Efficient and safe construction process

Leif Nysmed (S)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I would like to move for approval of the reservation in the Committee on Civil Affairs' report CU24.

The basis for the proposals in the government's proposition lies partly in Boverket's proposal in the report Assignment to develop the reform with certified building design companies, and partly in the proposals in the committee report Order and Tidiness – reinforced and reliable building control. We Social Democrats have no objections to the legislative proposals based on the Building Control Inquiry, which, among other things, concern the introduction of reinforced control to ensure that certain technical property requirements are met.

The background to the investigation included, among other things, the roof collapse in Tarfalahallen in Kiruna in 2020 – I am a bit unsure of the pronunciation, but I will probably be corrected if I have said it wrong – and other identified deficiencies in the building control system. It is, however, strange that this specific investigation, which was completed as early as 2023, has not been presented until now in 2026. The Housing Minister's speech about a strong start at the beginning of the mandate period turns out once again to be merely empty talk. An important safety reform has been delayed and merged with a completely different investigation, which goes in the opposite direction.

Mr. Speaker! We are, however, negative towards the proposals to expand the system with certified building design companies, which the government has proceeded with. The legislative changes that the government proposes in that part mean that certified private actors shall be able to perform controls to a greater extent that currently lie with the municipalities. Several referral bodies have pointed out the risk with such a model, including several municipalities, the Swedish Defence Preparedness Agency, the Geological Survey of Sweden, Tillväxtanalys, and several others.

Moving control functions from public activities to private actors can lead to unclear lines of responsibility. Negative dependencies can arise between the client and the control actors, and this can in turn weaken trust in the control system and create economic incentives that increase the risk of corruption.

It is not only we Social Democrats who see the risk of increased corruption. The Moderates in Nacka are also very clear in their referral response on the issue. I would like to take the opportunity to quote two sections from their referral response, which the Moderate municipal board chairman Mats Gerdau has signed. One could almost believe that he was a party comrade of mine, but that is not the case. However, we agree in this instance. I quote: "The EU Commission identifies the construction sector as one of the six largest high-risk areas particularly vulnerable to corruption. Reduced public oversight of construction projects can result in society's requirements for buildings not being met and at the same time mean that criminal gangs and companies gain a foothold in the projects." I continue with one more paragraph that is very telling: "Citizens must be able to expect that the exercise of public authority occurs in a manner that is separate from private profit interests." I could also have signed the referral response.

According to the government's assessment, the privatization of public control shall save both time and resources. The time savings are difficult to predict, but to believe that consultants would result in savings is probably very naive, especially if the demand for these would become greater than the supply.

Another argument that is raised is that the country's different municipalities make different assessments in the permit processes. Yes, that is quite reasonable since it looks different across the country of Sweden, which is a rather elongated country. That all new building assessors would make exactly the same assessments across the entire country is probably very unlikely. And if they were to do so, they would probably not perform their job correctly. There is a difference in the calculation of roof loads depending on where you are in the country, and the ground conditions differ significantly depending on whether it is clay or bedrock. They will make different assessments for different properties. It will not be the same everywhere.

Mr. Speaker! In the referral responses, one can see that it is primarily construction companies that are positive towards the proposal, while municipalities and authorities are critical. It is clearly an ideological marketization of public control that this proposal is about. It is about putting the profit interest first. The Riksdag should therefore reject the proposition in those parts.

To produce more housing, it is admittedly important to shorten lead times and streamline the construction processes. We do not, however, believe that construction processes should be streamlined at the expense of legal certainty and public oversight. For us, it is important that society also in the future has a possibility to ensure quality and safety and that the regulatory framework is followed.

Instead of expanding the system with certified construction design companies, the government should therefore return with a new proposal that can streamline the construction process, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, and shorten lead times while society maintains control over the construction. This, Mr. Speaker, is what the Riksdag should stand behind and announce to the government.

In conclusion: As I have said earlier today and in previous debates, these are unfortunately four lost years for the construction sector. Construction is at record lows. It is a halving, and it is far below the need. There is sky-high unemployment among construction workers. There are over 10,000 unemployed in Byggnads akassa at the current moment. Every fourth timber industry worker has been laid off. Over 6,000 companies within the construction sector have gone bankrupt since 2023, according to Tillväxtanalys. This is the result of the Tidö government's policy.

Madam Speaker! I would like to once again move for the approval of the reservation in the report.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Since the Moderate-led government took office in 2022, our relentless focus has been on removing the structural barriers that make it difficult, expensive, and complicated to build. Simply put, it is about three things. Firstly, it is about reducing red tape. The regulatory burden for building new or renovating is today heavy and cost-driving. The installation companies recently showed that approximately one-third of the construction cost for a single-family house went to fees, taxes, and land price even before the foundation was poured.

Secondly, it is about shortening lead times. The initiative Bygg i tids latest report, National Lead Time Index, shows that the average time from planning start to construction start in Sweden's municipalities is 4.7 years. Time is then added both before and after, for example, for land allocation and for the construction process itself. Here, time really is money.

For the third, it is about the fact that we must increase the buildable land. It is a paradox in itself that we have a shortage of buildable land. Sweden is one of Europe's most sparsely populated countries, but we have established so many regulations and restrictions that it results in a shortage of land to build on.

Together, the regulatory hurdles, lead times, and lack of land create structural problems for the entire community construction process but perhaps above all for housing construction. The consequence is that many hard-working Swedes today cannot fulfill their housing dreams.

Madam Speaker! Since the government took office in 2022, it has delivered in all three of these areas.

We have carried out the largest reform of the Planning and Building Act in 15 years with over 40 regulatory simplifications regarding building permits. We have simplified regulations for everything from student housing to correctional facilities.

We have placed a great focus on reducing processing times at agencies, and we have commissioned an inquiry to review appeals in construction processes.

We have begun reforms of the shore protection. We have tasked Boverket with investigating the noise rules, as this is a limitation in particularly densely built-up areas.

Step by step, the government will get Sweden in order.

Madam Speaker! The subject of today's debate, an efficient and secure construction process, is another important step. Through the government's bill, we reduce the regulatory burden, as more measures than today will be able to be carried out by a certified construction design company. The term certified construction design company is changed according to the proposal to construction assessors. Furthermore, we shorten the lead times in the construction process as responsibility is shifted from municipalities to construction assessors in certain matters. The construction process becomes more efficient and secure.

Madam Speaker! The reform regarding certified building design companies was introduced following a government bill from the previous Social Democratic government. It means that a company with special expertise and experience is allowed to make assessments regarding, for example, design requirements, accessibility requirements, and technical specification requirements at the building permit stage. In this way, lead times are shortened and processes are simplified.

At its core, it was a very good reform, but it has not been able to break through fully because these companies can only be used until the commencement notice. After that, it passes to the municipality, which, among other things, makes decisions regarding the final notice.

If the municipality and the certified building design company make different interpretations, it means, for example, that a construction that has been approved in the commencement notice is not approved in the final notice. It creates uncertainty, and it has caused many property owners, property developers, and construction companies to simply not dare to hire the certified building design companies.

Madam Speaker! We are therefore developing the reform, and nurturing it, by expanding the companies' responsibilities throughout the process up until the final decision. And we, as said, rename them to building assessors, which is a slightly more manageable term.

In this way, red tape is reduced for those who hire a building assessor. The process becomes safer and more predictable, and the burden on the municipalities' building committees is reduced. This, in turn, frees up resources for other work tasks and for handling the processes where the developer has not hired a building assessor.

Madam Speaker! In the political debate on how we can build more housing, our political opponents usually remain silent when it comes to the government's policy. They agree that the red tape is too heavy, that the lead times are too long, and that more land should become buildable. In practical action, however, they show something else.

In this matter, both the Social Democrats and the Green Party wish to reject the proposal to develop their own reform with certified building design companies.

When the Chamber debated the simplified building permit rules in the autumn, the red-green parties, among others, wanted to reject the proposal to remove the building notification for complementary buildings.

When we proposed simplifications to enable more and cheaper student housing, they wanted to reject that proposal.

Thus, both the Social Democrats and the Green Party have submitted motions to reject the government's proposal to make it easier to convert offices into housing – a proposal that we will debate here in the chamber later this autumn. It is a change that is necessary if we are to move away from the norm of demolishing to instead build new, and so that we can actually extend the lifespan of buildings by finding new areas of use.

Madam Speaker! It is obviously easy in panel debates and debate articles to share the image that a regulatory framework is complicated and that lead times are a problem. It is significantly harder for the red-green parties to actually want to be involved in making regulatory frameworks simpler or to implement reforms to shorten lead times.

While the Moderate-led government is driving an offensive reform work for increased housing construction and a more functional regulatory framework, the red-green parties remain on the sidelines.

The election this autumn will be about whether people want a government that not only shares the view that extensive structural reforms are needed on the Swedish housing market but is also prepared to implement these reforms.

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

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report – there, I have done that.

An efficient and safe construction process is a committee report that is about making it easier to build, safer to build and more efficient – throughout Sweden. For us Christian Democrats – who want to see more housing, stronger growth and safer communities – this, I believe, is a step in the right direction. It is crucial for housing construction that it goes quickly from idea to finished house.

The Swedish construction process has for a long time been unnecessarily complicated, slow, and costly. Developers and municipalities have struggled with uncertainty, repeated controls, and administrative burdens that hinder both housing construction and other important projects.

In 2022, the possibility to use certified building design companies was introduced. It was a reform with good intentions, I believe. But the reform has not become what we desired. Therefore, it is high time to develop and improve the system. The proposal in the Government Bill does exactly that.

We are changing the term certified building design companies to building assessors. It is not just simpler to say; it actually also has a different meaning. It is not just a name change. It is an expansion of the role. Building assessors shall be able to follow the project from design all the way to execution. It creates a more coherent and predictable process for everyone. The building committee is spared unnecessary administration, and the developer receives clearer guidance through the entire chain. At the same time, we strengthen safety. As a side effect, the building committees may become cheaper for the municipalities as they receive fewer work tasks.

We are strengthening the role of the expert, tightening the requirements for control plans, and making expert inspection mandatory for certain construction measures.

The control plan is divided into a control plan and a waste plan. Clearer responsibilities also result in safer buildings. We clarify that certification activities may involve the exercise of public authority and that the decisions shall be appealable. All of this contributes, I believe, to higher quality, better compliance with technical performance requirements, and increased trust throughout the entire construction sector.

This is not just about bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. It is about simplifying the process. It is about people. It is about young families who should be able to move into new homes without prices skyrocketing due to unnecessary delays. It is about companies that should dare to invest and create jobs. It is about municipalities that should be able to plan long-term without getting stuck in unnecessary complications and, not least, about us building safely so that no one has to worry about living in a building that does not meet the requirements.

In the preparatory works, it is proposed that the new rules enter into force on 1 July 2026. It is soon, and it is ambitious. I hope that the industry, the certification bodies and the authorities take responsibility for the process and get the system to work in practice as soon as possible.

Effective and safe construction is the fundamental prerequisite for a growing and secure Sweden. With this consideration, we take an important step towards fewer obstacles, higher quality, and more homes.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 May.)

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