audits of dangerous or misleading products have decreased, and staff have already been laid off. It also risks eroding valuable expertise that will be difficult to rebuild.

Madam President! This is particularly serious because the situation for consumers today is more complex than ever. Consumers need a strong representative who monitors the market and stands guard over their rights.

Swedish consumers are absolutely crucial in the EU cooperation. They participate in the European Commission's advisory group for consumer policy, and they cooperate with the European Consumer Organisation and with the European body for standardization work from a consumer perspective. That work can be replaced by no other authority.

Swedish consumers are also important for Swedish companies, which want fair rules of the game against actors such as Temu and Shein. They contribute independent audits that authorities use in their supervision. They are requested by the government, they are requested by authorities, and they are often requested by the media. They also strengthen consumers through education, information, and guidance.

Madam Speaker! Silencing this voice is the wrong path. We want to strengthen it. Therefore, we allocate 15 million kronor in our budget proposal. Our two initiatives are clear: 45 million kronor to strengthen the Consumer Agency, entirely in line with the agency's own needs, and 15 million kronor to re-establish Sveriges Konsumenter.

The difference between us and the government is that we stand on the consumers' side when the market becomes increasingly tougher. The government has chosen to silence the fine and strong consumer voice.

(Applause)

In this speech, Denis Begic, Joakim Järrebring, Markus Kallifatides and Laila Naraghi (all S) concurred.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! How pleasant it is to debate consumer policy!

We can start with the year 2022. It is quite easy to forget what it was like then. When I drove one of my cars, a diesel car, the diesel cost at most 28.50 kronor per liter. And do you remember what it was like with electricity prices? The government took over an energy system in chaos that caused us to pay electricity subsidies to the Swedish people and companies. Inflation spiraled. That means price increases, and these were at 10 percent.

This is easy to forget today. One gets used quite quickly to being able to go to the gas station Circle K and refuel at decent prices.

Do you remember the budget debate in the spring of 2022? Then the Social Democrats negotiated the state budget with a Marxist wild, here in Sweden's Riksdag! We can compare this with today, Madam Speaker: The government presents a budget. The government has negotiated the budget with the Sweden Democrats. We have a Tidö cooperation. It is calm and tidy, and everyone knows what applies. Compare that with how it was in 2022! It is absolutely fantastic what budget cooperation we have, and how good it is for the Swedish people to know that it is now safe and secure in Sweden's Riksdag!

Before I rose in this debate, Madam Speaker, I noted the opinion figures for the ruling Social Democrats in England – 14 percent – and in Norway – 22 percent. The Social Democrats are collapsing in opinion in both England and Norway, so I think it is quite good to be Swedish today. We have a secure and stable cooperation and a budget that is getting through.

Madam Speaker! I have great confidence in the business community. We have hard-working small business owners, from the clothing store in Överkalix to the car dealer in Ystad, from the Temp dealer in Vallsta to the Ice dealer in Norrtälje. We have a fantastically good and serious business community. It is the foundation: my faith in the business community. I heard that there are other parties that have a different view on the business community.

But there have been unserious companies, Madam Speaker, and we have actually managed to remove one of them from the market. Thanks to the Minister for Finance's rock-solid work, we have removed an unserious lottery that did not hesitate to send pensioners to the Enforcement Authority. Thanks to the government's work, we now have a good situation in that area.

Madam Speaker! Just as Björn Tidland said, a very good job is being carried out by the government, also in the area of consumer policy. One issue that has been up for debate today is the support for civil society. The definition of civil society must reasonably be that it is civil society.

I have great confidence in Sveriges Konsumenter, which Anna-Belle Strömberg spoke about. I have very great confidence in that organization. But it is, of course, its founders – Hyresgästföreningen, PRO and LO – who are to provide the funds needed for that organization and not the taxpayers. I have not seen the Socialdemokraterna demand that Skatteverket should finance Skattebetalarnas förening. That would, of course, be unthinkable. It is the members of Skattebetalarnas förening who finance its activities, and in the same way, it is, of course, with Sveriges Konsumenter. The state resources shall go to, of course, the public. In this case, we increase the budget for Konsumentverket. We increase the budget for Allmänna reklamationsnämnden.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates in the Committee on Civil Affairs have visited food retailers. I saw that in the latest trade magazine, one of the visits was included in an article, for those who are interested and want to read about it. It is hard-working small business owners who work around the clock to keep food prices low.

I want to direct a thank you to you who are retailers in Sweden, a big warm thank you, for the work you do to ensure that we consumers get reasonable food prices. In the debate, very many claims appear. Some are certainly true, but most are actually claims without foundation.

What has the government done to improve the economy for the Swedish people so that one can be a happy consumer? Yes, as I said, we have brought down inflation. We now have a decent inflation. For those who drive a diesel car, it has become 700 kronor cheaper per tank compared to when it was most expensive. Someone who fuels up twice a month has thus received a lower price by 1,400 kronor. That is enormously good for those who live in Gävleborg, in Norrbotten, or somewhere else. This is how we do it in area after area. We strengthen the households' economy. It is incredibly important.

We are now lowering the food VAT, which means that families living on the margin will get lower prices. To ensure that it actually hits the prices, the Consumer Agency, together with a number of other organizations, will monitor the price developments.

When we had the oversight meeting last time, I expressed my concern that the prices might not be lowered fully. We know that there are food chains that are making large losses, for example Coop. They are making large losses, and they have sold the church silver. They have, in other words, sold their properties. It is of course obvious that such a chain might not achieve the full impact of the price reduction, so it is very good and very important that this price reduction is followed up. Take Icahandlare as an example – the biggest competitor to an Icabutik is often another Icabutik.

Madam President! In last year's debate – and some debates before that, I was about to say – we discussed Chinese low-price sites. The Riksdag has shown the government that we are deeply concerned that substandard products – I was going to say junk – are coming in from China.

Here, the Minister for Finance has done a fantastic job at the EU level. We are now removing the duty-free status for products under 1,500 kronor. The idea with that is that it should become more difficult to sell dangerous products to the EU.

Madam Speaker! Many of us are going to buy Christmas presents. Thanks to the government's policy, many families with children have also received more money to buy Christmas presents with. But I want to direct a warm appeal to you who are going to buy Christmas presents: Please shop locally! It is your local merchant who sponsors your sports team. It is your local merchant who ensures that there is community service. So shop locally if you have the opportunity!

Madam Speaker! I am happy and grateful, proud and satisfied with the budget that we are presenting, even in this area.

(Applause)

In this speech, Crister Carlsson, Kjell Jansson and Thomas Ragnarsson (all M) concurred.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam President! Lars Beckman! There is much to say about the government's consumer policy and how it has affected Swedes' cost of living in recent years. I intended to focus on the veterinary prices.

Today, the market is dominated by two actors. There is thus an oligopoly, and this obviously affects the pricing. Only during the last few years have we seen a price increase of over 50 percent at the largest actor and almost as much at the second largest. The treatment of an inflammation in a dog can today cost as much as 80,000 kronor. These are pure usurious prices.

I would very much like to know: Why is the government doing nothing to stop the skyrocketing veterinary costs? Why are you not tackling this market failure?

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez, for an important question!

The members of the board are welcome to the seminar that I will arrange at the end of February, which is about exactly pets and well-being. There, we have discussed how we can also include the veterinary and insurance industries.

As I said in my speech, there are many rumors and allegations about food prices. There is possibly an industry that is even more affected by rumors, and that is the veterinary industry.

I took out a report from the Riksdag's investigation service to get the facts. It is always more fun to discuss when one has facts. According to it, one of the explanations for why both insurance premiums and veterinary costs have increased is that extensive treatments of animals are being carried out today.

I personally have three Ragdoll cats. We had two house cats. We have had pet rats in our family. 20 years ago, perhaps one did not treat a cat for cancer. It was solved in another way. The cat had to end its life. Today we have advanced veterinary care, and we as owners of the animals take a much greater responsibility. Consequently, the costs also rise. That is completely natural.

If there is a market where there are very few dominant actors, the government will naturally follow that as well. But according to the Riksdag's investigation service, the main reason for the price increases is not that we do not have a functioning market, but that we are taking care of the animals in a significantly better way.

An example could be this: If I need to see a doctor and live in Gävle, I am not sure that I will get to see a doctor on the same day. But if a cat gets sick, the cat will get to see a veterinarian on the same day. There is a fantastic animal healthcare in Sweden, and I think it is stupid to blame Sweden's veterinarians because they do a very good job for us pet owners.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam President! This is a fact and a problem that exists not only in Sweden but also in Finland, where, among other things, an investigation was commissioned which concluded that the oligopoly that had formed was the basis for the skyrocketing veterinary prices. The investigation suggested that the responsible authorities should be given the tools needed to be able to break up that type of oligopoly.

This is something that we as a party also propose. In addition to that, we propose that we should introduce tariffs similar to the German system so that one knows what one has to pay. 100 million to train more veterinarians is also a proposal that we have included in our budget.

But, Lars Beckman, it is a real problem that we have riding schools that are threatened with having to close down because they simply cannot afford the veterinary costs. It is not because they are supposed to treat their horses for more severe illnesses than before. We have animal owners who cannot even afford to euthanize their animals, if it were needed, because the costs are so high. It has nothing at all to do with the animals in any way receiving better treatment today than before.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I have great confidence in Sweden's veterinarians. I think it is fantastically good that we have an animal healthcare system that functions very well in Sweden. I wish that the publicly run healthcare could function as well as the animal healthcare.

On the other hand, there is a shortage of veterinarians, for example in northern Sweden. A friend of mine was going to the veterinarian to fix the horse's teeth. He lives in Boden, and the nearest veterinarian was in Umeå. That is 30 miles away. One has to book an appointment, get there, and so on. The problem was that the horse refused to go into the horse transport. This meant that they had to pay for the horse's dental care but did not get away at all.

It is an incredibly important issue that the member is raising, and there are many serious animal owners in Sweden. I therefore welcome the member to the seminar I will be organizing at the end of February. There are many aspects to the question.

Serious pet owners insure their dog, cat, or horse. They now go to the veterinarian instead of solving the problem in another way, as they might have done 20 years ago. It is the main reason why veterinary costs and insurance costs have risen.

For those who are watching this debate or reading the minutes, I warmly recommend the TV series Veterinärerna which is broadcast on TV4. I do not know if the Left Party watches TV4 or if you only watch SVT, but I warmly recommend the program, which shows what fantastic animal healthcare we have in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! The recent years have been tough for Swedish consumers. Households have been forced to endure sharp price increases on everything from food to rent and electricity – things that constitute the very most fundamental for an everyday life to function. And, Madam Speaker, when the prices on these necessities spiral, it has consequences for both individual individuals and for society as a whole.

Today, around 180,000 children in Sweden live in households where at least one parent has debts with the Enforcement Authority. It is one in every twelve children, that is to say, two children in every classroom. This is a reality that should make every politician react. Yet, it seems that the government parties are unaffected. What is the Swedish government actually doing? The answer is short: not much.

Under three years with a Moderate-led right-wing government, we have witnessed something of a political starvation diet. Necessary investments and reforms that would have cushioned the increased cost of living have been sidelined in favor of tax cuts for the economic elite.

Madam Speaker! It is not exactly uplifting to read the government's budget and the announced proposals for next year, that is to say, higher costs for medicine and worse finances – that type of policy. Next year, they are also presenting yet another job tax deduction; the tenth in order. The government claims, among other things, that it shall reduce unemployment, but after nine job tax deductions, Sweden has Europe's third highest unemployment. It thus seems hardly to be a functioning recipe for reducing unemployment or for securing consumers' purchasing power, given how the growth has looked during the right-wing government's time in power.

Madam Speaker! In the Left Party's budget, we present a series of proposals that actually reduce household costs and improve the situation for the country's consumers. We lower the costs for food, housing, and electricity, as well as for veterinary care and public transport. And we add 20 million more to the consumer organizations. Someone said that it was only the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet who had budgeted for this, but that is not true.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a policy that puts ordinary people first, a policy that recognizes that a secure society begins with secure households – a policy that fills people's wallets. It is such an approach that Vänsterpartiet has presented in its budget, and it is such an approach that Sweden deserves.

In this speech, Tony Haddou and Malcolm Momodou Jallow (both V) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 December.)

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