Response to interpellation 2024/25:93 on Boverket's new building regulations
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Boverket's new building regulations and their impact on the housing market. KD argues that the rules modernize the regulatory framework through fewer detailed rules and clearer functional requirements, which promotes innovation, cost-effectiveness, and creates more housing 1 2 3 4. KD emphasizes that the government allocates 10 million kronor annually for a competence initiative towards the municipalities 1 2 3. S argues that the rules are deteriorations that lead to increased uncertainty, poorer housing standards with smaller rooms and poorer light penetration 5 6 7. S argues that a competence initiative does not solve the deficiencies 6. MP argues that the reform risks leading to poorer living environments and fewer simplifications 8. MP believes that the industry is not ready for new solutions and that the educational process is moving too slowly 9.
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 how I and the government view the outcome of Boverket's rules and whether I am considering taking any general initiatives from my standpoint. Leif Nysmed has also asked me if I intend to act on the criticism that has been voiced by a large proportion of stakeholders against Boverket's new building rules.
I want to start by saying that it is an extensive piece of work that Boverket has undertaken and which is still ongoing. It was started as early as 2019 through a mandate from the government at that time.
At its core, the work is about modernizing the building regulations. Boverket's building regulations will receive a new structure, and the division of roles will become clearer. The rules will be fewer and designed as functional requirements. With Boverket's new building regulations, there will also be less detailed regulation. Boverket's assessment is that its new building regulations can, in the long run, lead to innovation and technical development, with faster and more cost-effective construction as a result.
To give the construction sector and the building committees more time to prepare for the transition to the new building rules, Boverket has chosen to postpone the entry into force to July 1, 2025. Before the entry into force, Boverket will also produce guidance and carry out educational initiatives. In addition, there will be a transition period of one year. During that year, the developer may choose to use either the old or the new building rules.
In order for the government's ambitions for increased efficiency in planning and construction to be realized, the municipalities need competence and guidance in this area. Upcoming changes in the regulatory framework surrounding building permits and Boverket's new building regulations can mean major changes in the municipalities' methods of work. It is therefore important that the municipalities have the right knowledge and tools for implementation. For that reason, the government has in the budget bill for 2025 announced that Boverket shall carry out a new competence initiative aimed at the municipalities. This could, for example, involve information and training efforts. For the initiative, the government has proposed that 10 million kronor be allocated per year during the period 2025-2030.
Regarding the criticism that has been put forward by stakeholders, a large part of it has concerned the risk of unpredictable assessments as a result of less detailed regulation and functional requirements that leave room for interpretation. We want to address this concern through the competence initiative aimed at the municipalities that I have just described.
Since then, criticism has been voiced that goes further and covers more than the building regulations - criticism against slow processes, complicated regulatory frameworks, and misplaced requirements. To address this, not only new building regulations but also new legislation are required. The Government has already taken a number of measures to make the regulatory framework for building permits simpler, more efficient, and more purposeful. But more are on the way, and I look forward to returning and presenting them in more detail.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer.
The criticism against Boverket's new building regulations has been massive, both from industry and interest organizations and from public actors. The criticism has, for understandable reasons, been of different characters depending on which interests the organizations represent, but what is strikingly common is that many of the referral bodies consider that Boverket has not taken to heart the extensive criticism that has been presented.
The uncertainty is great regarding what the consequences of the new building regulations will actually be. This is highlighted by large construction companies, the disability rights movement, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, Sveriges Allmännytta, Sveriges Arkitekter, Svensk Byggtjänst, Hyresgästföreningen, Folkhälsomyndigheten and many more. One thing today's housing market does not need is precisely more uncertainty.
Regarding housing, many point up the risks that the new building rules lead to poorer standards, for example, poorer light penetration, rooms without windows, lower ceiling heights, different interpretations of what applies regarding safety in fire protection, and so on.
What we already see with today's building regulations is that homes are becoming smaller, with bedrooms of 6-7 square meters and kitchens that are rationalized away and become an "installation" on a living room wall, so what about the new building regulations would promote "the good home" where the residents' perspectives on health, accessibility, and well-being are taken into account?
Sveriges Arkitekter has observed that with the new building regulations, for example, only half of the apartment will need to have access to daylight, i.e., not every individual room. Where has the sensitivity for the research gone, which clearly shows that access to daylight cannot be replaced with other lighting for well-being?
Minimum requirements for room height are disappearing. What will become of today's small bedrooms of 6-7 square meters if the ceiling is also lowered to 2 or 2.2 meters and no window is required? How would the Minister for Housing want to define what is a real room and what is a cubicle?
Hyresgästföreningen also highlights that in today's housing market, there is a large number of people who cannot afford to opt out of poor housing. It is many of these people who run the risk of becoming the big losers now.
I have previously, in meetings with Boverket, asked how the extensive criticism that has been put forward has been addressed, but it is clear that many actors and organizations still consider that the referral criticism in large part has been ignored and that only minor changes have been made.
I want to be clear so that I don't get it back on me, given that it was we who commissioned this investigation: We stand behind a review of the building regulations. It is necessary, and we stand behind it. But that people are not listening to the extensive criticism being voiced broadly, we find very surprising.
In the Minister's response, reference is made to Boverket's assessments, and I assume that the Minister shares Boverket's assessments. Based on that, I wonder what information and knowledge the Minister has that, for the most part, an entire industry does not have. Why does all this extensive criticism against the new building regulations persist?
The Minister does not believe that only a competence initiative for the municipalities will address the ambiguities that exist in Boverket's new building regulations?
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by praising the Minister for Housing for this morning's presentation of two inquiries which I actually believe will steer in the right direction. It was nice to see. But now we are going to talk about building regulations.
There have been very few occasions to discuss this very large reform, which will come into force next year. It is a reform that, despite good intentions at its core, according to many risks leading to poorer housing and poorer living environments.
Over 500 consultation responses were submitted when Boverket sent out its first proposal for new building regulations, and very many of them were critical. The general judgment from many seems to be that there is a fear that the rules intended to simplify and save money while maintaining housing quality will not lead to either any simplifications or any savings, and instead lead to poorer housing quality.
Different referral bodies flag the risk of a deteriorated living environment with increased noise levels, deteriorated indoor air, small and dark rooms, and quite simply poorly constructed housing.
Among the critical referral bodies are everything from construction companies and authorities to research institutes such as the Institute for Environmental Medicine, municipalities and various expert bodies. It is very worrying in a time when it is extra important that what we build is long-term sustainable and therefore needs to be of the highest quality.
Something that many referral bodies have also reacted to is that the building rules are to be introduced relatively quickly, while at the same time it is now the construction sector itself that is responsible for demonstrating that the functional requirements have been met when deviating from the previous requirements.
Just this is also what most who have contacted me on the issue have highlighted - the great lack of clarity in how the verification of the functional requirements is to take place in reality and how one can be able to secure both sustainability and quality in order to be able to reach the goals for a good built environment.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister if he believes that the new regulatory framework will simplify the process as intended, if it will lead to cost savings, and if he can truly guarantee that the reform will not lead to poorer housing construction and poorer housing in general.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Yes, it is true that it is an extensive basis that Boverket has worked out. They have had many years to do so, and as Leif Nysmed confirmed, the work spans several governments.
There is an ambition and what I believe Katarina Luhr called good intentions. That is the case, and there are many in the entire housing construction sector who have requested that one should move from very clear, detailed "shall-requirements" to more functional requirements. That is what this aims for. It is about easing the requirements but doing so in a way that ensures the basic functions that need to exist in a home.
Boverket will go as far as possible to avoid specifying how the requirements can be met, and that is the point. When moving from detailed "shall" requirements to applying more functional requirements, it is about opening up for innovative ways to achieve the function that can be expected and that shall be required in the dwellings, without the level of detail that has been much criticized in the other balance scale previously.
In that case, it will be the construction sector that, through interpretation of the regulations, shall develop proposals for solutions that meet the regulations as well as proposals for verification methods. This implies a clarified responsibility for the construction sector, which needs to coordinate to an increased extent to develop solutions and verification methods that meet the requirements in the regulations.
Boverket has also been tasked with developing the reform regarding certified building design companies. That assignment aims to increase predictability and efficiency in the entire construction process for developers who use certified building design companies. Then there is also the Building Permit Investigation's proposal - there we have indicated that we will submit a proposition to the Riksdag next year. This is part of the work that is ongoing.
It is important to remind why this was needed. The government wants it to go faster to build. Construction needs to become more cost-effective, and companies in the construction sector should be given greater opportunity to find new, innovative solutions that increase efficiency in construction. The absence of precisely this, the opportunity for innovative solutions and efficient construction, has been highlighted as a fundamental and important part of the lack of productivity in the construction sector.
This is, therefore, a comprehensive assignment. It is also a very extensive consultation basis, with 500 consultation points that the members have raised. Therefore, it is of course important that Boverket, which has the responsibility for designing this, works closely with the sector and also ensures that it builds up the competence and the guidelines needed so that the new method can be applied, with more functional requirements and fewer detailed requirements.
It is this that the government now faces with an investment in guidance of 10 million kronor. It is also this that Boverket has taken into account when the time has been extended and also a transition year has been introduced, or how it should be expressed, as it becomes possible to apply both the new and the old regulatory framework.
Otherwise, this is a task that lies with Boverket. I can, of course, refer further questions to the members. I believe that one of them sits on Boverket's oversight board - don't they? Perhaps that has changed. Forgive me, then, Madam Speaker and members, for bringing up that point.
This is, of course, something that is also on my desk; we are following this very closely. We have a dialogue with the sector and will, of course, follow the continued important work. It is important that this is done correctly and is applied in as wise a way as possible.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Minister, for the answer! Before this debate, I found a headline in Altinget from June 27, 2023: The Government is closely following the issue of new building regulations. What is it that the Minister has followed so closely? It does not quite appear from the answer, I think.
An investment in competence for the municipalities? Yes, that is important. But it perhaps does not quite correspond to all the criticism that has been raised by various parties. I will go through a few more points. Since it is so extensive and the minutes are ticking away quickly, I have divided it into two parts.
According to information in the newspaper Arkitekten, Boverket's gd is said to have stated the following regarding the new rules: "During the panel discussion at Business arena, he explained that the new rules mean that the construction industry itself shall have the competence to determine when the functional requirements in a paragraph are met. The level of requirements is not lowered, but the interpretation may be made by the construction industry from now on without the authority's guiding general advice." Furthermore: "It is the developer who is responsible for ensuring that the regulations are followed. He said that there is a strong misconception in the industry that the municipality shall approve solutions, but that it is incorrect. The only thing the municipality shall do is to assess whether the developer has the ability to meet society's requirements."
Based on these quotes, I wonder again how a competence initiative in the municipalities is to solve the deficiencies in the new building regulations. It is the industry that is supposed to solve them.
To proceed to one of the industry representatives, one of Sweden's largest construction companies, they point out in their referral response that "Boverket states that the industry shall design guidelines and standards but it is unclear what is meant by 'the industry'". Furthermore: "There are a number of different interest and industry organizations that drive issues from their respective perspectives."
There is, therefore, an obvious lack of clarity in this. As I mentioned in my previous post: Lack of clarity and uncertainty is nothing the industry needs now!
The construction companies point out in their criticism that those responsible for developing regulations must also take responsibility for ensuring that it is possible to verify that the requirement is met in an objective manner. This cannot be evaded by saying that the industry should solve it. The construction companies further argue that the construction industry, especially in the economic situation that currently prevails, needs increased predictability and reduced risk in order to be able to start projects at all.
This goes completely against that!
I perceive a great deal of frustration and concern regarding the introduction of Boverket's new building regulations. This is also evident in the intense lobbying of us by several interest organizations. It cannot have escaped any party that this concern exists.
Madam Speaker! When the Minister has followed the question so closely, many would have expected a more active Minister for Housing. Does the Minister really think that all these critical voices are wrong?
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! I intended to continue on the same track. The changes that are now on the table are extensive, and the industry does not seem to feel completely ready to take responsibility for developing new solutions that can meet the functional requirements while simultaneously developing the method to verify that the requirements are met. Municipalities and supervisory authorities, in turn, are questioning how a sensible supervisory process can follow this. If someone, for example, were to decide to cheat, how is this to be detected in a simple way?
I think it is good to have competence development for municipalities, but to have it stretched out over a five- or ten-year period when the legislation is to be in place as early as next year, I think is to proceed a bit slowly. I believe that one would need a comprehensive training process already now and moving forward to be ready when the law enters into force. Furthermore, I completely agree with Leif that it is not primarily the municipalities that need to be trained now when it is to start being built in a new way. Better support from Boverket was needed, and the industry needs better guidelines.
I want to ask the Minister how it will continue to be possible to ensure that all actors - the construction sector, supervisory authorities, and finally those who are to live in the housing - will feel secure that the functional requirements will be met for every home that is built.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin with a question, or at least something that was mentioned by Leif Nysmed in a previous post: how the Minister for Housing defines rooms. The whole point is to move away from very clear detailed requirements. I believe it would be even more unfortunate to go in the other direction so that one regulates very much in detail from a political level. This aims, on the contrary, to remove several detailed requirements, "shall" requirements, which have been much criticized for hindering innovation, new ways of building and new ways to get fully adequate housing at a better price, so that one lowers the thresholds into the housing market, gets more innovation and thereby strengthens productivity in the construction sector. It does not only affect housing construction in Sweden but also the entire Swedish economy that we have such low productivity in the construction sector.
It is obviously important to clear up any question marks so that there is no concern, but the starting point - to get more functional requirements instead of detailed shall-requirements - I believe we are in fairly good agreement on.
Standing in the chamber and almost arguing about ceiling height is also not quite purposeful. It is a functional requirement that must continue to be met. It is not free height, but it is a function that one must be able to manage. In that case, it does not need to be exactly 240 centimeters, but it is okay if it can be a little lower. It becomes a functional method that is more flexible, not least during conversion. This was also what Katarina Luhr took up and what we presented this morning, a mandate to Boverket to review the very sharp requirements that many times hinder conversion. This can, as I assess it, be achieved without it leading to a lowered housing standard, because there are very clear functional requirements.
At the same time, the new rules according to Boverket's proposal provide more room for the construction companies to develop innovative solutions themselves. It is the general guidelines that are sometimes criticized for having become governing for how all housing is built. Now, extensive consultation comments have been submitted on the material, which I assume Boverket will address in the preparation of the proposal. That is also why more time has been allocated for the implementation, so that there is time to do this in as wise a way as possible.
When it comes to the competence initiative, I want to say that it is not stretched out - it already starts in 2025 - but we believe it is important to have endurance in this. It is something that will change a lot. One needs to be persistent in the competence and guidance work over time from the side of Boverket, so that it does not just become a one-off effort at the beginning but that there is then a lack of funds or time. That is why we have such a long timeframe for the 10 million kronor that are to go specifically towards strengthening competence and guidance, but it is nothing that is scaled up, so to speak, because there are 10 million already for next year.
I want to repeat that the new rules enter into force on July 1, 2025, with a transition period of one year. These are things that have been taken into account as a result of there having been comments from the referral bodies that there should be time and that the transition to the new rules should be as good as possible.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Minister, for the answer! I actually left a blank sheet of paper in my script for the final entry in the debate, because I really wanted to listen to what the Minister says. This regarding the definition of a room points quite clearly to the deficiencies that exist in the building regulations. Ultimately, we will risk getting small rooms that are defined as actual rooms but can be windowless and have low ceilings. Already today, rooms of 6-7 square meters occur - they are rather dressing rooms, I would like to say.
It is a deterioration compared to the current situation. I do not want to move backward into the past, which the disability rights movement clearly points out in its referral responses that they feel is being done. We are moving backward and deteriorating things for a great many people.
Somewhere we in politics must also dare to show a will. What is it that we want? What kind of housing do we want, and how do we want our properties to be developed? It is not just about a housing unit being a housing unit for the rest of time, but there can be opportunities in the future to convert housing into something else, or vice versa, and then there must be a flexibility, so that we do not build ourselves into a corner.
We have moved from very clear details, which we have been involved in criticizing, to instead releasing it all very freely. The gray area that should be the natural meeting point, we have lost. That is why I wanted to have this discussion with the minister, because I have had difficulty having the Boverket since we are not allowed to sit on the oversight council there. We have invited the gd:n to the committee for discussion. But I think it is being mocked, and the referral bodies are seen as ignorant, and I think that is incorrect.
Sveriges Arkitekter are knowledgeable and know what they are talking about. They are the ones who have highlighted much of the criticism, together with so many others who I think are being completely missed.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the debaters for their commitment. We will certainly have to return to the question. I am going to the Committee on Civil Affairs soon, and we can certainly also find an opportunity to deepen the discussions here in the chamber in the future.
I would like to expand the question a little bit by taking an example from a visit I have made. I do not know if the members have been to Stadsmissionen's construction project in Farsta. They invited me into the so-called "big three." It is, therefore, a three-room apartment where, by stretching the regulations to make it as flexible as possible, they have been able to create two very small rooms in storage spaces with windows. This, Stadsmissionen argued on-site, is ideal for small children's rooms in households consisting of a single woman with several children who may have needed to flee from their abuser and quickly need to obtain a home that provides security. I do not think those children care that much about the fact that it is actually a storage room. It is its own room with a door that can be closed, so that one can go away and do one's homework. There is light, windows.
This is a way where I see an opportunity for flexibility. One achieves a function but departs from clear detailed requirements.
I do not believe that anyone in the chamber is against us being able to build more housing that becomes accessible to those who need it most. If one were to interpret the regulations in a very bureaucratic and rigid way, the apartment I mentioned as an example would only have three rooms. Now, it has been possible to use two storage spaces with windows as smaller children's rooms, so that a woman with children can get a roof over her head for her children.
I do not want to be pedantic, but this is an example where the regulatory framework today may be too rigid and one needs to look at functional requirements. I naturally want to continue the discussion on how the implementation becomes as good as possible, but sometimes one needs to focus on what the benefit will be.
Thank you very much 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.