Response to interpellation 2022/23:329 on reforms for housing construction
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that the previous bourgeois alliance government initiated extensive reform work to simplify the regulatory framework for housing construction 1. KD argues that the government does not want to solve the housing shortage with costly subsidies but instead wants to increase the availability of buildable land and simplify building regulations 1. KD argues that they are working at a high pace with regulatory simplifications and preliminary studies to remove structural obstacles 2. KD considers that the biggest obstacle to construction is waning demand and that inflation must be combated. KD wants to stimulate municipalities to increase their planning readiness. S argues that much housing policy reform work has been carried out during recent years 3. S considers that the investment support has helped students and led to lower rents 4. S argues that the government is passive and that they should continue with the same pace as during the previous bourgeois mandate period 5 6. S considers that housing construction has been halved and that the government lacks concrete proposals to increase construction 6 7. S argues that the removal of the investment support has stopped the construction of rental apartments and student housing 7. S argues that the government does not take responsibility for long-term planning 7. S regrets the lack of forecasts, housing policy goals, and a national plan for housing supply. S considers that the government prioritizes tax cuts for the wealthy over acute housing needs.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (13)
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Markus Kallifatides has asked me if I agree with his description of the development in the area of promoting the construction of permanent housing since 2014 and if, in that case, I intend to take the initiative for parliamentary housing policy discussions with the description as a common starting point. Markus Kallifatides has also asked me if I have taken the initiative for a forecast of how many new homes will be completed and respectively started during the period 2023-2026 and if I can, in that case, account for the figures.
Initially, I would like to point out that the previous bourgeois alliance government during the years 2006-2014 initiated a very extensive reform work to simplify and streamline the regulatory framework for housing construction. Several of the reforms that S-led governments have later made decisions on, as the interpellor describes, also have their background in announcements that the bourgeois parties have taken the initiative on, for example regarding building permit-exempt measures. There is thus much that the government and I can agree on regarding the view on the need for reforms for a sustainably high housing construction.
At the same time, I can state that there are significant differences in perspectives. The Government does not believe that the housing shortage can be solved with costly subsidies with low precision. Instead, the Government wants to develop reforms that increase the availability of developable land, simplify and improve building regulations, and provide incentives for increased housing construction.
Against that background, the government parties have taken the initiative to phase out the investment support, and the reform work now focuses on the measures that are most effective and appropriate to facilitate housing construction. There is no room within the framework of an interpellation response to comment on all the reforms raised in the interpellation, but I am, of course, available to inform the Riksdag in more detail about the government's work in other contexts. I have no plans to take the initiative for a broad parliamentary discussion on housing policy, but I have good dialogue with the representatives of the Committee on Civil Affairs and can speak with all the parties in the Riksdag.
Statistics Sweden is responsible for producing official statistics on, among other things, housing construction and renovation, as well as building permit statistics for housing and premises. Boverket shall, within the framework of its instructions regarding housing, update statistics, and they regularly carry out forecasts for housing construction. These forecasts can, in times of economic uncertainty, of course be revised as the economic situation changes. Before the forecasting occasions, Boverket complements the statistics from Statistics Sweden with other underlying data when the agency performs its analyses. The agency has, for example, contacts with both municipalities and companies within the sector. I naturally follow Boverket's work.
Forecasts for housing construction are to be regarded as assessments of future developments. These assessments can, of course, be subject to change in line with other societal developments. The current situation also entails an additional uncertainty in the forecasts.
Statistics Sweden initially measures the start date based on the municipalities' start notices. Completion is then made with the actual start from the developer for the projects included in the statistics. Both the official statistics and the method for producing these, as well as Boverket's forecasts, are published, which makes it possible for other actors to make their own analyses and assessments. We look forward to Boverket's updated forecast, which is expected to arrive during the first half of June.
The Government sees no need to produce additional forecasts other than the one produced within the framework of Boverket's existing responsibilities.
In conclusion, I want to say the obvious: The Government is following the situation on the housing market and, when it comes to housing construction, closely, and this is not done solely based on lagging statistics in a situation where changes occur rapidly.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer to my interpellation!
The housing issue is about homelessness, overcrowding, and housing insecurity. It is about companies looking for staff and about people who lack housing but who might have jobs. Right now, it is also about a dramatic fall in construction in Sweden and anxiety in the entire construction sector. We are in the process of once again building on the shortage of housing in Sweden.
Why this specific interpellation, Mr. Speaker? Part of the background to this interpellation is that I have heard it mocked a bit from the other side of the chamber regarding how many housing ministers took office during previous terms. It has sometimes been said that the only thing we Social Democrats have in the toolbox is an investment grant.
Now I can, based on the Minister's response to my interpellation, state that the Minister agrees that despite everything, a considerable amount of housing policy reform work has been carried out during the last eight years. I hear no objections from the Minister regarding my descriptions, which I urge everyone to take part in. This is a rather extensive interpellation.
What is available to read in my interpellation actually covers most of what I see as the components of housing policy, Mr. Speaker. It concerns reform work when it comes to urban planning, building regulations, the role of public housing, and the financing of new production.
When it comes to social planning, we have an ongoing review of the possibilities for a national physical planning, so that the state can act more with one voice through its county administrative boards and ensure that we reach a number of the parliament-approved political objectives in a balanced way.
Right now, Boverket's proposal for modernized building regulations, Möjligheternas byggregler, is out for consultation. We are waiting for the consultation responses, which - I believe - will arrive on August 23. This has occurred on a Social Democratic initiative.
We have proposals from the latest major investigation, under Karolina Skog, regarding giving public service housing a greater degree of freedom to be able to do more and cheaper. We also had a sharp measure for state co-financing for the construction of rental apartments with lower rent levels.
Reform work has been ongoing, and reform work is ongoing - not least by virtue of the work of the last eight years. The investment support is, however, being phased out.
Against the background of the acute situation that I initially spoke about regarding the housing shortage and the construction sector and the complexity of the housing issue - for I admit and respect that these are complex and furthermore long-term issues - our Social Democratic housing policy spokesperson Jennie Nilsson and also the Center Party's housing policy spokesperson Alireza Akhondi have requested parliamentary housing policy talks or even a crisis commission.
Madam Speaker! In the response to my interpellation, the Minister rejects these lines of thought without further explanation. I therefore repeat my question: Why do the government and the Minister reject the thoughts on parliamentary housing policy talks?
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I would first like to thank Member Kallifatides and the Minister for Housing for today's debate. Housing policy is important and central for Sweden and for the development of Sweden as a country where equality, solidarity and opportunity shall be watchwords in all people's lives.
In the government's response and in the debate in general, an important group disappears from the housing policy arguments. As a Social Democrat, I want to take the opportunity to highlight this group today. The group I am talking about is students. There are few groups in society that are as dependent on an active, ambitious and proactive housing policy as students. The universities and colleges are not in every residential block but are spread out in different parts of the country. Some courses are only available in certain cities. It is simply many young people who need to move to be able to pursue higher education.
Madam Speaker! The housing situation for students in Sweden has long been difficult. Sveriges förenade studentkårer released a report in August last year on the housing situation in 34 of the country's study locations. 61.5 percent of the country's students live in a study location that is red-listed in Sveriges förenade studentkårer's report. What does that mean? Well, that 61.5 percent of the country's students cannot be offered a residence for a semester.
Sveriges förenade studentkårer sounds the alarm in the same report that more and more student residences have been converted during the pandemic. Furthermore, rents are being raised in several places across the country. This exacerbates the housing crisis for Sweden's students and makes it harder for those with parents without thick wallets to study at colleges or universities. Sweden's potential is wasted. Young people's dreams are shattered. People's right to live their dreams' lives is taken away from them. It is reprehensible.
Madam Speaker! So far, not much has been heard from the government regarding how more housing is to be built for the country's students and how more people shall be given the opportunity to move to a university city and study to become, for example, an engineer, a lawyer or a doctor.
The conversion of rental apartments is not something requested by Sweden's student organizations. The investment support that the previous Social Democratic government introduced is often criticized by representatives of the right-wing government and by the Housing Minister. It is said to be costly subsidies with low precision. However, just as Member Kallifatides points out in the interpellation, more housing was built with the help of the investment support. That is a fact. No alternative that can lead to more housing for Sweden's students has been presented by the government. That is also a fact. We are simply in a housing policy vacuum.
Let me take an example of how the investment support has helped Sweden's students. In Lambohov in Linköping, student housing was built in 2021 with the help of the investment support. The rent landed at 5,468 kronor. Without the investment support, the rent would have been 800 kronor higher. 800 kronor is a significant sum if it is added up over a year. There are simply clear examples that the investment support has resulted in student housing being built and that it has led to lower rents for student housing.
The student housing companies say that over half of their members state that the abolished investment support means that one or more planned projects in the form of new production are being halted. The student housing companies have requested that the government take the initiative for cross-bloc talks to stimulate housing construction when it comes to student housing, i.e., what the member Kallifatides asks about in his interpellation.
The Minister for Housing, in his response to the interpellation today, has rejected a broad parliamentary discussion to develop more housing policy reforms.
My question to the Minister is whether the Minister is at least prepared to meet with the student housing companies and arrange cross-bloc talks for more student housing.
Denis Begic (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Markus Kallifatides, for the interpellation, and thank you, the Minister for Housing, for the answer!
It is a comprehensive interpellation, and there are many things that the Minister for Housing could have answered. It is regrettable that the Minister does not see everything that has been done and learn from it without throwing Swedish construction workers under the bus.
During the years 2007-2014, when Sweden had a Moderate-led government, 200,000 homes were built. That is about 25,000 homes per year, and that is what the Minister for Housing is referring to. It is roughly in parity with what we are hearing now regarding how much will be built - 25,000. I have also heard the figure 23,000, and some say 20,000. We do not know where we will end up.
If a massive reform work was initiated during the previous bourgeois mandate period – why not continue with the same speed now, when we have a bourgeois government? And why not look at the proposals that the previous government had and do something about the proposals that exist? In some way, it feels like one is trying to kill the housing market in Sweden.
I have seen the proposal regarding student housing. But it does not apply to all students, I can inform my colleague Adrian. Those who have some disability do not need to bother. It is not worth the effort, because these student residences are for those who do not have wheelchairs and such. It is they who shall get these residences; they are not for all people.
The newest proposal is that one should be able to buy their rental apartment. That can indeed be good, Madam Speaker, to be able to do that. But after the latest proposal that came from the government about that one should be allowed to buy their rental apartment, I wonder: How many more homes will be built? Is it 5,000, 50,000, 80,000 or 100,000? What assessment is the government making? How many more homes will be built so that one can buy their rental apartment?
Leif Nysmed (S)
Madam Speaker! I think the Minister is a bit passive, and I have thought so for a long time. I think the government is generally very passive when it waits and refers to the fight against inflation. If you don't do anything, then you are engaged in fighting inflation, the government seems to think. I do not quite share that view.
My party colleague Markus Kallifatides asked a couple of questions, and I thought I would hook onto question number two. He says: Has the Minister taken the initiative for a forecast on how many new homes will be completed and respectively started during 2023-2026? And can the Minister, if so, account for the figures?
The answer is: The Government sees no need to produce additional forecasts other than those that Boverket produces. The Government therefore refers to the fact that it is Boverket's responsibility.
I thought I would remind a bit about how the Christian Democrats' former housing policy spokesperson Larry Söder, as recently as the previous parliamentary term, considered that this should be done. He writes: "The Christian Democrats consider it high time that the housing interest is re-evaluated in Sweden." I share this view. He also writes: "Politics must take a firmer grip on housing construction." I also think that you should do that; I share Larry's view even in that matter. Larry Söder then continues: "We consider that the government should set a goal in actual numbers for housing construction. Today, Boverket's forecasts are the best measure that can be found, but when the actual construction falls significantly short of the need, a government should take note of that and present measures to increase construction."
With a national goal for housing construction, a clear effort to achieve it can be initiated and proposals aimed at reaching the goal can be developed. In cases where construction does not reach the goal, it can also be evaluated why sufficient construction has not taken place.
This was during a time when there was a forecast of 40,000 homes per year. Then it became even more. I do not remember the exact figure, but Boverket claimed that one needed to have 50,000 homes and we exceeded that goal.
Today we are talking about figures of around 25,000 housing units per year. That is a halving compared to this. In that context, the Minister for Housing sits satisfied and inflation fighters. It will not become that many houses with the policy you are pursuing. There is not a single concrete proposal on the table of the Riksdag to get housing construction started.
My questions to the Minister are: Have the Christian Democrats completely changed their minds? Have you lost your ability to take initiative? Do you not think that the housing policy deserves better?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I am pleased that there is a great commitment to this issue, which is so important for all of us, namely how we are to get housing policy on the agenda. The members contribute to this, and also to discussing different proposals on how the effect can be mitigated and, above all, how to remove the structural barriers that exist.
Markus Kallifatides has pointed out quite a few things in his extensive interpellation, and I therefore cannot go into them individually. I would, however, like to mention the preliminary study regarding physical planning, in which the national interest system is included. The housing interest is not a national interest, but the fact that it often falls very far behind the national interests is one of the structural obstacles that exist. I really look forward to that preliminary study, which is to be presented in September.
I have no reason to point fingers and say that someone has done something wrong. This was a good decision that the previous government took – if somewhat late, one might think. All that Markus Kallifatides highlights in the interpellation, such as the building regulations for opportunities and the Skogs investigation, which we are processing in the Government Offices and will return to, could have been in place if a higher tempo had been maintained.
Sometimes it sounds in the debate as if what the social democrat-led government failed to achieve in eight years, the new government is to solve in eight months. We have a very high tempo. We are working on many of the issues that have been raised in this debate.
When it concerns student housing, for example, we have given a mandate to Boverket with significant relaxations to increase production and the differentiated supply. It is not about cutting corners when it comes to accessibility. There shall be good accessibility for visitors. There shall be housing for those who need an adapted home. But one can simplify and lower the costs so that there are more student residences in a country like Sweden, which is a knowledge nation but where one needs to be able to move there where one starts an education in the autumn or further ahead, and where it is currently very difficult to obtain a home.
Making changes here is an answer to both Adrian Magnussons and Begics' question.
I will go back to the question of housing policy discussions. I believe that in some interpellation debate, it was said somewhat mockingly that one cannot live in a simplification of rules when I have pointed out that we will work with simplifications of rules. I could counter by saying that one cannot live in a discussion, but I will not do that. However, the focus for the government, which also has a majority in the Riksdag behind it with the coalition partners, is to produce the changes and reforms that there is primarily consensus on, which this debate also illustrates, and to implement them as quickly as possible.
Since then, I have welcomed dialogue. I have welcomed conversations with the members of the Committee on Civil Affairs, with the industry, and with various actors regarding what is most important and what we should prioritize. But the government has a majority behind it with the coalition partners, and we focus on producing reforms rather than talking about reforms. I also believe that we who are here in the chamber today know which different reforms it is primarily about.
When it comes to Begic's question, where he compares the development of housing construction during the previous Alliance government and during the Social Democratic government, I honestly do not know exactly what effect the member wants to achieve, but I can remind everyone of the financial crisis 2007-2010. It is clear that one can blame it on the Alliance government and the slowdown now on the new government, but I believe that everyone who follows this debate and also the members understand that it is significantly more complicated than that.
Regarding Leif Nysmed's question, I unfortunately only have ten seconds left of my four minutes, but the government is not satisfied. I am not satisfied. I look forward to returning with reforms that will move us forward, and we will do so at a high pace.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for diligently answering the questions one by one.
Since we do not, which I regret, have any substantial parliamentary discussions on this policy area, I must try to use the brief time in an interpellation debate to nevertheless highlight measures that, from my perspective, would be desirable.
From my perspective, the major and decisive structural obstacle to housing construction in Sweden is that we reach our housing policy goals [through] the wealth and income distribution in the country. Very many people simply cannot afford to demand newly built housing. When municipalities, the church, counts, and barons are to have full market price for their land, when banks and building material suppliers, sometimes oligopolists or even monopolists, are to have their profit margins and when construction workers are to have a decent wage, which they should have, it becomes too expensive for nursing assistants, warehouse workers, taxi drivers, police officers, and many others. That is the major structural obstacle.
In that, there was not a complete solution but a reasonable type of solution, namely an investment support for the construction of rental apartments with lower rent levels. It is being phased out.
In the longer term, I would wish that we, for example, in open parliamentary debates, would arrive at new forms for financing new construction in Sweden. It could be credit guarantees; it could be favorable construction loans. This type of system needs to be long-term so that different market actors and also parts of the public sector can rely on them and dare to take important and long-term steps in their operations - invest money, time, and effort, change rules, and so on.
There was, therefore, a value in us being more in agreement than I perceive we are right now, given that the investment support, which two investigations have now shown functioned, is what I perceive the Minister most clearly distances himself from in his interpellation response to me. I regret this.
What could we do in the short term from the Swedish Riksdag, where the government has the initiative? Besides letting an investment support roll out, possibly complemented by a new similar one, we can go for exempting public services from the law on public procurement. Unfortunately, it fell in the Committee on Finance and in the chamber here recently, but the question exists. Public services claim that it could result in a 10 percent lower level.
Regarding my third proposal for short-term measures, here and now, to meet an acute crisis situation - for which Andreas Carlson is not responsible, absolutely not, and neither is any government - with inflation in the world economy and so on, I take inspiration from Education Minister Mats Persson. He urged Magdalena Andersson to call upon Social Democratic municipal politicians to demand more money for welfare. In that case, I must then urge Andreas Carlson to call upon Sverigedemokratiska, Kristdemokratiska, and Moderata municipal politicians and urge them to push the construction button.
My concluding question must be: Has the Minister done anything of this, or does the Minister intend to consider any of these three proposals for immediate measures to increase construction in Sweden?
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! The housing crisis for students is acute. As a Social Democrat, I am pleased that the issue is being raised here today, so that we can discuss it. It is also gratifying to hear that something is being done to address the housing shortage for students. But sometimes I question what the government wants, beyond regulatory simplifications and conversions. I could stand here and repeat that one cannot live in a regulatory simplification. But I do not intend to do that.
It is a fact that the investment support created more student housing with lower rents. My hope is that more student housing will be built for all students, even for students who, for example, have a functional variation.
I look forward to the government presenting the regulatory simplification proposals that the Minister raised through Boverket on 30 April 2024. But I truly hope that the work at the ministry to ensure that more student housing is produced continues, so that Sweden's students do not have to find themselves in a housing policy vacuum until 30 April 2024. One can argue that it is difficult to live in a conversation and in a regulatory simplification, but it is definitely difficult to live in a vacuum.
Denis Begic (S)
Madam Speaker! Sweden is heading towards a long-term social construction crisis. This is stated by Veidekke in its latest report, Collapse for housing construction.
Madam Speaker! In my previous contribution, I referred to the years 2007-2014 because the Minister for Housing referred to what the government did between 2006 and 2014. During that time, 200,000 homes were built, while during the time of the Social Democratic government, twice as many were built - 400,000. It is not about anything else. It is simply facts.
The problem is not that we are heading towards the seven difficult years. The problem is exactly what we are debating right now; when there is a crisis, all responsible governments in the whole world do something to mitigate the crisis. As my colleague Kallifatides just mentioned, one can consider, among other things, these three proposals and at least say whether they are good or bad.
There are also warnings within the construction industry. It is also noted that those warnings will spread to many other industries, for example the steel industry because reinforcement is needed for construction. It can spread to the timber industry, because wood is needed to build the houses. The same applies to the home appliance industry, the insulation industry, and so on. When one does nothing to help, many industries are eventually affected.
Furthermore, the green transition is being threatened. The construction industry needs to go through the green transition, among other things, so that we can reach the climate goals.
How and when does the Minister assess that we will see concrete proposals? I understand that reference is made to eight months. But will it take eight years, six years, or four months more? What is the assessment?
Leif Nysmed (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister still seems to be quite satisfied with the situation. There are no proposals on our table. Instead, we have a government that is stopping the construction of housing. The removal of the investment support has stopped the construction of approximately 30,000 rental apartments with lower rents, including student housing.
How many newly built homes are also being stopped as a result of the halt in the construction of the new main lines? Many municipalities have committed to building and have started building masses of homes based on a new infrastructure. They probably feel quite betrayed by the government and the minister right now.
Not long ago, the Minister also stood in a high-visibility vest at Bromma Airport and stopped the construction of 30,000 homes at the airport there. Instead, one can invest in Arlanda Airport and let it be expanded.
Not even any proposals that one could present quickly, which are finished and that one went to the election on, can they manage to present. For example, the start-up loans are fully investigated and ready to be put on the table. They don't have the energy to present those. Before the election, they also promised to ease the amortization requirements. That is now being buried in an investigation for a couple of years ahead. Nothing is coming here and now to remedy the acute need for housing construction.
Here we are talking about that one cannot live in a conversation. No, one cannot. But the construction and real estate industry wants long-term perspective in politics. Sure, perhaps your weak government with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna has a majority right now. But the construction and real estate industry is not built on four-year cycles.
We invited people to housing policy talks. But they chose KD with several parties dropping out. It is actually quite sad that one does not take responsibility for the long-term perspective that was needed.
Begic also spoke about layoffs. Within the industry that the government highlights that they want to invest in, the small house industry, a layoff notice is now being issued to over 2,000 employees. They are selling nothing right now, and nothing is coming from the government.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Markus Kallifatides identifies a problem; we need to facilitate for more people to take the step into the housing market, not least the owned housing market. The first thing we must take with us now is that the biggest obstacle to construction is the waning demand. I also reported this last week when I visited the Committee on Civil Affairs and met several of the members there.
In order for households to regain demand, we need to fight inflation. We are doing that now in many different ways. I will not account for all the parts in this short interpellation answer. But it is one of the most important measures to tackle the problem.
There is also an ongoing committee working to review borrower-based macroprudential measures, so that they become more purposeful. This concerns both the mortgage ceiling and the amortization requirement.
We have also commissioned an inquiry into rent-to-buy, which is a successful model in other Nordic countries and which already partially exists on the market in Sweden. There is great potential in being able to buy a part of the home and pay off the other part through the rent. One leases a part of the home. It naturally lowers the requirement for having capital if one initially buys only half of the home. It is an important step for more people to be able to get a foot in the owned housing market.
Three different proposals are mentioned. Kallifatides also points out that one should, so to speak, free public services from LOU. It is one of the proposals in the Karolina Skog investigation, which has sought solutions to contribute to a development where more people, based on their own ability, manage to obtain a good home. I have full respect for the decisions made during the handling of motion reports in the Riksdag. But one of the proposals in the Skog investigation is one of those that we are now processing in the Government Offices, and which I will return to.
That answers one of the members' questions: Why not use the material that exists? We do. We use and go through the preparatory materials that the previous government left behind, from the Alliance government's time but also from the social democrat-led government's time, and see what we can produce at a high pace in this tough situation. There are many interesting proposals.
One of the areas that we will work with - this answers one of Kallifatides' questions - is to urge municipalities to increase their planning preparedness. I am happy to do that with every municipal politician I meet. I have done it with Christian Democratic municipal politicians, and I have done it when I have met representatives for SKR. I also do it to the extent that any municipal politician follows this debate. In our first budget, we have also written that we shall stimulate municipalities to increase their planning preparedness. We will return to this here.
I return to Begic's question regarding the effects of the measures that have been taken. It is clear that the financial crisis was a factor. Given the long lead times, it would have been interesting to hear Begic elaborate on whether it was seen that any of the measures implemented by the Alliance government had any effect during the years that the Social Democrats subsequently held power. These are long lead times. It takes a long time. That is also why we now see that there is a backlog of need. And therefore, we are working at a high tempo.
I know very well what the situation is for many housing developers and have a good dialogue and contact with them. It is very concerning, and there is therefore an even greater reason to fight inflation and produce accurate reforms where there have previously been obstacles to structurally correct measures. I will return to that.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! I shall try to summarize my impressions of this conversation, for which I thank Minister Andreas Carlson.
Regarding my second question about own forecasts for completed or started housing 2023-2026, I note that we will not receive any answers from the Government Offices, and it is also nothing that Boverket provides us with. I actually regret the lack of forecasts just as I regret the lack of housing policy goals.
Madam Speaker! There are no forecasts, no goals and actually not even any plan. Karolina Skog's investigation has now proposed that we should have in Sweden: a national plan for the housing supply. Furthermore, we are in need of a new housing supply act, to mention one more proposal that is ready to be addressed.
More reforms and measures are needed here and now, in an acute situation. I think several of my fellow debaters today have underlined the urgency of the situation. Several reforms could be developed in parliamentary discussions. The Council of State and the government reject that initiative. Thank you for the information!
My view, Madam Speaker, is that anxious construction workers, overcrowded families with children, job and study seekers who need new housing - perhaps in a different part of the country than where they previously lived - and companies desperately seeking staff - not least in connection with the green industrial revolution with its epicenter in the north of our dear country - are homeless. They are being left behind.
Lower taxes for the well-off who already have their housing sorted are prioritized in the actual actions of this government. That is what I see, Madam Speaker. For me, and for us Social Democrats, it is a recipe for a weaker society. We want to create a stronger society and stand ready to take a major grip on the housing issue by 2026 at the latest.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I am pleased that the member feels he has received answers to his questions in this interpellation debate. The basis for a good dialogue is that concrete questions receive concrete answers and that one can discuss over a fairly broad range, for example on the theme of reforms for housing construction, as this interpellation has shown. I look forward to returning with reforms that are to be implemented and to continuing the dialogue with the members of the Riksdag.
This interpellation was based on a fairly extensive memorandum with a review by the previous government. One could interpret it as the member being satisfied with what has been done, but I think even more needed to have been done. It would have needed to get started much earlier. Now we stand where we stand.
It sometimes sounds in the debate as if, in the not even eight months that the newly appointed government has had responsibility for the issues, one should have done more than the previous government managed in eight years. I thank you for the trust and confidence, and I look forward to returning during the coming months and years at a high pace. It is various reforms that are to be developed, and there have already been both assignments to Boverket and the county administrative boards and investigation assignments. It is only the beginning. We are not satisfied, as some member—Leif Nysmed, I believe it was—was worried about. More is coming, and I look forward to a continued good dialogue.
I am pleased that the Social Democrats are ready to take a holistic approach to the housing issue - I believe that was how Kallifatides expressed it. I look forward to that. I look forward to a good dialogue and that the government's reforms and proposals will receive broad support in the Swedish Riksdag. It is certainly needed, given the great needs in the Swedish housing market. Thank you for the debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.