Employment and housing in rural areas
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD supports the bill to facilitate generational shifts within agriculture by removing permit requirements for transfers to family members and spouses 1. This reduces bureaucracy and costs while simultaneously protecting family farms and creating better conditions for housing and employment in rural areas 1. C considers that the government's proposal does too little and instead wants a policy that promotes ownership rights, simplified rules for construction and investments 2. C argues that power should lie locally and that one must move from control to trust 2. KD supports the bill as it simplifies family transfers but emphasizes the importance of maintaining the state's obligation to buy out land as a safeguard against speculation 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Roger Hedlund (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating employment and housing in the countryside here in the chamber. Agriculture and a living countryside are of the utmost importance for Sweden. It is essential that we create good conditions for agriculture to operate, be passed on, and create good conditions for Sweden. This is extra important in these times, with unrest and war in our surrounding world.
Today, generational successions within agricultural properties often require permits. This entails costs and administrative work for both the individuals and for the authorities. The purpose of these permits during generational successions is to ensure a living countryside, that we use the land in a sustainable way, and to control the ownership of agricultural land. The goal is to prevent speculation and ensure that the land is used effectively.
Some want to go further and change the legislation regarding the obligation to repurchase. It is believed that it counteracts the purpose of the reform. I mean that the current rural area provisions are important for the settlement and employment in the area to function in a good way. I agree on the importance of maintaining the current system with the adjustments presented in the bill. The current limitations regarding the acquisition of property are judged to be important. A protection for sellers through an obligation to repurchase for the state was also needed.
The solution to the problem with property transfers within agricultural properties is that, through this bill, the requirement for permission is removed for agricultural properties when they pass to siblings or parents of the transferor, or when spouses acquire them jointly and one of the spouses is the transferor's parent or sibling.
With the proposal in the bill that is on the table today, we reduce costs when permits are not required for the acquisition of agricultural property. We also save time and create better conditions for a living countryside. The bureaucracy disappears. We also facilitate generational successions, safeguard family farms, and create better opportunities to live and work in the countryside.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I support the proposal in the bill and the legislative change proposed to enter into force on 1 July 2026.
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Mr. Speaker! Rural issues have always been part of the Center Party's DNA. It is quite telling that it is three parties that have requested speaking time in this debate.
This report concerns more than a technical issue. It is about whether the countryside should be given the conditions to grow or merely continue to be administered.
As you heard in the previous speech, the government is presenting changes to the land acquisition legislation. From the Center Party's side, we have used the tool available, which is a follow-up motion. The difference between these two proposals for a decision is very clear: the government chooses to adjust the system, while the Center Party wants to change the conditions.
To somehow try to achieve clarity regarding the differences between the various perspectives, I want to start with reality, Mr. Speaker. The challenges in the countryside are not primarily about who gets to buy or transfer land. The challenges are that companies cannot grow, that people cannot find housing, and that capital does not reach. That is where the problem lies, but it is not where the government chooses to place its focus.
In our follow-up motion, we instead point to what is actually required: strengthened property rights, simplified rules for construction and entrepreneurship, and better conditions for investments. Without this, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter who owns the land – it will still not be developed.
The government's policy is characterized by a recurring idea: More governance shall solve problems that fundamentally concern a lack of freedom and predictability. It is a misconception, I want to assert, and it has consequences.
We must also speak plainly about the Sweden Democrats. They often talk about the countryside and say they stand on the side of the countryside, but when it actually matters – here in the chamber – they vote time and again for a policy that does not strengthen companies, improve the housing market, or create growth. It is a lot of rhetoric but extremely little delivery.
Mr. Speaker! There is also a fundamental question here: Who should have the power over the countryside? Is it the state, through increasingly complex regulations, or is it the people who live and work there? For us, the answer is simple: Power should be as close to the individual as possible, that is, locally. In our follow-up motion, we are very clear: Yes, regulations may absolutely need to be adjusted, but that is not enough. What is required is a policy that makes it possible to build and live, profitable to invest, and attractive to live and work in the countryside.
Since I see some students in the gallery here, I want to say why this question is extra important. Sweden is an extremely beautiful, elongated country. Different parts of Sweden have different conditions but are extremely important for the whole to function. When one, from the government's side, chooses not to take advantage of the opportunities and facilitate for people who live there, one is not doing their job.
Mr. Speaker! The government's proposal is not entirely without merit, but it is a typical example of doing too little in an area that requires more. In that vacuum, frustration grows, not least among those people who time and again are told that the countryside is important but rarely notice it in practice.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: We have a follow-up motion, not just because we want to have one but because we see that a different direction is needed. We see that it is necessary to move from control to trust, from administration to development, and from words about the countryside to actual policy for it, Roger Hedlund.
Mr. Speaker! We have a reservation in this report which I naturally move for approval.
Dan Hovskär (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Today I am stepping in for my colleague Larry Söder on this matter.
Sweden's rural areas should not only survive, but they must live, grow, and develop. They should be attractive places to live in, work in, and pass on to the next generation. For the Christian Democrats, this is ultimately about stewardship. We have a responsibility to care for what we have been given, that is to say our land, our food production, and our local communities so that they can be carried forward, stronger, to our children and grandchildren. Therefore, I am pleased that the Riksdag today is considering the government's bill on employment and housing in rural areas.
Mr. Speaker! The land acquisition acts carry a long and important history. Since the beginning of the 1900s, the legislation has had a clear purpose: to protect the land, secure its cultivation, and safeguard life in the countryside. It is about more than law. It is about who owns the land and who takes responsibility for it. Over the years, the law has contributed to ensuring that land has not merely become an object of speculation but has continued to be a foundation for work, enterprise, and life. The law has helped to keep the countryside alive.
Mr. Speaker! The government's proposal implies a cautious but important modernization. By exempting certain family transfers from the permit requirement, we reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. We make it easier for siblings, parents, and spouses to take over and continue running farms. This is common sense.
What is a farm, really? It is not just a property, but it is also a home, a business, and often a life's work. When a generational transition occurs, it must function smoothly. Knowledge, responsibility, and commitment must be able to be inherited, not get stuck in administration.
Here, the Christian Democrats and the government show an important insight: that the family is a supporting force also in the economy and in the development of the countryside.
Mr. Speaker! At the same time, we stand firm on what is fundamental. We safeguard the balance in land ownership. We say yes to simplifications but no to letting go of control completely. Therefore, it is regrettable that the Center Party, in its motion, wants to remove the state's obligation to purchase land when an acquisition permit is denied. That is going too far. The obligation to purchase is not an obstacle but a guarantee and a safety valve that protects particularly vulnerable rural areas from short-sightedness and speculation. Without it, we risk weakening the long-term responsibility for the land and thus also for jobs, housing, and food production.
Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats want to see a Sweden that holds together, a country where city and countryside develop together, not at the expense of each other. We want vibrant rural areas for more jobs, stronger companies and a secure food supply.
The bill we are discussing today is a step in the right direction. It simplifies where necessary and preserves what is crucial. We hereby strengthen family farming, the countryside, and Sweden. Therefore, I move for approval of the bill and rejection of the reservation.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.