(cont. from § 6) Relaxations of the building requirements for student housing (cont. CU19)

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! On March 1, 2004, I moved into my first own apartment. It was a one-room apartment with a kitchenette of 27 square meters at Svingeln in Gothenburg. I was lucky – the six-story brick house was newly built, and all the apartments in the building were released at the same time. Therefore, even my rather meager amount of savings was sufficient for a student apartment.

For a 21-year-old student at Handelshögskolan in Gothenburg, 27 square meters was more than sufficient. What was strange about the apartment, however, was that approximately one-third of the apartment's 27 square meters consisted of the bathroom. I remember neighbors who placed both wardrobes and bookshelves in the toilet to be able to utilize the space as optimally as possible – at least from a student's perspective. It was less optimal from a building technology perspective, as neither clothes, books, nor least of all the house itself fared particularly well when moisture accumulated behind the furniture.

A good story, Madam Speaker, would have been that that enormous bathroom sparked a political commitment in me that today reaches its final goal. The story is not quite that good, but the apartment at Svingeln is nevertheless illustrative of what this debate is about.

The current building regulations have obviously been established with the best of intentions. But the effect of the regulations is that it has become difficult to build space-efficient and cost-effective small homes – especially student apartments. The government bill that we are now debating aims at precisely that problem.

Madam Speaker! Let us first state what the housing market has looked like and looks like for students. Already 20 years ago, when I was a student, the shortage of student apartments was palpable in the large cities and the larger university towns. The situation does not look any better today. In Boverket's housing market survey for 2025, which was released last week, 16 out of 38 municipalities with a university or college responded that they had a shortage of student apartments. And it still concerns primarily larger university towns and large cities.

Madam Speaker! The housing shortage is not only problematic from a societal perspective, but it is also an obstacle for young people to realize their dreams. Hyresgästföreningen states in its report Hyresgäster nu 2024 that the housing shortage causes every second young adult to hesitate before major life choices such as moving out from home, studying, or starting a family, and in a survey that CSN conducted in 2021, every fourth student stated that they had difficulty obtaining housing when they began their studies.

At the same time, previous governments have done little or nothing to facilitate the construction of student apartments or more space-efficient construction in general. During the Löfven government's eight years in power, a total of five different people were housing ministers, and none of them lifted a finger to solve the issue. I think this is telling even for the opposition's proposals in today's debate. They are fully satisfied with the status quo. Does the opposition even think that the shortage of student apartments is a problem in Sweden today, Madam Speaker?

The industry organization Studentbostadsföretagen presented, together with the state-owned company Akademiska Hus earlier this year, a number of case studies regarding how the conditions change with the government's proposal. The effects are clear: the study shows that one can get in between 11 and 18 percent more housing in each individual project by being able to build more space-efficiently. If one can build ten apartments with current rules, one can create an eleventh with the new rules. It simply means that more students can get their own apartment.

Since the regulatory framework becomes more flexible, the apartments also become more usable. The report estimates that larger areas can be used for social interaction instead of for sanitary facilities. Despite the apartments becoming smaller, they simultaneously become more usable as dwellings. The regulatory framework also creates improved conditions for shared housing, what was previously called student corridors.

At the same time, rents can become lower. Through space-efficient housing and more apartments in the same building, there is room for potentially lower rents.

In the mentioned case studies, the potential for lower rents is between 3 and 11 percent. With a rent of 6,500 kronor, that corresponds to somewhere between 200 and 700 kronor lower rent per month. At the same time, more than every fifth apartment remains fully accessibility-adapted. All apartments also become accessible for visitors, which means there is access to a visitor's toilet that is fully accessibility-adapted in connection with the residence.

Madam Speaker! In addition to rule changes to make it possible to build more space-efficiently and climate-smart and to enable more shared housing, the bill contains a definition of student housing. A student housing unit is defined as a housing unit intended for students at universities, colleges, other post-secondary education, or adult education. Thus, the right to student housing is clarified and strengthened not only for college students but also for students at, for example, universities of applied sciences.

Madam Speaker! If Sweden is to continue to be a knowledge nation, we need to make it more attractive to be a student. A key step in that is to create the conditions for more student apartments.

Today's debate is telling as to what the political dividing lines look like in today's housing policy. On one side, we have the Tidö parties, who agree that reforms are needed. These reforms are demanded by the industry and lead to more and cheaper student housing. On the other side, we have three red-green parties that actually do not want to make any changes at all. These are three parties that completely lack ideas for how we are to address the shortage of student apartments. This debate shows that it matters who is in government, Madam Speaker.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 3 in the report CU19.

We Social Democrats oppose making exceptions to the accessibility requirements for student housing in new construction. We want the government to come back with a new proposition stating that exceptions may only be made in the case of renovation and that it shall be evaluated after two years.

That we propose that exceptions may be made during renovation is based on the technical conditions that exist when one is to preserve existing buildings and the problems that can arise regarding meeting the accessibility requirements during such a renovation. However, we want an evaluation of the result after two years to see what the outcome will be.

Madam Speaker! The government's purpose with the relaxations in the building requirements for student housing is to make it cheaper to produce student apartments by building smaller residences without fulfilling full accessibility requirements in 80 percent of the building, and thereby more student apartments can fit within a building right. We Social Democrats believe that this is the wrong way to go. Making exceptions from accessibility requirements sends the signal that certain students do not count. This applies especially in new production, where all opportunities exist to build accessibly from the start.

We have instead proposed a targeted investment support for student apartments to keep rents down and at the same time maintain the accessibility requirements in all student housing. Our proposal is based on the report that Sveriges förenade studentkårer together with Studentbostadsföretagen produced in 2023. This is therefore a proposal that has been developed jointly by the students and the companies.

Instead, the government and the Sweden Democrats choose to move forward with a proposal that is only supported by the student housing companies – that is, by construction companies and property owners, whom they primarily support. If one reads the referral responses, it is clearly seen that student organizations, Funktionsrätt Sverige, DHR, Hyresgästföreningen, Folkhälsomyndigheten, among others, are critical of the government's proposition. Even some construction and real estate companies are critical.

The investment support that we Social Democrats previously introduced was very successful. Despite some trying to point out something else, 7,400 new student apartments were built with accessibility requirements and with lower rent for the students. You only have to read in the government's own budget from this autumn – the figures are on paper there. You do not need to wonder; it is written by your own government.

That 7,400 apartments were built shows that it is possible to choose a different path than to build poorer student apartments.

The government's and the Sweden Democrats' proposals are based on the assumption that the costs will decrease for the student housing developers and that they will thereby produce cheaper student apartments. This was also done under the previous conservative government – the Alliance government – in 2014, when the living area was reduced to today's 16 square meters because they wanted to reduce the costs for the student housing developers.

The pattern is clear: When the costs become too high for the student housing developers, the quality of life for the students deteriorates. With the new proposed rules, the minimum living area is reduced to 13 square meters. In context, it can be mentioned that the average area in cells in Swedish prisons is 10 square meters. One can ask what the next regulatory easing will be when the costs have become too high for the housing developers. We have a different proposal.

Madam Speaker! The problem with this type of policy is that it is those who are to live in the housing who pay the real price in the form of deteriorated housing and quality of life. In 2016, Boverket stated in a report that the abolition of accessibility requirements would have negative consequences, primarily for students with permanent or temporary disabilities. Even students without disabilities would also be negatively affected.

The government also writes in its bill that it is difficult to assess what effects the current proposals may have on students' health, as well as that reduced areas in housing can have a negative impact on perceived quality of life. They have thus put a lot of energy into calculating how much the student housing companies can earn from the removal of the accessibility requirements, but have hardly bothered to consider how students' health is affected. Among other things, the Public Health Agency warns of negative effects on students' physical and mental health.

Madam Speaker! As mentioned, great importance has been attached to the cost savings that can potentially be made. However, there are divided opinions on whether there will be any reduced costs. For example, JM, one of Sweden's larger construction and real estate companies, doubts that there will be any reduced production costs or any increased construction of small student apartments, partly because it is more expensive to build small apartments per square meter. Also, Funktionsrätt Sverige and DHR question whether the proposals really lead to lower rent for students. Production costs have an impact, just as other members have said here, but there is no automaticity in that lower production costs lead to lower rents.

An investment grant has set a ceiling for the rent level. It pushes down the rents. It is beneficial for the students. The risk with what is proposed here is that some unscrupulous construction companies will simply let the money go straight into their own pockets without the students getting any share of it.

Another important aspect to highlight, which speaks against removing the accessibility requirements, is that it will become difficult to change the form of housing if a need should arise. If the need for housing for the elderly were to increase, it would become impossible – or very expensive – to convert these small student apartments for that purpose.

It is also pointed out that there is a risk that the regular housing market will be affected, as there may be unscrupulous actors who rent out so-called student housing on the regular housing market. The government's proposal clarifies what a student housing unit is. We support this and think it is good, but it does not prevent unscrupulous actors from renting out housing to ordinary tenants. There is no possibility of controlling this. The risk is that substandard housing will enter the regular housing market, which can lead to negative consequences for the housing and quality of life for tenants. The government has no proposal on how this can potentially be prevented; it is a blank card.

Madam Speaker! I just want to say it again, for the sake of clarity: The investment support that we Social Democrats previously introduced was very successful. It created 7,400 new student apartments with accessibility requirements and with lower rent for the students. This shows that it is possible to choose a different path than to build poorer student apartments.

I would like to once again move for approval of reservation 3.

(Applause)

In this speech, Denis Begic (S) agreed.

(cont.)

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