Response to interpellation 2025/26:434 on housing construction in the Stockholm region
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the government is working on regulatory simplifications, relaxations in building requirements, and increased housing cost limits 1. KD emphasizes that they have raised the mortgage ceiling, removed the strict amortization requirement, and proposed rent-to-own to increase demand 1 2. KD believes that they have increased the housing allowance, tightened the municipalities' work with housing supply, and that infrastructure investments facilitate construction 3. KD argues that the rent-to-own model and lowered thresholds for small houses enable more people to realize their housing dream 3. S argues that housing construction is in a critical situation with record-high bankruptcies and that the government has failed completely 4. S claims that the government's measures are ill-considered 4 5. S argues that the government has reduced the special housing supplement 6 and that the rent-to-own model has flaws in consumer protection 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Leif Nysmed has asked me what measures I intend to implement to reduce the imbalance between supply and demand of housing that exists in the Stockholm region.
This is an important issue. It is worth noting in this context that the Social Democrats in the city of Stockholm recently abandoned the goal of building 140,000 new homes between 2010 and 2035.
One of the government's goals for housing policy is a long-term well-functioning housing market where demand meets a supply of housing that meets the needs. It is a fundamental prerequisite for people's security and quality of life.
The Government has specifically focused its work on addressing the structural barriers that characterize the construction and housing market.
More housing needs to be built, and the existing building stock needs to be utilized more efficiently. To create better conditions for housing construction, the government is implementing regulatory simplifications and relaxations in the building requirements for housing.
During the mandate period, the government has, for example, initiated relaxations in the building requirements for student housing and also simplifications that represent the largest reform of the building permit regulations in 15 years.
The Government has also presented proposals for relaxations in the building requirements when modifying a building in order to, among other things, simplify the conversion of office premises into housing. Regulatory relaxations make it possible for construction costs to be reduced, more housing can be created, and a more differentiated housing supply can be promoted.
The Government is also implementing measures to strengthen households' conditions to demand housing that meets their needs. The Government has, among other things, raised the upper housing cost limits for families with children within the housing allowance and submitted a proposal to the Riksdag that municipalities should be able to be required to offer rental guarantees.
Furthermore, the government has initiated legislative proposals that mean the mortgage ceiling has been raised and the tightened amortization requirement has been removed, as well as submitted a proposal to the Riksdag that a new law on rent-to-buy of housing should be introduced.
Furthermore, the government is taking measures to make more housing available on the rental market in order to increase mobility in the housing market. During the mandate period, the government has initiated improvements to the model with presumptive rent in order to facilitate the new construction of rental housing.
The Government has also presented a number of proposals to create a more flexible rental market. The proposals involve, among other things, simpler and clearer rules for private individuals who rent out their housing, which can increase the availability of rental housing.
Finally, I would like to point out that during the mandate period, the government has initiated changes to the Act (2000:1383) on the municipalities' housing supply responsibility. The changes mean, among other things, that municipalities shall replace their guidelines for housing supply with action plans for housing supply no later than before the end of the mandate period that begins after the ordinary election in 2026.
In the action plans, the municipalities shall, for example, state whether there is a need for additional housing and how large it is. The amendments also clarify that municipal housing agencies can mediate housing through pre-viewings and reservations without it affecting their right to charge a search fee from applicants, for example, to families with children.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer!
The reason for my question is the critical situation that housing construction is in and the effects it has both for individual individuals who need a home and, in that part, also for those who have become unemployed in the housing crisis.
It is about companies that have gone bankrupt and society as a whole that cannot grow. We cannot offer good housing, and it is a reduced growth in Sweden.
We note that housing construction is down to approximately 30,000 construction starts per year while the need is at 52,000. The 30,000 does not even mean that that many homes are being built, but only shows how many building permits are issued. It is therefore no shovels in the ground. They will not come until there is someone who can afford to demand the housing.
We can observe that there are over 10,000 unemployed construction workers in Byggnads a-kassa, and that every fourth worker in the Swedish wood industry has been laid off.
Bankruptcies are at record highs within the construction sector. From 2023 to 2025, 5,700 companies have gone bankrupt, according to Tillväxtanalys. An additional 570 companies in the construction industry have gone bankrupt from January to March this year. It is the same pace and no decline in any way.
The construction of small houses, which the government likes to highlight as the most important, is the lowest in 100 years, according to one of the government's own investigations, which we could read in DN last year in September.
When Boverket's municipal surveys show that housing construction continues to decrease by nearly 10 percent in the Stockholm region, it indicates very much that the SD-led government has failed totally with the housing policy. It is four lost years.
Mr. Speaker! The major problem that the County Administrative Board in Stockholm highlights is that there are no housing options that ordinary people can afford to demand. They are simply too expensive, and as a result, they stand empty or are not being built.
To then put forward proposals that risk introducing market rents by the back door, or for that matter, to highlight a rather ill-considered reform of the building permit rules, does not feel like it will solve the problem of producing cheaper housing.
To believe that regulatory simplifications alone will lead to more and cheaper apartments is a bit naive, because despite the measures the government has implemented, the negative development is not being reversed. The Minister spoke earlier about a head start, but it became a dead end. Again: It is four lost years.
What the government does not seem to understand is how much the economy affects people's ability to demand housing. Removing an investment subsidy, and furthermore prematurely, stopped the construction of up to 30,000 rental apartments with lower rents in one fell swoop. That is as many housing units as are built annually now.
A construction company produced a clear report pointing out that it would take seven difficult years before demand would recover. The government has taken this with a shrug of the shoulders, while Boverket's forecasts for recovery have been pushed further into the future year after year.
It is not rule simplifications that will get housing construction started again. It is when ordinary people can afford to demand a home. The Minister has noted that the City of Stockholm has lowered the goal for the number of homes. He should perhaps reflect on his own role in that having occurred. He perhaps should note that Lidingö and Danderyd, bourgeois-governed municipalities, are not building anything.
Therefore, I want to ask the Minister if he has no self-criticism when housing construction continues to decrease in the Stockholm region. It is the region where the need is greatest.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! There are always reasons to evaluate one's own policy and also others'. There are always reasons to see what has an effect and what does not have an effect.
When Leif Nysmed mentions the word self-criticism, I cannot help but wonder what self-criticism the Social Democrats themselves have practiced during three and a half years in opposition.
They had the opportunity to carry out structural reforms during the entire eight years when there was a completely different situation regarding inflation. There was even negative interest rates at times, and it was an economic boom.
Even in that situation, one did not manage to build housing that met the needs that existed then and that still exist. It is parts of that debt that we still have to deal with.
We inherited a situation with high inflation and a recession. It affects housing construction to a large extent. But both in a recession and in a boom, there are structural obstacles that hinder development and productivity.
Leif Nysmed seems to believe that it is only rule simplifications that the government highlights as measures. That is not the case. It does not seem like the member listened when I highlighted all the other measures.
Simplification of regulations is part of achieving cheaper construction and obtaining more standardized processes so that the costs for, for example, a house go down so that more people can afford to demand it.
I completely agree with Leif Nysmed that it is about more people being able to demand. But it is a matter of looking not only at the demand side but also at the supply side.
It is a matter of ensuring that prices can be pressured, that more standardized construction is achieved, and that more uniform assessments are obtained in the country's different municipalities so that industrial construction, which Leif Nysmed is also involved in, can be realized. There, I believe we are in agreement.
Leif Nysmed points out that the government's own investigation indicates that the construction of small houses is low. That is why we have a small house commissioner who works long-term. It is a matter of not sweeping different problems under the rug but highlighting them and being able to rectify them.
We have, for example, introduced a planning stimulus for detailed plans that are developed specifically for small house construction. We want to promote garden cities and the owner-occupied housing movement. Work is ongoing in that area.
To make it possible, it is not just about plans, regulations and lead times. It is also about people being able to demand it, just as Leif Nysmed says.
That is why we have raised the mortgage ceiling and removed the strict amortization requirement, and we are also introducing a model for rent-to-own.
It works in, for example, Norway, where a family with children can get a foot over the threshold into their dream home before they have been able to save up for a down payment. Then they save for it while living in the house or the apartment. Life does not stand on pause until one can realize their housing dream.
It is only some of the measures we have implemented. It is only a snapshot. There have been many reforms.
Housing construction is, however, affected by the uncertainty in the world around us, by the economy, by a recession that is sticking, and by high inflation. That is the case regardless of whether it is a boom or a recession. But now we have addressed several of the structural obstacles, even though there is more to be done. It will benefit Sweden and Swedish housing construction for a long time to come.
So it is not true that it is four lost years. What we have done during these years will serve Sweden well for a long time to come. At the same time, we need to ensure that different measures are implemented as soon as possible, so that more can realize their housing dreams in Sweden.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! I note that I can still conclude that it is four lost years. The Minister refers to what is to happen when these various regulatory changes have been implemented. But during these four years, one has not ensured that we have a housing construction that at least tries to follow the need that exists.
He mocks the eight years when we were in power by saying that we did not meet the needs that existed then. But we were significantly closer to the goals then than you are today. You won't even get halfway, Andreas Carlson. We met the need in some years and, moreover, were above the need in some years.
It is clear that we had the conditions with low interest rates, an investment support, and an unemployment rate that was significantly lower than it is today. That makes a difference. I think that is what you should learn a bit from. It is the economic conditions that make the difference for whether it is built or not.
We built, during our eight years from 2015 to 2022, almost half a million homes of various types in Sweden. It was possible to build with the old building rules. It was possible to do it. People dared to invest in moving to a new rental apartment or a new owned home, whether it was a housing cooperative apartment or other owner-occupied housing. People had hope. They do not have that today. It was a tough global situation during our mandate periods as well. It is therefore not possible to just blame that.
When it comes to the discussion about inflation, which usually comes up in this context, the inflation was not due to us building too many houses in this country. But it was the construction industry and those who need housing who had to take the economic hit when you left walkover.
What have you actually done to keep housing construction up during this period, while you work on the reforms that you compare with here? You could, for example, have moved forward with a new start loan, which was developed and which we actually agreed on. But it was put in the drawer to get at this with easier amortization requirements and a raised mortgage ceiling.
It sometimes puts a lot of spokes in the wheels for some other owned premises. I am thinking of, for example, Obos' shared-ownership apartments. The new rules put spokes in the wheels for those who then want to be able to own the entire apartment, not just half the apartment. These are not completely well-thought-out measures. I could bring up a lot of such situations regarding your rule simplifications along the way.
Some of the regulatory simplifications we have actually supported and thought have been good, but a lot have been ill-considered. When we build housing, we want to build good housing. To then lower the requirements on accessibility, light penetration, ceiling heights, room sizes and so on is not a success, I think. It is rather a step backward.
Once upon a time, we dared to believe in the good home. We removed the outhouses and built toilets in the houses. We began to measure the height of countertops, so that we would not get back pain when we stood in the kitchen, and increased the size of rooms.
We believed in the future, and we took a social responsibility. The state was involved and did it. Here, the state has capitulated. I think you should think twice, and even three times, about what you have failed at during this parliamentary term. Many are wondering. An entire industry is wondering.
We previously requested that there should be a housing commission where discussions could take place. It was not because we wanted to sit in on it, but because the industry wanted such a thing. And it highlights industry representatives once again.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the social dimension of housing policy, we have raised the ceiling for the housing allowance, and we are tightening the municipalities' work with housing supply, even when it concerns rent guarantees for families with children. These are demanded reforms and measures, which I believe are long-awaited and necessary.
Leif Nysmed says that I am exaggerating. I am rather informing about how it was during the last parliamentary term and the one before that. It is easy to believe otherwise when one hears the rhetoric in this debate.
Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the number of housing units, it is also important to evaluate what type of housing. We know that approximately seven out of ten want to live in owner-occupied houses in Sweden. Despite this, the rate of new production in Sweden has been significantly lower than in comparable EU countries. We see now that the measures we take can enable more people to realize that housing dream.
We know from one of the owner-occupied housing commission's partial reports that approximately 1 million people who today live in rented apartments would have wanted to live in an owner-occupied small house if they had had the opportunity to do so. By standardizing, simplifying regulations, lowering the thresholds and introducing new models, such as rent-to-buy, it becomes possible for more people to make that journey and realize that dream.
It also means that apartments are released in the existing rental stock, which often have 50 percent lower rent than a newly produced rental apartment. It is also a step forward for those who today demand an apartment with lower rent than new production. It is a way to manage the existing stock more responsibly than having as a main focus to build new, often quite small, rental apartments with relatively high rent.
We have a more unified approach, which is based on people's preferences, needs, and will. We do not dictate from above, but we now provide more opportunities to take that step and realize one's dream.
The rental purchase model does not hinder other models. On the contrary, we welcome other models that lower the thresholds to owner-occupied housing, for example the shared ownership model that has been mentioned. Last week, I believe it was, I held a round-table discussion together with the owner-occupied housing commissioner with various actors who are active regarding both rental purchase and different types of shared ownership models.
All this aims to lower the thresholds so that one can take the step earlier. There are many people in Sweden who do not have a large bag of money. One does not have a large inheritance or money brought from home, but one has to struggle to save up for the down payment. Now that threshold becomes lower by us raising the mortgage ceiling. But through different models that allow one to save while living in one's dream home, more people can take that step and, for example, start starting a family earlier.
All of this has begun to fall into place during this parliamentary term. I also note that Leif Nysmed welcomes several of the steps we have taken.
One of the things that the Social Democrats do not usually speak out about is that when we remove the reporting requirement regarding, for example, attefall houses, the Social Democrats want to reintroduce building permits for the attefall house. I believe that many villa owners are worried about whether that reform would take effect if misfortune were to strike and the Social Democrats come into government again.
It would be interesting to hear an argument about that. Why do you want to reintroduce building permits for attefallshus? It is a freedom reform that is very appreciated and which increases the housing supply.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! Strengthened housing allowance, says the Minister, but he does not say that the special housing supplement was removed, which resulted in a reduction in the amount of kronor and öre that this group has received.
One of the arguments for why we should not have investment support has previously many times been that we should instead have high housing allowances because they are more accurate. But what this government has done means a reduced number of kronor and öre that those who receive housing allowances get out. Most often it is single parents who have been affected by this. But they are not the ones who have been hit by tax cuts.
Seven out of ten want to live in a villa, says the minister. Yes, I believe that too. But if you ask more follow-up questions, you find out that people also want to live centrally. It is not always where there is an opportunity to build villas. There are therefore other parameters that people value as well.
I would therefore like to ask a follow-up question. Hyresgästföreningen stated that seven out of ten do not want market rent. I truly hope that the government listens to that and does not push for any demands regarding market rents in the future, because seven out of ten who live in rental apartments do not want market rent. I hope that the rhetoric holds all the way through in such cases.
I believe the Minister misunderstood me regarding the rent-to-own model and the co-ownership model. The rent-to-own model is criticized by, among others, the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) as there are a number of flaws in the proposal regarding consumer protection. We share the assessment that the Council on Legislation makes. There, one should redo it, do it correctly, and come back. The rent-to-own model is in itself a good proposal, but we must also have a certain security in it.
Then we have the fun part – building permits. 1,400 Stuvstabor have just received a reinstated building permit for their properties with the new model. That can be read about in Mitt i Huddinge. They are moderately amused by this ill-considered reform that you have introduced.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! The question in the debate concerned the Stockholm region. In the debate, we have discussed housing policy more generally than just for the Stockholm region. That is natural because it also affects the Stockholm region.
Against this background, I want to highlight in my concluding remarks the various measures that we have presented this week in the national plan, where we give the construction start for Tvärförbindelse Södertörn. We bring back Östlig förbindelse in the national plan, so that planning can be restarted for the important part of obtaining a ring road around the capital. We also strengthen the accessibility to and from Arlanda Airport and undertake a number of other infrastructure measures that strengthen the possibility of commuting in the Stockholm region.
This is part of the answer to Leif Nysmed's question regarding that people who want to live in small houses also want to live centrally. Through these large infrastructure investments, it becomes possible to live in more places and at the same time have shorter travel times to one's work and to various activities, perhaps for the children if one is to drop them off at floorball practice or something else.
This makes Stockholm stronger. It facilitates housing construction in more locations. One could thereby make more small houses available and build and establish new garden cities in areas that perhaps today have not been looked at because they are located a bit further away. This makes Stockholm closer and more competitive. It is not irrelevant to highlight these investments and link them to the housing construction. All of this is connected.
That is why we have an Infrastructure and Housing Minister during this parliamentary term, so that one can see the different measures to make regulatory simplifications but also investments that enable housing development in our capital.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.