Response to interpellation 2025/26:576 on the government's housing policy
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 has implemented measures to improve housing construction through regulatory simplifications, relaxations of building requirements, and planning incentives 1. KD emphasizes that they have addressed structural obstacles and introduced a new law on rent-to-buy 1. KD argues that the reform for attefallshus is a positive freedom reform 2 and that S wants to reintroduce the requirement for building permits 2 3. KD argues that S's policy would roll back 40 simplifications for villa owners 3. S argues that the government has not delivered a housing policy in proportion to the need 4. S criticizes the phasing out of investment support and reduced housing allowances 4. S argues that the rent-to-buy law has unreliable consumer protection 5. S argues that the state needs to put pressure on municipalities 5. S argues that the mandate period has been four lost years 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)
Madam Speaker! Markus Kallifatides has asked me what overall assessment I make of the government's housing policy results regarding a functioning housing supply now that the mandate period is coming to an end, and whether I consider that the government has delivered a housing policy that has been in proportion to the need for housing and to the decline that hit the construction industry. He has also asked me what measures I have taken to meet the sharp fall in housing construction and what effect these measures have had regarding maintaining new production. Finally, Markus Kallifatides has asked me what the reasons are for why some of the government's own housing policy initiatives have been delayed and what conclusions I draw from the criticism that has been voiced against the government's proposals.
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.
Regarding the measures the government has taken so far, I would like to emphasize that we have made a large number of interventions to improve the conditions for housing construction. We have specifically focused the work on addressing the structural obstacles that have characterized the construction and housing market regardless of the economic cycle, so that Sweden will be better positioned in the long term and when the economy turns.
Housing construction needs to increase, but the existing stock also needs to be used more efficiently – something we have worked for through, among other things, the three-year initiative on a planning stimulus for municipalities that adopt detailed plans for the conversion of premises into housing.
In order to improve the conditions for housing construction, the government has implemented regulatory simplifications and relaxations in the building requirements for housing. During the mandate period, we have, among other things, as Markus Kallifatides mentions, made relaxations in the regulatory framework for student housing and when modifying buildings.
In December last year, the largest building permit reform in 15 years entered into force. Significant simplifications in the permit regulations have been made in order to reduce the administrative burden, facilitate construction, and give the individual property owner greater freedom.
A series of measures for increased detached house construction has been implemented. The Government has carried out a three-year initiative on a planning stimulus to municipalities to adopt detailed plans that enable new areas for detached house development. The support was increased last year and has proven very popular among the municipalities; it was oversubscribed last year and is also oversubscribed this year. We have appointed a private home commissioner, Stefan Attefall, who has a mandate to work for a new private home movement and new garden cities. He also has a broad mandate to work for a larger proportion of detached houses within the framework of new housing production.
In May 2025, Boverket was commissioned by the government to develop proposals on how type approval of small houses can be implemented to realize the idea of the so-called Sverigehuset. In its report on the assignment, the agency has, among other things, proposed that detached single-family houses intended for permanent use with a building area of up to 120 square meters and a ridge height of up to 5.5 meters should be able to be exempted from the requirement for a building permit, as well as that it should be possible to type-approve a house in its entirety. Type-approved small houses can make the construction process cheaper, simpler, faster, and more predictable, which can make it easier for more people to realize the dream of their own house. Boverket's report will now be referred for consultation.
Well over half of the households in Sweden want to live in small houses. When more can realize this housing dream, natural moving chains are enabled that can free up rental apartments at more affordable prices in the existing stock.
The government has also taken measures to improve households' conditions to demand housing that corresponds to their needs. We have, among other things, raised the upper housing cost limits for families with children within the housing allowance and made municipalities obliged to offer rental guarantees under certain circumstances. We have also initiated legislative changes which involve a raised mortgage ceiling and a scrapped tightened amortization requirement, which can lower the thresholds to both condominiums and privately owned small houses. We have also developed a new law on rent-to-buy of housing, which has been decided by the Riksdag. It means that more can be given the opportunity to take the step to owned housing, not just those who already have capital.
The Government has further worked for a better functioning rental market that can increase the availability of housing. This concerns improvements of the model with presumptive rent in order to facilitate new construction of rental apartments as well as a new private rental law, expanded possibilities for subletting of condominiums and changed rules for block rental of company and shared housing.
The Government and I assess that the measures that have been taken significantly improve the conditions for housing construction and that the measures constitute important steps to meet the need for housing. The Government has begun an extensive reform work that spans more than one parliamentary term.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to my probably last interpellation this mandate period.
A little background: Approximately 200,000 young people under 27 years of age live involuntarily at home with their parents; in Stockholm County alone, there are over 100,000 overcrowded families with children, and probably hundreds of thousands of people live with housing anxiety, housing insecurity, second-hand contracts, third-hand contracts, and difficulties finding adequate housing in the event of divorce, death, or other circumstances in life, both positive and negative. Furthermore, prices are high in both the owned and rented housing stock.
Madam Speaker! At the same time, according to Boverket's fresh and downwardly revised forecast from June 2026, we have fewer than 30,000 construction starts and completed homes. This is to be compared with the need for over 50,000 completed new homes per year over a ten-year period, according to Boverket.
During the mandate period, we have had over 6,000 bankruptcies in the construction sector and extensive layoffs in the timber construction industry, and unemployed construction workers are now leaving Byggnads' accounts and the construction industry. We Social Democrats believe that the economy is being hindered by this.
Andreas Carlson, in his response to my interpellation, counts up "a large number of measures" that the Tidöregeringen has taken to "improve the conditions for housing construction." I shall return to some of these measures.
But that was not the entire question, Madam Speaker. I asked, as the Minister also indicated, whether he considers that the government has delivered a housing policy that has been in proportion to the need for housing and to the decline that has hit the construction industry, what measures he has taken to meet the sharp fall in housing construction, and what effect these measures have had regarding maintaining new production.
I intend to take the liberty of clarifying and concretizing that question. How wise was it, Andreas Carlson, for the state to unilaterally abandon its entered commitments within the framework of the Sweden negotiation? How wise is it to have an almost empty airport in the middle of the capital instead of commencing large-scale urban development? How wise is it not to exempt public services from the cost-driving law on public procurement? How wise was it to put a finished proposal on start-up loans for young first-time buyers in the drawer and then come with somewhat similar measures three or four years later? How wise was it to lower the housing allowances in the middle of the parliamentary term? How wise was it to prematurely phase out the investment support that existed for building rental apartments and student housing with a lower rent level and instead lower the tax for high-income earners?
How wise were all these measures in light of how it has turned out with under 30,000 housing units – to compare with 52,000 housing units – major housing social problems and a hampered economy?
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Markus Kallifatides is asking many questions in this debate, but the questions are more than those Kallifatides takes up here in the chamber.
The leadership knows very well that there are long lead times in construction. We had a period when the Social Democrats, together with the Green Party, were responsible for housing policy. At that time, there were more housing ministers than housing policy reforms. Eight years of opportunity were lost to make the changes we have made and started at high speed to address the structural barriers that affect housing construction, regardless of whether it is a boom or a recession.
Not during a single one of the eight years the Social Democrats were in power did the construction reach the number of dwellings that Boverket then assessed needed to be built. At that time, it was a high economic boom and almost free to borrow; there was even a negative interest rate during certain periods.
Despite the fact that we have just emerged from a situation with high inflation and still have a recession that has stuck, not least against the background of the unrest in the world, one as a member of Parliament naturally has higher expectations of our government than of one's own. I shall not forbid that. But a little self-reflection would have been in order.
When it comes to the investment support that Markus Kallifatides raised, the Social Democrats did not evaluate their own reform either, but when, for example, the Tenants' Association and others have evaluated it, it has been seen that it concerns many billions of kronor that were paid out in support for housing that would have been built anyway. We see the consequences of this today in many different places in Sweden, where apartments with high rents stand empty because it was steered towards the construction of small apartments. At the same time, we know, Madam Speaker, that seven out of ten in Sweden want to live in small houses.
Markus Kallifatides spoke about overcrowded families with children. It is clear that it would have been easier for them to enter the housing market and realize their housing dream if, ten to twelve years ago, we had already implemented what we have now established, namely a model with rent-to-buy. It works in Norway and other countries. Then families can get their foot over the threshold and realize their dream while simultaneously gradually paying off a down payment to eventually buy out the house. These are the kinds of reforms we have implemented during our mandate period. It is clear that it would have been wiser if it had been in place earlier.
Markus Kallifatides also raised the issue of Bromma Airport. There are quite a few other places in Stockholm where there is now an opportunity to build. To decommission a fully functioning emergency airport in a crisis situation where we have war around us in Europe, where we know that medical transports are dependent on functioning infrastructure, and where an air ambulance landing at Bromma Airport can choose to go to three different hospitals in the Stockholm area depending on what the traffic situation looks like, is actually to risk the healthcare system's capacity and, ultimately, human lives.
It is also the case that the entire airspace surveillance over Stockholm is managed and controlled from Bromma Airport. It is not possible to move it to Arlanda, and there are no answers as to how one would do so instead. In this situation, with security policy seriousness and war in Europe's vicinity, to phase out such an activity would be directly irresponsible, and I am surprised that Markus Kallifatides maintains that view.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! I have firmly decided that the Armed Forces, in its referral response, clarified that it sees no need in that issue, but we can take some of the other issues.
Do I have higher expectations for this government than for previous Social Democratic-led governments? No, I do not. I have the same expectations that the housing supply issue and construction should be taken seriously. In a situation where construction is falling dramatically, the state should not step back and do less, but step forward and do more. That is what I would have expected from a Social Democratic government, and that is what I have tried to expect from this government, but have naturally been disappointed.
When it comes to overcrowded families with children, the hope is quite far from an owned villa somewhere in the metropolitan area. What if we start by investing in ensuring there is an adequate apartment with enough rooms that one has the possibility to pay the rent for, rather than fantasies about newly built small houses in the price range of 30–50 million or so, which the Moderaterna in Stockholm speak of for small house construction.
I refer all interested listeners and viewers, including Madam Speaker, to my Facebook page, where I have carefully detailed whether we reached Boverket's projected housing needs during a single year. We did. We were very close throughout the entire mandate period, and we exceeded it for at least one year. It is therefore on my Facebook page.
Regarding the law on hire-purchase, which the Riksdag unfortunately passed just recently, the Council on Legislation explicitly advises people against entering into hire-purchase agreements in accordance with the law because the consumer protection is considered so unreliable.
In my interpellation, I raised a number of other concrete reforms that are waiting for implementation, such as national physical planning and credit guarantees to support the new production of housing. The Minister mentioned a third: rent-to-buy. A fourth is municipal planning incentives, which my daughter would have called an epic fail. It is therefore primarily that one supports detailed planning decisions that would have happened anyway, which we have had a separate interpellation debate about. It is not just about implementing measures and major reforms in themselves, but about the reforms being correct and well-implemented.
When it comes to the structural measures, I share the view that the Minister and the Government have expressed. There are urgent structural reforms to be made. Messiah Hallberg's TV program *Hur fan hamnade vi här?* illustrated perhaps the most important one: that we have municipalities in Sweden whose municipal council members run for election on saying in national TV that the municipality is full and that no building should take place there – this in a municipality that only has potentially buildable land in attractive locations, in a dynamic labor market region.
What should we do about this? We could perhaps have discussed it in the housing commission that the Center Party, we Social Democrats, several others, and the entire industry have requested. Then we could have moved forward with what we Social Democrats knew four years ago and what the owner-occupier commission member now knows, namely that we actually need to be able to put some pressure on municipalities – not all, but some – to take their municipal housing supply responsibility. Can it be so, Minister?
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! In defense of Markus Kallifatides, I would like to say that I believe that is the name of the TV program. I do not know how it works when one is to quote a TV program in the Chamber that contains a swear word, but I note it. Perhaps one has to censor SVT in the Chamber. I do not know, Markus Kallifatides and Madam Speaker, how we are to handle that. For safety's sake, I will not mention the name of the TV program in the debate.
I cannot help but go back to the claim that the Armed Forces have dismissed Bromma Airport as important as simply as Markus Kallifatides expressed. On the contrary, the Armed Forces maintain that Bromma Airport needs to be further analyzed in terms of the total defense's needs. That is also what the government has done by appointing Anders Flanking as an investigator to review the airport network, the infrastructure, and the availability of the airports in general but, of course, also Bromma Airport.
It would be directly unwise in this situation to say that we no longer need Bromma Airport in Sweden. We might realize in a few years that it would have been good to keep it, but by then we might have decommissioned it. I do not think that construction would have started by then, because it will take quite a long time, Madam Speaker, to remediate the land and other things. Given the current circumstances, I believe it is wise to have patience and not use an emergency airport as a punching bag in a political debate. There is much else to debate, and that is what I intended to do, Madam Speaker.
In the rather extensive interpellation that the member has submitted, the member points out a number of areas where the Social Democrats have problematized and opposed the government's policy. This concerns, among other things, the removal of both the requirement for building permits and the requirement for notification in connection with certain construction. Markus Kallifatides also writes that it concerns lower requirements for accessibility when building student housing as well as the conversion of premises into housing. I wish to stick to these three things.
I think it would be very good, Madam Speaker, if the Social Democrats wanted to be clear that they want to reintroduce the requirement for building permits for "attefallshus", because that is what it is about. It was not possible to maintain the situation we had with the notification requirement, and we then chose not to introduce building permits but to remove the notification requirement. It is well established that it was not possible to maintain that situation where one had to submit a building notification; one either had to remove it completely or reintroduce building permits.
With the Social Democrats' policy, there will once again be building permit requirements for attefallshus. Is that really the message that Markus Kallifatides wants to give to all those who have seen this reform as a very positive freedom reform that gives them a little more freedom on their own land?
When it comes to lower requirements for accessibility in connection with the construction of student housing, it is surprising that the Social Democrats oppose this when it is also highlighted that there are 200,000 young people who are involuntarily living at home.
We have looked at the project that was the first in Sweden to apply the new building regulations. There, 75 more student apartments were built thanks to the government's reform work. If it had been done in the same way as was done at Chalmers student housing over the last five years, when there has been a recession for a large part of the time, 1,500 more student apartments would have been built in Sweden. Why should these 1,500 students not be able to move into new student housing? Why do the Social Democrats oppose such important policy?
It is also about the conversion of premises into housing. Why should we not better utilize offices and premises that stand empty so that we can get more housing in the existing stock? Those, Madam Speaker, are questions that I want to pose to Markus Kallifatides.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker and Minister! We Social Democrats are very concerned that all the risk in new construction falls on smallhouse owners – on individual families and households – when they have no form of contact with the municipality and do not receive the support that this entails when carrying out a construction project as a private individual. It is, after all, the municipality that is responsible for very much surrounding new construction.
We Social Democrats have expressed strong concern about this. Exactly what we would do after the election on September 13, I will not answer now.
Student housing must be good housing. Converted housing that has previously been premises must be good housing. This is important to us. We see no reason to build poor housing or convert premises into really poor housing. We have not opposed everything, Madam Speaker, but we have opposed specific details in these issues.
I would now like to thank Andreas Carlson for our many debates during this parliamentary term. We have returned to issues quite often, I would say. The Moderates are clear, and they have been during this parliamentary term: we leave the housing issue to the market! I perceive the position of KD and the Liberals as follows: the market, and some social interventions for functioning housing supply. The Sweden Democrats believe that market rents via the back door are okay, but not officially.
My interpellation, Madam Speaker, is about how we Social Democrats see this mandate period as four lost years. It is a harmful passivity in relation to the dramatic fall in housing construction. I have also tried to point out an incomplete structural analysis. Now I do not dare to quote the program on SVT, but: How "hm" did we end up here?
On September 13, there is an opportunity to choose a new direction with a state housing policy where the state takes a number of substantial steps forward. That is our offer in September.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
Citations can always be made if it is sufficiently clear that it is a quote. Then it is completely okay.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Markus Kallifatides for an extensive exchange during this parliamentary term.
I can also state that now, with 33 days left until the election, it is very unclear what the Social Democrats intend to do regarding the Attefallshusen. Exactly what we will do after the election, I will not give answers on now, says Markus Kallifatides.
I have pointed out that what the Social Democrats are proposing means that one would reintroduce the requirement for building permits. This therefore does not only concern the building notification, which we have removed, but they want to reintroduce the requirement for building permits. That was indeed what the investigation concluded in the proposal that we rejected. We said: We cannot reintroduce the requirement for building permits, so we instead remove the building notification.
The intermediate position regarding the building permit was not compatible with EU law. Despite this, the Social Democrats maintain that one should take away from the villa owners the freedom they enjoy. Kallifatides says here in the chamber 33 days before the election that one will not give any answer now on what will be done with this freedom.
But we know that the freedom will disappear, Madam Speaker, because it is incompatible with EU law. The proposal that the Social Democrats have put on the table is not compatible with EU law. Then it will be the case that as a private individual, one will have to stand with a hat in hand and knock on the door of the municipal office and ask for permission to build an Attefallshus. One must also pay a building permit fee for this.
This is Social Democratic policy, which would roll back the freedom reforms that the government has implemented. It concerns a total of 40 different measures that simplify things for villa owners. What other measures are the Social Democrats going to roll back, besides the fact that they will reintroduce the requirement for building permits on Attefallshus? The thought of that makes me worried.
My offer, and the government's offer, is not to gamble with the freedom that many homeowners have received during this mandate period. Vote for Kristdemokraterna or another Tidö party so that you know what you get!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.