Development of the macroprudential area
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD wants to abolish the second amortization requirement and raise the mortgage ceiling to 90 percent to facilitate things for young adults and families with children 1. SD argues that the current rules are growth-inhibiting and that the reforms strengthen democratic legitimacy 1. SD argues that they have fought inflation and that construction is starting to pick up again 2. SD believes that they are implementing rule simplifications and raising the mortgage ceiling to help first-time buyers 2. S argues that the proposal risks raising prices because there is a lack of policy for increased construction 3. S argues that the changes make it more expensive to borrow for renovations 3. S argues that it is problematic that people with lower incomes are referred to unsecured loans 4. M argues that the possibility of borrowing for the first home increases 5. M argues that the new mortgage rules reduce the down payment and shorten the saving period for young people 6. M argues that it is rational to spread the housing cost over life 6. KD believes that the government's proposal lowers the threshold to the housing market 7. KD argues that the increase of the mortgage ceiling as well as the limitation of additional loans are important adjustments 7. KD believes that the removal of the reinforced amortization requirement is a major win that increases households' resilience 7. KD argues that the government's initiative to shorten lead times and introduce rule relaxations makes it cheaper and simpler to own one's home 7. KD also believes that the government's limitation of the interest on SMS loans counters predatory lending and over-indebtedness 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Dennis Dioukarev (SD)
Madam Speaker! Sweden is built on the idea of freedom under responsibility. We believe in people's ability to make decisions about their own lives, their economy, and their future. The state's role is to create stable rules of the game, not to erect unnecessary obstacles that stand in the way of people's dreams.
For many, the dream of owning one's own home is a fundamental part of life. The home is the foundation upon which one builds their existence. It is where life happens, where careers take shape, relationships grow, and families are formed.
But today we have a system that in practice has shut out an entire generation from the Swedish housing market. What we are to debate today is, therefore, an abolished second amortization requirement and a raised mortgage ceiling.
The Sweden Democrats were in favor of the first amortization requirement but against the second, which was introduced in 2018. Even then, we pointed out several problems, which have later also become reality.
The second amortization requirement is designed so that those with the lowest income shall amortize the most. In practice, it hits hardest against young adults, recent graduates, and families with children. With almost surgical precision, the requirement has hit just these groups. These are often people who manage their running expenses but have not had time to save up a sufficiently large down payment or who lack the opportunity to receive financial help from home. For them, the second amortization requirement has become the last closed door.
On a macro level, it is close to the hand to draw the conclusion that the requirement has also been growth-inhibiting. When entry into the housing market in our most labor-intensive metropolitan regions is hindered, the mobility of the labor market is also affected. It is difficult to say how many job opportunities have been lost, how many educational places have been turned down, and how many housing dreams have been pushed into the future. But there is no doubt that the consequences have been palpable.
We also know that the restrictions pushed some households towards riskier solutions, such as blank loans, in an attempt to try to bypass the regulatory framework. It is neither responsible nor sustainable.
Madam Speaker! A change of power was required to open up the housing market for more people. Now we are moving forward with reforms that make a real difference. The second amortization requirement is abolished, and the mortgage ceiling is raised from 85 percent to 90 percent. This means in practice that the requirement for the down payment is lowered from 15 percent to 10 percent.
For a first-time buyer, it means the lower requirement that the savings period for a down payment to purchase a one-room apartment in Greater Stockholm is shortened by up to four years. For a single person in a housing cooperative, the abolition of the second amortization requirement means that the loan cost is reduced by up to 1,500 kronor per month. This can be decisive for whether a person passes the banks' "left-to-live-on" calculation and is granted a housing loan, which in turn can enable a young person with a secure income to buy their first apartment.
For a family with children with a larger residence and a somewhat larger loan, the borrowing cost is reduced by up to 4,000 kronor per month. This increases the possibility of passing the Kalp-calculation, moving to a small house, or using the financial space to build up a necessary buffer for unforeseen expenses or fluctuations in the economy.
It is not just about economics, however. It is also about democracy and accountability. When central rules for household finances are decided through agency regulations, the direct political anchoring is reduced. Therefore, we are now strengthening the democratic legitimacy by regulating these issues in law instead of through agency decisions. In this way, housing policy becomes more clearly anchored in this chamber, and the Swedish people get a better opportunity to hold those who make the decisions accountable.
Madam Speaker! All of this is good news for those who want to move out from home and for those who want to start a family. These are reforms that make it possible for more people to take the step into the housing market, to move to where the jobs are, to say yes to a study place in another location and to plan for the future with greater security. These are reforms that will strengthen the one who is the architect of their own fortune and who does not come from a background where even their parents had the opportunity to help with a down payment.
Red-green governments stood passive during their time in power when people were met with a closed door time and again. But we choose to tear down these artificial barriers and make it possible for more to realize the dream of their own home.
Patrik Lundqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! For far too many, the dream of owning a home is far too distant today. Behind us, we have had a period of low interest rates, high inflation, and on top of that, a number of reforms which, instead of making it easy for young people to aim for owned housing, have forced them to see prices skyrocket, money go further for less, and the dream fall increasingly out of reach.
It is against that background and with the lessons from history difficult to view only positively on the changes that are now proposed. Do not misunderstand me. It is good if more people get the opportunity to come closer to finally being able to acquire their dream home. But there are risks here, Madam Speaker. They are risks that the government and the majority wave away all too lightly. The risks lie primarily in that what the government is now doing is not followed by a policy for increased construction. They also do not analyze what effects their proposals have for the whole.
I borrow a little from Tage Danielsson: Construction must come first, my friend. If you don't do that, no one will get in again.
In other words: If there continue to be too few homes on the market, these changes most likely risk leading to prices going up. Then more people still will not be able to enter the housing market, but they will have to see their dream postponed until they have saved up even more, even if they can borrow more.
The government's own investigation points out that prices could rise by 5 percent as a result of this change. Of course, there are those who profit from it, such as banks, brokers and so on. But it is a problem for the housing market, for Sweden's economy, and perhaps especially for the young who aim to buy their first home in the near future.
Sweden is a country where the people are already highly indebted. That question will likely become even more relevant given the crises and conflicts occurring at this moment and which may grow and spread even further. We will not emerge from this unscathed, and it does not seem particularly well-timed to increase the Swedish people's indebtedness and interest rate sensitivity in just these days.
We do not yet know so much about this other than that the risks exist, and we do not know where it ends. I understand that the government and the majority did not have an American attack on Iran, which in the worst case might affect the entire Middle East, in mind when they put forward this proposal. One has to take it for what it is. Naturally, it is worst for those who live in the area and are affected by the war.
But there are also other risks, which we can see here and now and which are not affected by the outside world, Madam Speaker. One is that this proposal makes it more difficult and more expensive to borrow to renovate a newly purchased home compared to borrowing for a fully renovated home. By separating the ceiling for loans at the time of purchase and the ceiling for additional loans on the home, the government is introducing a difference in the conditions that is difficult to explain to the person who is going to buy a home. If the homes after renovation are equivalent and have the same total price, it is who renovates, the buyer or the seller, that determines how much the buyer can borrow. For a fully renovated home, one will be able to borrow up to 90 percent, but if the home needs renovation, the ceiling is 80 percent.
The ambition is to limit over-indebtedness, and that may seem reasonable at first glance. But if it has the side effect that people are forced to renovate their newly purchased home via unsecured loans instead of additional loans on the mortgage, it leads to absurd consequences that it is difficult to see the government would have thought through properly.
We heard examples from here in Stockholm. But in large parts of the country, the prices are not so high to begin with. As a buyer, one may need to renovate for the future. As a seller, one might not want to renovate a home one is going to move out of, but as a buyer, one can be willing to renovate for quite large sums if one wants to live there for a long time. The situation will therefore worsen through these changes for buyers in large parts of Sweden.
The individual gets a more expensive housing without any real reason. For society as a whole, it becomes more expensive to take care of the assets that already exist, which risks leading to capital destruction in the end. There is a admittedly marginal but still higher risk of poorer financial stability, with more unsecured loans for renovations, which now additionally do not entitle to interest deductions.
To be blunt, it should rather be rewarded that one acquires a cheaper house, renovates it and takes care of it, instead of being punished with stricter rules for loans than if one buys a more expensive house without renovation needs, if both houses become equivalent when the deal is complete and the renovation is done.
One can probably state that the government does not quite see what it is doing, Madam Speaker. That is why it is good that we in the Riksdag can rectify parts of it and ensure that the government returns with a deeper analysis and potential measures to ensure that more people get the opportunity to enter the housing market, that prices are kept down, and that the rules do not hit so unfairly between buyers of different types of housing with different needs for renovation and so on.
It is very important that we have a system that encourages a healthy amortization culture and secures good financial stability for the sake of all of Sweden. But just as important is that we have a healthy housing market and take care of the values that already exist, and of course that we have a policy for growth, construction, and faith in the future.
That is where this government has failed completely, Madam Speaker. Housing construction came to a complete standstill when the government abandoned the policy for increased construction at the same time as inflation hit the construction sector hard without the needs actually decreasing. What was previously an engine of Swedish growth and a source of faith for the future was replaced by mass unemployment, crushed dreams, and poorer growth.
Stockholms Handelskammare states in its report The Cost of the Construction Crisis that we risk an aggregate production loss of 1,000 billion kronor for the Swedish economy until 2030. Sweden will become poorer and have lower growth, fewer jobs, and fewer people with their own homes. The state must take greater responsibility when the market cannot manage on its own to meet people's basic needs.
All of this goes hand in hand. It is a self-inflicted crisis for which the government is fully responsible. Other priorities would have resulted in a different outcome, Madam Speaker. Therefore, we Social Democrats point out several concrete measures to get construction moving again, for example, a state construction stimulus and state construction credits that can reduce the risks for new production and make it possible to build even in tougher times. This is important, not least for all young people who currently have difficulty obtaining housing. A clearer national grip on the housing supply is also needed. A unified housing supply law and a national action plan shall ensure that construction maintains a steady pace over time instead of collapsing in every recession.
Housing policy is fundamentally about freedom, security, and equality, and about the opportunity to shape one's own life. Society should not close doors for people depending on where they were born or how thick their wallet is. Changed mortgage rules can be part of the solution, but without an active policy to build more housing, they are not the answer to the housing crisis. Therefore, more than just adjustments in the regulations are needed. Political will, accountability, and a housing policy that puts people's needs before the market's short-term logic are needed.
Ida Drougge (M)
Madam Speaker! Having the opportunity to borrow for one's first home and thus enter the housing market is absolutely crucial. That opportunity is now increasing. I will return to that later. For very many who live in a large city, it now becomes a difference that affects whether one will have this opportunity at all or not.
When we increase the possibility of borrowing for the first home, it is however particularly urgent to establish that the subsequent amortization is equally important. To then have a system where one can time and again borrow for maintenance and renovations, which counteracts the amortization requirements we have, is not reasonable. The day one retires, it is important for one's own financial security that the amortization rate and the debt burden have gone down; when one receives a lower income again, it is absolutely crucial.
Madam Speaker! I think it is a somewhat strange argument from Patrik Lundqvist. The Government does not mean that these changes affect the price development to any significant extent. On the contrary, the Government argues that they affect to a lesser extent than the economic cycle, construction, and many other things do.
The measures that the Social Democrats mention here in the debate, they have not financed in their budget. Either they have a large deficit in the budget or they are promising things they cannot keep.
Patrik Lundqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! I do not quite know where to begin. It was a very strange submission. No actual question was posed, only a few assertions. Ida Drougge said, for example, that we have not financed the things we want to implement. This is, of course, not true, Madam Speaker.
Of course, the government says that this will not raise prices on the housing market. But the investigation and the preparatory works for the proposal give a different picture. There are also several others who make the assessment that this will have the effect that prices go upwards if the housing supply continues to be low. Here, the government really has no answers. It may be that a few more will enter the housing market because one can borrow a little more. But Stockholm is probably not the prime example; it is perhaps there that prices will increase the most due to such a change.
Then you won't get in either, even though you are allowed to borrow more. It becomes a bit of a circular argument. It is like with the government's other proposals in the budget. They are perhaps mostly there to look very good and gain a few votes in the election, and then one has to hope that it can be resolved afterwards.
It seems to be a tactic that is being employed alongside saying that we do not finance our proposals. At the same time, they present their own budget where they borrow for enormous tax cuts. All in all, it is the government that needs to take responsibility for what it does instead of trying to pretend that we do not take responsibility for our proposals. It is at least theirs that will become reality. There we see very much to be desired. The Fiscal Policy Council has criticized precisely these parts.
Ida Drougge (M)
Madam Speaker! The problem is only that the member just now stood here in the speaker's chair and said that the government itself says that the proposal will cause large price increases. That is not true. It is also not true that banks and economists think so.
SBAB and Finansinspektionen have made estimates on the effect of price increases. They mean that they could end up at around 2–5 percent in the longer term. It is not a large price increase. It is a lower price increase, a smaller price movement, than that which is driven by interest rates, construction, and the economy.
It takes me into the criticism of construction right now. Construction in Sweden has stalled. That is true. We have had sky-high inflation that the then Social Democratic government left behind. There have been high electricity prices as a result of shutting down fully functioning nuclear reactors. We have also had inflation and a recession at the same time. People have not been able to afford to buy a home. Now they can, and then construction will pick up.
Patrik Lundqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! It is like talking to a wall. The member is not listening to what I am actually saying. I said exactly what she is now referring to. Prices can increase by 5 percent. That is what the government's own investigation says. Then she counters with: The government does not say that, and furthermore, it is a low increase.
It may be that it is low compared to some other effects, which we, for the time being, have not seen yet. We do not know where the interest rates are headed in, for example, the crisis we have now. The effect of that is difficult to predict right now.
I referred to the investigation and that the prices, as a result of the changes, can go up by 5 percent. That was exactly what I said. Still, the member stands here and says that is certainly not the case at all, but that it is only 5 percent.
I find it difficult to see how it can ultimately work to say both that I am wrong and that I am right in the same post. It becomes a bit strange, Madam Speaker. I thank you for my part in this strange exchange of remarks.
Dennis Dioukarev (SD)
Madam Speaker! We know what it looked like during the Social Democrats' recent years in power. There was an inflation of 10 percent that forced the Riksbank to carry out the most powerful interest rate hikes in very many years. It naturally killed the construction industry. Now we have fought the inflation. It is under control. We have seen eight interest rate cuts, and construction is finally starting to pick up again.
We also know what the Social Democratic legacy in housing policy looks like. It is rules that are far too complicated, lead times that are far too long, and land that is not made available to a sufficiently large extent.
That is why the Sweden Democrats and the government are now implementing extensive regulatory simplifications to build, rebuild, and build new. We are simplifying for student housing construction. In my hometown Gothenburg, 400 student residences are now being built outside Chalmers.
We have an incentive for municipalities for detailed planning and much more beyond what we are discussing today, which is an abolished second amortization requirement and a raised mortgage ceiling. The purpose is to get first-time buyers, young adults and recent graduates, but also families with children who want to move to a larger home, onto the housing market.
The strange thing about the member's speech and the previous exchanges is that I hear a lot of criticism against the fact that we now want to get young adults into the housing market with the proposals we are debating today. But I see no motion to reject. Why are the proposals that the government and Sverigedemokraterna are to implement being accepted? We have no motion to reject from Socialdemokraterna, but a lot of criticism.
Patrik Lundqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! It is strange with these exchanges where one obviously has not listened to what is being said in the speeches.
Our criticism is not directed at the fact that one goes up to 90 percent. That is not the main point. The main point is, for example, the distortions that are now being introduced where there are different opportunities to borrow depending on what type of property one buys, if it is, for example, fully renovated or has renovation needs.
The criticism concerns other parts and not the change itself. That is perhaps why the exchanges become so strange. One tries to insert themselves into the main part of the proposal and not the side effects and the other parts that could have been avoided if one had wanted to, Madam Speaker. What I am focusing on are the problems that can arise when one does this and not the main change itself.
It is very good if more people get the opportunity to enter the housing market. But it must be followed by sensible rules for the whole, where one does not build in problems such that one will need to change the system once again within a fairly short time.
We can already see that it is going to become a problem. The government should have done so as well. It appears that in their eagerness to try to counter over-indebtedness, while simultaneously actually allowing for higher indebtedness, they want to penalize certain groups while letting others through.
I direct sharp criticism towards that. It will affect, above all, people outside the metropolitan areas. It is those who live in large parts of Sweden where housing prices in general have a lower increase and, moreover, a lower level from the start.
Dennis Dioukarev (SD)
Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government think it is perfectly reasonable to combine the reliefs that we are now implementing with also introducing restrictions for financial stability. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
If the member and the Social Democrats are so critical of that part of the proposal, why do we see no motion to reject it? One speaks very much in the rostrum and is heard very much. But one does not follow up in active action. One approves every other proposal in the government bill. How is that?
Patrik Lundqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! I believe that the member, just as I know that there are certain preparatory requirements and certain structures in Sweden's governance that mean it is only the government that has the possibility to prepare and investigate legislative proposals. That is the simple explanation. I believe that in the member's own party, they have sat in corresponding situations countless times. I know it. It is a bit ridiculous to try to make it into some kind of point right here today.
One can speak a bit more about financial stability, since it has now come up. As I said in my speech, it does not benefit financial stability to refer people who buy homes with renovation needs to unsecured loans instead of housing loans. It really does not, but rather it is the opposite.
One can reason about how big a problem it is. It probably won't be huge volumes, but it will be a fairly small part. But it is quite large amounts of money for individuals when they are referred to unsecured loans instead of more favorable housing loans when they need to renovate.
This is a huge problem, especially for people with lower incomes. They would benefit greatly from buying a cheaper home in need of renovation and then renovating bit by bit as they get the opportunity. Had they then had these additional 10 percent on the mortgage to do this, just as those who buy a fully renovated home have, it would have helped both individuals, the Swedish housing stock, and the Swedish economy. But the government side ignores this and instead tries to throw this back at us who highlight the problems – as if it were we who caused them! It is, of course, not true.
We need a better housing market, and as I said in my speech: These changes can be part of that, but they are not a silver bullet.
Ida Drougge (M)
Madam Speaker! There is an image that many young people carry with them – an image and a dream of a house. It is not necessarily a large house or a perfect house, but a house of their own.
They dream of a small garden, perhaps a wooden deck, a grill, and a place where children can run out of the door without encountering a heavily trafficked road. It is not some luxury dream we are talking about, but it is a perfectly ordinary life plan.
Too many people notice today, however, that the system is not built for them. It is easier for the one who already owns than for the one who wants to get in. The one who has had time to accumulate capital and equity benefits, while the one who has just started their professional life is met with closed doors. Then politics must ask a simple question: Is the regulatory framework intended to preserve differences or to give more people the chance to build their lives?
Madam Speaker! Let us begin where many begin, with a one-room apartment. A one-room apartment in Stockholm costs around 3 million kronor today. For an 18-year-old who has received their first summer job this summer, it would, if we do not change the regulatory framework, take about twelve years to save up for that down payment. This assumes that one can save between 3,000 and 4,000 kronor every month and that the return on the savings keeps pace with the housing prices. If one succeeds with this, one can hold the key in hand in the same year one turns 30 – 30!
With the new mortgage rules, the down payment decreases by a full 150,000 kronor, and the move from insecure short-term contracts or from the spare room at mom's house is moved forward by five years. There is a big difference between having a secure home of your own when you are 25 and having it when you are 30.
According to SBAB's calculations, the savings time for this person is shortened by five years. These are crucial years if one is to be able to take the next step later in life toward that dream of a house. In practice, it will be a modest terraced house with a wooden deck, a small patch of grass, perhaps a garage and a grill.
When life moves forward and one hopefully finds love and starts thinking about children, it requires over 1.1 million kronor in down payment in the Stockholm area, with today's regulations. If one is to move into a smaller terraced house about 30 minutes from here, for example in Älvsjö, one only gets a monthly cost of 31,000 kronor in interest and amortizations – before utilities, water, sewage, and insurance are paid.
With the new rules, that down payment drops to 750,000 kronor. That is 375,000 kronor less. With the abolished extra amortization requirement, the monthly cost becomes approximately 4,000 kronor lower. That is 4,000 kronor that one can save every month to build up a buffer or save for, for example, a renovation. It is the difference that makes the dream of a normal modest villa, a Volvo, and perhaps a dog possible – in the whole country and regardless of how large a wallet your parents have.
Madam Speaker! Borrowing for one's home is not irresponsible; it is rational. It is wise to spread the housing cost over life. When you are 30, you do not have your life's highest salary. But it is often then that you begin to need a larger home. When you are 55, you often have a higher salary and more savings, lower costs, and more leisure time. A reasonable system spreads the costs over life's different phases. An unreasonable system, like today's, reinforces the differences between generations.
For a period of time, the regulatory framework has done exactly this, while the vast majority in the older generation had this opportunity when they entered the housing market. The system favors those who already own, who bought many years ago, and disadvantages those who are left outside.
Let me be clear: Having your own home should be able to be the result of hard work and effort. It should not be dependent on whether one has parents who can give one an inheritance.
At the same time, we must have a culture of amortization. One must pay off their loans. When one retires, it is not healthy to be stuck with large interest costs, high debts, and worry. Therefore, the basic amortization requirement remains, and the possibility of increasing one's borrowing to fund renovations is reduced. Freedom and responsibility are linked. Borrowing for one's first home is one thing. Successively reducing this debt over a lifetime is another, equally important, thing. Today's possibility to borrow for one's home to a greater extent than at the time of purchase speaks against this. Today, one can, for example, value the property to a much greater extent in connection with an additional loan than one can otherwise.
Madam Speaker! This is not about speculation; it is about everyday life. It is about being able to say yes to a job that does not require a three-hour commute, being able to live near a preschool and one's grandparents, and being able to put down roots instead of living with a moving box in the hallway. Rules and politics are intended to facilitate people's lives, not to make them more complicated.
We are also lowering taxes and fees nationally. A typical family with two children will have around 5,500 kronor more left over per month. These are funds that can go towards savings, towards a down payment, and towards security. We are lowering the thresholds in the housing market. We are making it so that house dreams can once again be about will and choice rather than the size of your parents' wallet.
Madam Speaker! I can state that when the Social Democrats rule, things are done differently. Then they raise the taxes.
We can choose a path for Sweden where the housing market is for those who are already in, or we can choose a path for Sweden where a young and hardworking person with education, work, and faith in the future gets a reasonable chance. We can choose a Sweden where the rules help people forward and where taxes do not hold them back. We can choose a Sweden where opportunities are decided by ambition and responsibility and not by where the politics end and the parents' wealth begins.
Hans Eklind (KD)
Madam Speaker! What we are discussing this Wednesday morning is a proposal from the government that will lower the threshold to the housing market and increase the possibility of realizing the dream of being able to own one's home. This is what the amortization requirements and the mortgage ceiling are largely about.
The heading for the debate may, however, seem a bit strange. Development of the macroprudential area – what on earth is that? Yes, it is actually another way of expressing that we are discussing the resilience in the banking and financial sector but also the household sector.
Making such adjustments is always a balancing act. One must weigh one thing against another. But this government has now decided and placed on our table that we shall raise the mortgage ceiling from 85 to 90 percent. We also have a proposal that additional loans, i.e., the type of loan one takes to be able to renovate one's house or condominium, shall be limited to 80 percent of the property's market value.
And so we come to the third part I want to highlight, my own favorite. I have really wondered: What is this thing with a tightened amortization requirement actually about? I have many young people in my vicinity, and some have actually entered the Stockholm housing market. I am from Örebro, and even in Örebro, a condominium costs a lot of money, though not anywhere near what they cost in Stockholm. On top of the fact that one has borrowed and pays interest – we all know how it was when inflation was higher – is one then not supposed to just amortize, but amortize even a little more.
There is talk about resilience. What this does is that the person's resilience decreases as a larger portion of the person's money is taken to amortize. That we now remove the increased amortization requirement and keep the normal one, I think, is a huge win and a good way forward. I know that many young people look forward to being exempt from the increased amortization requirement.
Madam Speaker! Today, 61–62 percent own their home. 39 percent own a small house and 21–22 percent a housing cooperative apartment. How many then want to own their home? Yes, it is many more. Seven out of ten say that they want to own their home. We are not quite there yet.
Something we can observe, and which is perhaps a problem right now, is that if seven out of ten now want to own their home, perhaps we should not primarily build rental apartments. Six out of ten apartments built today are rental apartments. That is not at all in line with the dream and the desire that the Swede has.
That is why such as that which we decide on here today is important, for the simple reason that it enables more people to own their home. If more people can own their home, the construction will naturally also pick up pace.
This government has done a great deal to shorten lead times and introduce regulatory easing. About sixty initiatives have been taken in the housing area. The purpose is to make it cheaper, faster, and simpler to own your home. We have appointed a cottage owner commission. The purpose of that is to increase small house production.
Are such things important? The other day I read a report which showed that the costs for planning work have developed in a rather interesting way. Over the last 24 years, the planning costs have increased by 120 percent. The consumer price index has at the same time increased by 60 percent. The costs for planning work have thus increased twice as much as the consumer price index.
Also, things like these affect construction. If we have double-digit inflation, we don't need to wonder why nothing is being built. Everyone who has the slightest insight into the construction sector knows that not much is built when we have double digits in inflation. But things like these also matter – lead times and costs in connection with actually wanting to build something. This government is doing an enormous amount to address this.
In conclusion: He who is in debt is not free, someone said. What one must remember when listening to a debate like this is that over-indebtedness definitely makes a person deeply unfree. Parallel to the fact that we are now deciding on this, I want to remind that this government has also done other things so that the over-indebtedness in the country shall decrease.
For example, we have said that one cannot charge 40 percent interest on so-called SMS loans. We have set the ceiling at 20 percent. It can never be a reasonable business idea to charge interest that makes it impossible for a person to repay their debt. It took this government to achieve such a simple change. We have tried to put a stop to the predatory practices that have occurred.
I believe this is a balanced proposal from the government considering the overall picture regarding how people can be placed in debt. I therefore move for approval of the proposal.
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.