Response to interpellation 2023/24:511 on a housing commission for increased housing construction
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD does not intend to establish a housing commission 1 but continues the dialogue with parties and Members of Parliament to solve structural problems 2. KD works to increase buildable land, simplify rules and increase the tax deduction 1. KD argues that the government's decision is based on dialogue with the industry 3, that the government takes responsibility through a reform agenda 3 and that the door for dialogue is not closed 4. S wants a housing commission to handle the acute crisis 5, proposes financial support 6 and wants to discuss the municipalities' role as well as state risk-sharing 7. S calls for long-term perspective and cross-bloc conversations 8 but regrets that the door for such conversations is closed 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Leif Nysmed has asked me if I am prepared to appoint a housing commission with representatives from the construction industry, the parties, and politics.
Sweden is in a difficult economic situation where housing construction is declining as a result of global factors such as high inflation and rising interest rates. The high inflation and the rising interest rates have affected households' demand for housing and contribute to high production and financing costs. I share Leif Nysmed's view that the decline in housing construction constitutes a significant challenge.
I have ongoing close contact and dialogue with the Riksdag and the industry. More housing needs to be built across the entire country, and it is important that there is a supply of different types of tenure forms and housing that suit different stages of life. There is a broad consensus in the industry that what is needed now are reforms to address the structural problems in the housing market. I welcome this consensus regarding the problems and solutions. I also want to remind Leif Nysmed that the government base has a majority in the Swedish Riksdag, and I do not intend to establish a housing commission.
The government is working to increase the availability of developable land, simplify building regulations, shorten lead times in the planning and building process, and improve opportunities for home ownership. In order to reduce the risk of construction workers leaving the industry in the short term, the government has proposed that the ceiling for the rotavdrag (maintenance deduction) should be temporarily raised.
The Government is following the developments and does not rule out that it may justify further measures.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
It is a bit of a shame that you are not responding to what is being demanded in the market and what has been requested for nearly a year. I wrote in my interpellation that this began to be raised during the autumn, but upon closer investigation, it turned out that a demand for a crisis commission was already raised in May last year on bostadspolitik.se. We would prefer to call it a housing commission, but it is about the fact that we are now in a crisis when it comes to housing construction.
I believe it would be good for society as a whole if we could gather together – construction companies, developers, the parties in the industry but also those of us in politics – to see what we can agree on to get the wheels turning quickly. This is what is urgent in all of this. An increased rotavdrag will not solve the problem. I promise, it will not help.
People are becoming unemployed today, and we unfortunately see a concern among many of the Swedish construction workers today who are being outcompeted by foreign labor. As recently as yesterday, reports came in that one is being outcompeted. This is not something we want in the end. Foreign labor can be good in a shortage of competence, but when there is no shortage but rather a surplus, perhaps one should look at how to handle that issue, but we do not do that.
We need to discuss these questions together – industry, partners, and politics – and we need to do it now. Can't the Minister hear the cries from the entire market right now on this? We need to achieve something that might last a bit longer than the two years remaining in this mandate period. We do not know what it will look like after the next election. Some parties might not even exist in this chamber anymore.
We see seven difficult years ahead of us. Is it not distressing that one does not see the need for a housing commission?
Roger Hedlund (SD)
Madam Speaker! The year 2016 was the year when the migrants who came to Sweden were offered tents in the Swedish winter cold by the Social Democratic government. It was also the year that the government invited to housing policy talks in a situation where the housing shortage was high and the migration even higher.
Madam Speaker! Let me also remind that not all parties were invited to those housing policy talks. The Sweden Democrats were never invited by the Social Democratic government.
Now the interpellor Leif Nysmed is asking about a housing commission. It is not the same as housing policy discussions across block boundaries, but it is somewhat in the vicinity. It is a bit ironic, I might think, that one comes with that proposal at the same time as one oneself showed a lack of interest in taking all parties along in the previous discussion.
Where was the interest then in listening to the politics and receiving input from all sides and corners? It was not there then, Madam Speaker. A choice was made to shut out the Sverigedemokraterna. It is a classic Social Democratic manner to work in that way. Now that the interpellor poses this question to the Minister, I think we should all take away how the Socialdemokraterna acted in 2016.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Leif Nysmed for the interpellation and the Minister for the answer.
Roger Hedlund has, on several occasions this afternoon, in one way or another, returned to the point that people have come to Sweden fleeing horrific wars and misery in relatively large numbers over a number of years in recent times.
We Social Democrats believe that it is extremely important that we do not describe the people who have come to Sweden and who are here as predominantly a problem. Now, the situation is that those people who are in Sweden and who are part of our society are also, among other things, to be provided with a home. We are to have a housing policy. The starting point for what we do in the Swedish Riksdag should be to see reality as it is.
I do not intend to conduct a broad migration policy debate. We Social Democrats stand by our proposals in that area, and we see the need for a strict migration policy now and in the future. However, it is not this we are to debate here, but I mean that Roger Hedlund systematically shifts the subject of this debate. It may be a way that makes one understand the great skepticism that exists in our party towards Roger Hedlund's party.
I emphasize in this context what Leif Nysmed is trying to emphasize, namely that the reality regarding housing construction in Sweden is alarming. There is a large number of concrete proposals on the floor of the Riksdag, and many of these come from us Social Democrats.
I can do nothing other than urge Andreas Carlson and the government to rethink on important points and, among other things, see the need for financial support to initiate and maintain the pace of construction, for economic reasons and for housing supply reasons. The proposals exist. They are urgent. We can afford some measures. It is a question of priorities within the framework of a balanced economic policy where one continuously fights inflation and brings it down.
So we Social Democrats think. This is the logic behind the proposals that we have placed on the table of the Swedish Riksdag.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the commitment also in this interpellation debate.
To Leif Nysmed, I want to say that he does not need to be so worried. He was suggesting that some parties might not even remain in Sweden's Riksdag, but I believe that the Social Democrats will remain even after the next election. We shall see – the voters have not yet spoken.
When it comes to the proposals that exist, it is of course important to have this type of debate, but above all to have such conversations as the ones I had yesterday, which I have presented and referred to in previous debates.
Together with other parts of the Government Offices, I gather the parties, and we both listen and have a dialogue about which measures the parties jointly assess have the greatest effect and what is most urgent when it comes to making the type of prioritizations that Markus Kallifatides was touching upon, within the framework of the continued fight against inflation. It is indeed that which is the cause of many of the problems we see with increased production and financing costs and higher interest rates.
The policy aimed at combating the consequences of high inflation must not risk fueling inflation again, such that the positive signals we now see that inflation appears to be heading downwards go in the other direction. This needs, of course, to be connected, and therefore it is important to be focused on the proposed measures.
In the interpellation, the question is asked whether I intend to establish a housing commission. My answer is no, but this does not mean that I will not continue to have a dialogue with the parties and with members of the Swedish Riksdag, perhaps especially within the government base, which has a majority in the Swedish Riksdag.
The important thing now is to move from words to action and present proposals that meet the structural problems that have existed in the housing market for a long time. We would, of course, have been better equipped if the proposals had already been in place.
I look forward to a continued good dialogue. One can rely on the fact that the government is working step by step on the measures that we assess are needed, and that we will also seek broad consensus so that there is long-term perspective in the measures that are taken.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Minister, for the answer!
I think it is a pity that the government is not listening - not to us, because I understand that we have different views. It is not actually us who are requesting anything, but requirements have also been placed on us that we should sit down and discuss more even if we think differently on a number of issues, especially regarding financing and risk-taking and how this should be distributed so that it is possible to move forward. It is wanted that we in politics should stop bickering, as it is often said to us, and sit down, because it is a serious crisis.
The construction industry is at 90s levels, and we know how long it took to get started again back then. Sweden cannot afford this. The call to get the discussion started comes from the industry - from Byggnads, the construction company HSB, Sveriges Allmännytta, Hyresgästföreningen, Fastighetsägarna and bostadspolitik.se, to name a few of all those who have approached me.
I think it is a pity that SD is blocking this. I cannot interpret Rogers' earlier statement as anything other than a response to why there is no housing commission. I believe that the government would actually like to sit and look at things to solve the situation prevailing in the housing industry and the construction industry. I hope that the government can manage to break free from the shackles and come to a different opinion in the future.
Roger Hedlund (SD)
Madam Speaker! It apparently became a sensitive discussion regarding the Social Democrats excluding the Sweden Democrats from the housing policy talks in 2016. Markus Kallifatides raised that matter.
When it comes to the housing policy discussions in 2016, I mentioned migration policy because it was part of the reason why the discussions arose. That is where I link in migration policy. I am happy to discuss that issue anyway.
Madam Speaker! That Member Kallifatides is skeptical of the Sweden Democrats because we link housing policy and migration policy makes me ask the question: What is it actually – do the Social Democrats want a strict migration policy or not?
One moment one welcomes the announcement of a strict migration policy, only to speak in the next moment about how one perhaps should not have had a strict migration policy. It is argued that the migration that occurred in 2016 was necessary and that we needed to help people, and then one speaks about tightening the migration policy. Is it not necessary to help these people any longer then?
That this should be a reason to be skeptical about inviting the Sweden Democrats to housing policy talks or, perhaps more correctly stated, to involve the Sweden Democrats at all becomes very convoluted. I agree, Madam Speaker, but this is fundamentally based on the fact that I don't quite understand what the Social Democrats want with the talks or with their migration policy.
In the end, we know that much of the housing policy depends on what happens on the migration policy level.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker and Minister! I thank Leif Nysmed for the opportunity to debate the question of creating a housing commission to discuss and carve out good short-term and long-term measures to meet the crisis in housing construction and the housing supply situation, which is worsening day by day, and also, to the greatest extent possible, establish cross-bloc and sustainable solutions in the longer term.
I mention things that I would, in any case, very much like to take up within the scope of such conversations, for example with Andreas Carlson. These are issues that do not quite exist on the government's reform agenda. This concerns, for example, the role of the municipalities and the obvious fact that certain municipalities in Sweden simply do not contribute actively to solving the housing supply challenges, but perhaps even on the contrary, rather clearly sabotage and oppose the work.
That question is taken up in the Karolina Skog investigation, which is being prepared in the Government Offices. There, I believe there is reason to really discuss and carve out things that can hold over time in Swedish politics, following different currency fluctuations. State risk-sharing, co-financing, and co-support for new production is another theme.
When it comes to Roger Hedlund's post, I think the confusion lies on Member Hedlund's side. I tried to be clear that the reality in Sweden is such that the people who are here now - everyone who is in the country - need housing. We have a housing shortage and an acute housing construction crisis, and we need to get policies in place to create adequate housing. It has nothing to do with positions on other policy areas. We need to meet the housing needs that exist among the people who are, and will be, in this country. That was the starting point.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by addressing Leif Nysmed's question as to whether it is the case that a single party, namely the Sweden Democrats, is influencing the government to be against the idea of appointing a housing commission. That is not correct. What is important for the government is, of course, to have high accessibility and to have a dialogue with the parties, as well as to be both attentive and constructive when we meet many in the industry.
This is important, partly to be updated regarding the situation which is very bleak, and partly to be able to identify which measures are judged to have the greatest effect both in the short term – in that which can bridge the tough period the construction sector is currently in – and in the slightly longer term. In that case, it concerns the structural problems that have previously affected housing construction for a long time to come and which affect housing construction in today's tough economic situation. When we have addressed several of these structural problems, they should hopefully not affect housing construction as much in the future.
I welcome as broad a consensus as possible, both regarding the problem picture and regarding the solutions and measures that will be presented during the mandate period. What is important here, however, is to have a high momentum in the work. That is the background to why we now see that that is where the focus lies. It does not exclude a good dialogue with different actors and different parties, but in this situation, we have not seen the need for a housing commission.
However, it does not mean that we think everything is peaceful and pleasant; I believe that those who have listened to the debates here today have noted that the government and I see the seriousness of the situation. We see the dramatic decline, and we have pointed out a reform agenda. We take responsibility for combating what in large parts is the underlying cause of the situation we have, namely the high inflation.
Regarding one of the issues that Markus Kallifatides raised, namely the role of the municipalities, the government has referred a memorandum with proposals from the inquiry on the municipalities' responsibility for housing supply that the member refers to. In the memorandum, it is proposed that it should become mandatory for municipalities to provide rental guarantees to families with children under certain conditions. It is one of the proposals from that inquiry that is now referred. It is therefore not only being prepared in the Government Offices but is also out for consultation. This means that we are gathering views to obtain a basis and to be able to return with measures in the area.
So, step by step, the government is taking responsibility in the tough situation prevailing on the housing market, and we will continue to have a good dialogue with parties and actors - and, I assume, with the Swedish Riksdag.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister again for the answer.
I understand that the government, and perhaps everyone in the government base, meets with the parties and the industry and discusses. What is being requested, however, is long-term perspective. If you agree on something, one knows that it can last for perhaps two years, Andreas Carlson, and then one does not know any more. As previous debaters here have pointed out, no one builds a house in two years, but it requires a bit more long-term foresight.
That is why one gladly wants to have cross-bloc conversations and see if it is possible to agree on a way forward that holds even after the next election, because none of us know what it will look like in this room then, that is to say, which majorities will exist then. We can only guess, and that is what the market dislikes – the uncertainty. That is why they contact us and push.
I can say that some of those who, purely politically, think the opposite of what we think and instead sympathize more with you, the Minister, come to me and say: "Damn it, can't you just sit down and discuss and try to reach an agreement – move forward?" We try to listen to them, because we know that long-term thinking is required in these discussions. But right now we note that that door is closed, and we regret that from the Social Democrats' side.
We are eager to get this industry started again and to produce housing that people can ultimately afford to demand. We are eager to get down unemployment, reduce bankruptcies in the construction industry and get a flourishing housing production again. We can only hope that you will come to a different position later, Andreas Carlson.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! No, the door is not closed. There will be good opportunities for dialogue, and in the processing of the proposals that will be presented in the Riksdag, there are always good chances and opportunities to manifest the broad consensus and long-term perspective that political decisions can provide. Given that we in large parts seem to agree on the problem picture, I see good opportunities for a broad consensus also regarding the measures, not least the structural ones.
I thank you for the extended hand and look forward to a continued good dialogue ahead. I also thank you for the commitment in this interpellation debate today.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.