(cont.) Relaxations in the building requirements for student housing (cont. CU19)
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S is convinced that relaxations in the building requirements are good because fewer square meters should mean lower rent 1. KD argues that the government is making the measure to lower construction costs and increase flexibility 2, as current requirements make bathrooms twice as large as necessary 2. KD argues that flexible square meters create the possibility for lower rent 3. L advocates for the proposal as it enables smarter and cheaper construction by allowing 80 percent of the apartments to be made more compact 4. L argues that this lowers housing costs and provides a greater climate benefit 4. MP argues that the proposal represents a major departure from the principle of universal accessibility 5. MP claims that the proposal is not about reduced construction costs but about a reduced number of square meters 6. MP considers it wrong to build inaccessibly for the future 7. S argues that there is no guarantee for lower rents 8 9 and that the proposal affects students' quality of life and health 9. L emphasizes that the housing shortage prevents young people from studying 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (13)
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Mr. Speaker! We are debating the committee report CU19 Relaxations in the building requirements for student housing. I shall, like my colleagues, say that this is an issue that my party has pushed for a very long time, and we are very happy that these relaxations are actually being implemented.
This is, however, one of the thinnest bills I have seen during my seven years in the Riksdag and actually one of the first from the government in the area of housing policy, despite having had nearly three years.
There have been some discussions about whether this will be of any use and make a difference for anyone. Of course, it will. But we know that construction processes are long and that on average it takes nine years from idea to completed housing, which means that the effect of the thin proposition will not be visible until a decade from now.
Both I and the Center Party are convinced that it is good to open up for this opportunity. Let me, David Josefsson, take an example from my first student apartment. There, the bathroom was larger than the rest of the apartment, and one can question whether it is a reasonable measure of what young people who are studying might want to have.
Larry Söder is completely right that fewer square meters should logically mean lower rent. My Left Party colleague's reasoning therefore feels quite misleading in this context. And since 20 percent of the apartments are still reserved for people with physical disabilities, this will not hit this group. In Finland, the quota is 5 percent.
Centerpartiet has no follow-up motion in the report but stands behind the committee's proposal. But to make a mark, we chose to submit a special statement. I believe we will be satisfied with that, given that this is a step in the right direction.
Märta Stenevi (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Now we are debating the bill Relief in the building requirements for student housing. Perhaps we should call the debate Deteriorations in the building rules for student housing that exclude students from participating in student life on equal terms. Possibly that is something a bit long and clumsy.
Mr. Speaker! I will start with some simple mathematics. The proposal will reduce the number of possible homes for students with disabilities who want to study, and they will furthermore continue to decrease over time. It is basic math that my kids can manage.
So, regarding some principles. Sweden stands behind the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Sweden has not only stood behind it, but we took the initiative for it and were driving the issue. One of the important parameters in the convention is accessibility, i.e., that the physical conditions to be able to participate in society exist. One of the consequences has been stricter requirements for housing. The principle is simple: We shall not exile persons with disabilities to special houses. To the extent possible, one should be able to choose where one wants to live on the same premises as everyone without disabilities. The bill we are now debating implies a major departure from the principle of universal accessibility.
Before this debate, a study visit was arranged for us members. We were given the opportunity to visit three different student areas around Stockholm. It was a super interesting and very rewarding visit, with good conversations and many new ideas.
From Miljöpartiet, I and my colleague Nils Seye Larsen participated. Already at the first stop, Nils encountered a patrol. While I and the rest of the group went in to look at a renovation project, he had to stay outside and look at the outdoor environments. It was simply not possible to get in with a wheelchair. Consequently, Nils could not participate in the conversation. He missed the information that was given and the opportunity to express his views. He was shut out. Not out of ill will or lack of interest, but because the building was not accessible.
Mr. Speaker! This is the effect when we do not build for accessibility. People are shut out, are not allowed to be included, cannot participate. Let us not forget that. This is what we are talking about when we talk about accessibility.
The project we visited was a renovation of a protected building that was built before current rules and requirements. The house has, therefore, never been accessible. It is also not in this way that one will build according to the proposed rules.
Still, the visit put its finger on the core of this issue, namely that large parts of society today are closed to persons with disabilities. The entire student area we visited was closed to students in wheelchairs. They cannot live there, and they also cannot visit a friend there. They cannot come for a coffee or drop by to borrow a course book. They cannot get in at all. It is closed to them. They are excluded.
For many years, the ambition in Sweden has been to improve the situation and to build more accessibly so that, over time, Sweden will have an increasing share of housing that all students, regardless of functional variation, can live in and visit. Now, with this bill, the government does the opposite. Now the government asks us in the Riksdag to make decisions that limit the living space and the opportunities for future generations of students.
Mr. Speaker! I ask my colleagues in the Swedish Riksdag to vote no to this proposition. I ask the members to stand firm on the principle of universal accessibility. I ask the members to stand up for that the youth who grow up should be able to take full advantage of their entire capacity.
I ask my colleagues to stand up so that our future colleagues in this chamber can be able to study and participate in student life on the same terms as their friends, even if they have a disability. They shall be included, not shut out. I ask you to stand up so that it is a collective responsibility to include everyone in society's functions. It is not a problem for the individual.
Miljöpartiet says no to the bill, but the need for housing that students can demand remains. In the investigation that Boverket conducted, it appeared that they see lower requirements as the only way to lower the construction costs for newly built student housing – note: the construction costs. The starting point is that everything else is the same, and if one removes a couple of decimeters in width from a small one-room apartment, more can fit in the building. How much this would do when it comes to the rent is, however, unclear.
If one looks at the development in Finland, one sees that the rent reduction has become marginal, somewhere around 0.3 percent. If one asks the construction companies, who want the new rules, they point to rent reductions of a few percent. What it will become remains to be seen. That is why we want to see an evaluation of the change, if it now goes through.
But, Mr. Speaker, what if, instead, Boverket had been tasked with thinking anew – what would happen then?
After the viewing of the renovation project that Nils was excluded from, we continued our tour. We visited student housing projects where, instead of cutting here and there, they thought and tested. We saw examples of large, bright apartments where both Nils and I could enter without any problems, where we could have visited, where we could have lived, and where space-efficient bedrooms were combined with accessibility-adapted bathrooms and large, generous common areas.
It is housing that can also easily be converted into, for example, secure housing for the elderly if needed, because it is possible to have assistance in the bathrooms and kitchens. There, a girl with a disability can stay overnight at her boyfriend's place without having to roll out into an empty corridor in the middle of the night to visit a shared accessible toilet.
In a time when demographics are changing rapidly and in a climate crisis that requires us to use what we already have instead of just building new, we need to think anew and flexibly. With the new building regulations, we are instead locking in problems in newly built houses for a long time to come. But we do not have to do that. Think, and think right! Take off from the needs for flexible housing, universal accessibility, and participation for all, and look for solutions!
Scrap the bill, but start the work on the student housing of the future already tomorrow! Solutions already exist, and more will come if you ask the question. Embrace them instead of backing down on the human right of students with disabilities to participate on equal terms. Do it over, and do it right!
Larry Söder (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Märta Stenevi for an interesting speech. However, I do not agree with everything, but such is the nature of politics.
Märta Stenevi is talking about simple mathematics. Yes, it is clear that there will be a lower number of student housing units that are accessibility-adapted in the future, but at the same time, it is 1.5–2.5 percent that demand that type of housing. That is significantly less than 20 percent. I mean that we have taken at the upper limit to be able to ensure that people who need accessible housing can get it. Everyone should be able to study.
This is not a new problem. We have had too few student residences for quite a long time. We have also had problems with that not enough have been built. There was a motion from the bourgeois parties in 2014–2015 with a mandate for the government to report back.
I know that Märta Stenevi had this on her desk when she was housing minister. As I see it, one could not find another solution during eight years with an S-MP government. I think it is bold to say that one does not want the solution that the Tidö parties are putting forward when one cannot present any solution of one's own.
It is a fact that student housing costs more and more to manufacture and produce and that the rents for students are becoming more and more expensive. We must find some kind of solution or something that breaks that pattern. This is a part that can be done. We can certainly agree on more things that can be done, but one cannot just say that one wants to reduce costs without talking about how one wants to do it. The investment support is other people's money being put there. It is not reducing the costs.
Märta Stenevi (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I will start from the end. It is not other people's money. It is our money. It is the money we pay into our common society. There, we have said that everyone should be able to participate on equal terms. One should be able to participate even if one needs a wheelchair. That is what we have said, and this is what you are deviating from, Larry Söder.
You said that 1.5–2 percent need accessibility and that it was therefore kind that one was prepared to let some of the housing being built be accessible. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I recoiled when I heard the expression "kind" earlier in the debate. It was kind that one would let the proportion of accessible housing become fewer and fewer. It was kind that one was prepared to reach out for a group that already has completely different challenges than those who do not have the same problems, for example, sitting in a wheelchair. It was kind.
Mr. Speaker! I think it is interesting and fascinating that such an expression is used. It is not kind to let someone choose where they should live. It is not kind to say: "We are going to set aside 20 percent, instead of just 1.5 or 2 percent, for a ghetto for you who have a need for accessibility." It is not kind, on the contrary. It is not kind to say: "You no longer have the same opportunities to choose a home, but you shall sit there, in the housing that we have decided."
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, many homes were built during our years with the housing minister post. The problem was that nothing was built during the Alliance period.
Larry Söder (KD)
Mr. Speaker! If I may remark, I do not think that the word ghetto belongs in a debate about student housing, but I think that students should also have good housing. That is what will happen with this bill.
Then I recoiled when I heard the talk about common money. I do not think that the Swedish population thinks that it is everyone's common money, but it is actually individuals' money that goes to taxes, so that we can do common things. Then one should use them as well and efficiently as possible.
Every time we discuss housing and the construction of more housing, the left side wants more state funds to be poured in instead of looking at the cost side. What can we do to streamline housing construction? How can we ensure that we get a housing construction where the cost increase perhaps at least stops? I do not think we will get reduced costs, but they can stop.
If one cannot see that there are two scales here, I think one is in a bad position. We must be able to ensure that the costs of building student housing stop and perhaps decrease. I mean that this is a part that can be done. More things can be done, but as far as I know, this is what is on the table. If one dismisses it, one is also speaking of not wanting to build more student housing.
Every square meter is expensive, and if one uses the square meters in the right way, one can get out more apartments so that more students can get an apartment and not have to wait or perhaps choose to study only because they cannot get an apartment. I believe that this is a much larger issue than just a cost at the bottom line. How is one thinking for the students? The students must have housing. We are a knowledge nation. Everyone must be able to provide for that.
Märta Stenevi (MP)
Mr. Speaker! The problem with this proposal is that it is not about reduced construction costs. It is about a reduced number of square meters. It will be the same construction cost but a reduced number of square meters. There will be more homes to spread the house's construction cost over, yes, but it is not an efficiency in the construction cost.
On the other hand, it is a deterioration of accessibility, which students with disabilities are being made to pay for. That is the effect of the proposal. The effect is that there is no longer accessibility that is universal and guaranteed for everyone.
When one asks a few critical questions to the construction companies, it also becomes quite clear fairly quickly that no one believes that one will start building one-room apartments of 13 square meters, as these rules enable. No one even believes that one will continue to build one-room apartments of 16 square meters. What one wants to do instead is to build one-room apartments of 20–25 square meters with smaller bathrooms. The rents in that type of housing will therefore not be lower. They will be somewhat lower per square meter, yes, but they will not be lower per apartment.
If one believes that one will help students with the rent through this, one is mistaken. One helps the construction companies with the calculations instead; we can see that. But it will not result in more housing. What it will do is shut out persons with disabilities from even more housing in Sweden than today.
And again: We built many new small homes during those eight years. During the seven years when Miljöpartiet held the housing minister post, many new small homes were built. We could do that, and we can do it again – but not at the expense of a group of people being shut out because Larry Söder thinks they are only 1.5 to 2 percent anyway, so it doesn't matter that much. It is not kind; it is shameful.
Larry Söder (KD)
Mr. Speaker! When one takes the step to pursue further education at a university, one does so with enthusiasm and faith in the future. Sweden as a knowledge nation should encourage people to pursue further education.
In the autumn semester of 2023, a total of 383,500 students were registered for studies at universities and colleges, which was an increase of approximately 11,000 students.
For the autumn term 2023, it was 27 percent of all 19-year-olds who applied to higher education. It is well these, those who are just starting their education at a university or college, who have the greatest difficulty finding a home in the new location.
When one is 19 years old and enthusiastic about the new life, the housing should not be the part one worries about most. There must be enough student housing that can be rented within a reasonable time and hopefully at a reasonable cost. Most often, the distance to the university or college is an important factor when choosing student housing.
The problem of too few student residences has been swept under the carpet for far too long. Now the government is taking a measure to make it economically possible to build more student residences but also more apartments on the same area.
In Sweden, there are 95,000 student residences. The most student residences are in the country's large cities and in the larger university and college towns. But there are too few residences for the students we have today and far too few if we want to further develop the universities.
In Sweden, every newly built student residence that has a bathroom today must be designed so that the bathroom is accessible for wheelchair users. In Norway, only one-fifth of all newly built student residences must be accessibility-adapted. In Finland, it is 5 percent.
The accessibility requirement means that every bathroom is twice as large as it would need to be. This means that 2,300 more student housing units could have been built over the last 25 years if the accessibility requirement had not existed.
The requirements for accessibility in individual housing are extremely important for individuals with special needs. The exceptions shall not prevent persons with disabilities from finding their student housing and participating in social contexts, as student housing shall be accessible to persons with impaired mobility or orientation skills.
In many university towns, it is difficult for students to find housing. Therefore, the building regulations need to be simplified. The purpose is to try to obtain more student housing through reduced construction costs and increased flexibility in construction. The legislative change aims to create more possible floor plans and reduce the living area in order to accommodate more housing within a given area.
One part of the bill that should not be overlooked is that student housing will now be defined in the Planning and Building Act. This facilitates the management of these dwellings but also enables targeted measures specifically for student housing. We Christian Democrats have long had this as a requirement: that it should be possible to make targeted measures for just student housing and not have to take the entire rental housing stock into account.
And since exemptions from the requirements for accessibility and usability for student housing are introduced in the Planning and Building Act, the term student housing needs to be defined and appear directly in the Act. The Government therefore proposes that a definition of the term student housing be introduced in the Planning and Building Act. Student housing shall be defined as a residence intended for students at universities, colleges, other post-secondary education, or adult education.
It is quite pleasant that not only the Tidö parties think this way, but that the Center Party also stands behind it. One can always wish that it had come faster and not so far into the parliamentary period, but I am glad that we stand here today and can do this. I believe that it is good for the students, not just today but also tomorrow.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! Member Larry Söder speaks a lot here about other people's money and that it should not be used to subsidize student housing. We show in this bill that it was an effective way to produce very many new student residences with full accessibility. It was not until the investment support was decided that production gained momentum and several thousand were built annually. But my question is not about that, but rather about how Larry Söder views other people's money.
I read on SVT today that the interest deduction for 2024 amounted to 61 billion kronor so that we can make it easier for people to stay in their owned housing. I do not think that is wrong. I think it is right, and I think it is right that we use our common income so that people do not have to leave their houses and homes. But zero kronor went to student housing. Was that because it is not owned housing, or? The winners in this system are actually men with high salaries in Danderyd.
How do you explain to students who cannot make ends meet that they must live in poorer conditions to afford their student housing? What is important in this is also that it is not only those with disabilities who run the risk of getting poorer housing quality and quality of life, and also physical and mental ill health. This is highlighted by the Public Health Agency. It has been highlighted by the National Board of Housing earlier and by several other organizations. It affects all students. And we are going to allow student housing down to 13 square meters because we cannot manage to support the students, who are Sweden's future.
My questions to Larry Söder are: How does KD guarantee that the rents will actually become lower? There is no guarantee that they will. And how does KD justify that it is okay to pay out 61 billion in interest deductions to rich men in Danderyd but nothing for student housing?
Larry Söder (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I believe it is more than rich men in Danderyd who receive interest deductions. At the same time, it is the case that it is a deduction. One does not get money in one's pocket, but one makes a deduction on the interest one has and thus pays less tax.
If he has the idea that all the money you earn at your job is the state's funds, then I can understand Leif Nysmed's reasoning. But I think that the money you earn at your own job is your money.
Then perhaps we collectively decide that we shall pay tax so that we can manage the common good, but that I pay less tax, I cannot see supporting them in that way. They are actually trying to make it possible to also own one's own home, which is socially good, economically good, and ecologically good. Many investigations have shown that.
I would say that the problem for us is that we do not ensure that more people own their housing and can take part in the interest deductions. That is what I wish we did, but then we must have a policy that actually ensures that we increase the proportion of owner-occupied homes that are built. What we do today is that with the investment support we have had, we ensure that we increase the rental housing stock.
We can look at which localities have too many rental apartments today – that is to say, rental apartments that stand empty. It correlates quite well with the localities where the most investment support was received, which is quite interesting.
I see that our common money is the money that is actually taken into the state treasury and used. But your money, which you have earned, is not the common money. There is a difference between me and Nysmed there, I believe.
It is also the case that rental housing in common is one thing. I see more that I can invest money in student housing. That is why I want the definition that is coming today.
Leif Nysmed (S)
Mr. Speaker! I note that Member Larry Söder does not answer the most important question from this proposition: How does KD guarantee that rents will be lower? You cannot do that. There is nothing in this bill that does that; instead, it is up to the student housing companies' goodwill. There will be those who do this. I am absolutely certain of that. There are good companies that have the ambition to actually deliver good housing at a reasonable cost. But it does not depend on efficiency; it is simply fewer square meters that allow them to do so in that case.
There will also be a lot of scammers who will not do this, but will instead put the profit directly into their own pockets. I find that quite remarkable.
Then I did not say that it is only men with high salaries in Danderyd. I said that they are the winners. They are the big winners who earn money. They will receive quite large payments from Skatteverket now in June just on their interest deductions. It is paid tax that we pay back. It is a way to only favor and support their own housing.
We would like to see a mix of housing where we can also support rental apartments and student housing in various forms. But I still think it is very clear that wealthy men with high salaries in Danderyd are higher priority than Sweden's future: the students at our universities. They shall now pay the price with poorer housing quality, poorer quality of life, and risk of mental and physical ill health – which has not even been investigated.
The government has spent a lot of time and effort calculating what those square meters will cost in kronor and öre for the housing developers. But they have completely abandoned looking at the analysis of what mental and physical effects it can have for those who are actually going to live there. I find that very remarkable.
Larry Söder (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It is clear that they use the square meters so that one builds in a more flexible way. If one can use every square meter in a more flexible way for the government to change this, it is clear that there is a greater possibility that it becomes cheaper for the tenant.
We had a seminar this spring in the Riksdag where both sides were given the opportunity to speak. There were also companies that demonstrated how one can actually build with the new rules. It was also demonstrated, at least theoretically, that it will be both cheaper for the individual and cheaper to build. What it will be like in reality, the future will show. I do not believe that a law should state what it should look like and what the cost should be. I do not support that type of politics.
I want to facilitate for the companies to be able to build flexibly and that they should be able to use the square meters in the best way. Then one gets more student housing but also an opportunity that it actually becomes lower rent. I think that the seminar – which I believe Leif Nysmed was also part of – actually demonstrated that there was an opportunity and that one had tried to find flexible solutions for it. The future will show if it becomes a reality, and I believe that it will become a reality.
Patrik Karlson (L)
Mr. Speaker! The shortage of student housing is a problem that hits individual young people very hard, but it also affects our society as a whole. Today, over half of all students worry about whether they will succeed in finding somewhere to live during their studies. In several university towns, the situation is, to say the least, problematic. Gothenburg has, for example, approximately 11,000 student housing units for over 60,000 students. Almost one-third of the students choose to opt out of Gothenburg as a study location because of the housing situation. Similar trends are seen in other cities.
This means that young potential students – the future doctors, engineers, and teachers – hesitate, or refrain, from higher studies for fear of simply not having a roof over their heads. This is, of course, not something we should accept in a knowledge nation like Sweden, and we must work to ensure that everyone who enters an education can also gain access to affordable housing.
In order for our universities to continue attracting talent and for the business sector to obtain the competence that is needed, more student housing is required, as said. Ultimately, it is about accessibility to higher education. The housing shortage must not be allowed to hinder anyone's dreams for the future. It hampers the life chances of young people and also our country's long-term growth and innovative power.
Mr. Speaker! Against this background, it is good that we now move forward with the proposal Relief in the building requirements for student housing, which means that exceptions can be made from certain building requirements for student housing. Specifically, it means that one can build up to 80 percent of the student apartments in a building without fulfilling all current requirements for full accessibility and usability, as long as at least 20 percent fulfill these.
Every building will therefore still contain fully accessible student housing, but the majority of the apartments can be designed more flexibly and space-efficiently. This 80–20 distribution ensures that, in the long term, there are sufficiently many student residences that are fully accessible for persons with disabilities. At the same time, we release a potential to build significantly more housing in total.
Why is this reform so important then? Well, with the old rigid rules, one was forced to build every student apartment in a way that was often impractical and expensive. Today, student housing has, among other things, minimal space for a bed, sofa, and desk, but a gigantic bathroom – something that several other members have previously taken up as an example. The result has been fewer completed homes and thus an increased housing shortage due to overly strict requirements in all apartments.
Through this proposal, we can now build smarter, cheaper, and more purposefully. When 20 percent of the apartments meet all accessibility requirements, the remaining 80 percent can be made more compact. This means that we can reduce the living area slightly per apartment and thereby fit more homes into each project. If we can only make each student apartment a couple of decimeters narrower, we simply get more homes into the same building. Slightly less area per apartment provides room for more apartments in total. More homes on the same area also means that the housing costs will be lower for the project, and it provides a greater climate benefit as more homes are accommodated within the same building volume.
Mr. Speaker! A question that several have raised here today concerns how this affects accessibility for persons with disabilities. As I have mentioned previously, all new projects must have at least 20 percent fully accessible apartments. This means concretely that in every new student housing property, there will be a number of apartments that meet the same high accessibility requirements as regular housing. They will have sufficiently large bathrooms and door widths, as well as have an elevator and so on. The apartments that are built with exceptions from the requirements shall also be visitor-accessible. If one is, for example, a wheelchair user, one should be able to come in and visit regardless of the apartment. No student with a disability shall be left without housing or forced to rule out their place of study. In fact, by making it possible to start more construction projects and build more housing in total, we can in the long run increase the absolute number of accessible homes.
I still dare to assert that I would rather have 20 percent of a thousand new homes than 100 percent of zero built homes – if I may express myself bluntly.
Nils Seye Larsen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I intended to speak from the heart.
I remember myself when I moved up to Umeå as a student and lived life. I loved the corridor life. It was there I met many of my friends, and it was also in many of my friends' corridors that we hung out. There I built the gigantic social network I had. Five minutes of alone time was boring time, according to me.
When I was injured, one reason I had to stay at the hospital for nine months was that my residence was not available. Eventually, they found an apartment that was available in a newly built student housing area – a good distance away from my friends.
When I got a job as an international student coordinator a year after my injury, I was happy. I had always loved socializing with international students from all over the world. But quite quickly, I repeatedly ended up in difficult situations. All the spontaneous meetups – friends meeting to cook at a friend's in a corridor, having coffee, baking, partying, or going to an afterparty – were impossible for me. It felt extremely limiting. That is the case in Umeå, as in so many other student cities, namely that many of the student houses were built in another era.
I understand that one must be pragmatic, that it is not possible to make everything accessible, when the old houses were built in a time when people with disabilities were, at best, relegated to institutionalization. But the worst thing we can do is to move into the future and build inaccessibly. I can think that one might lack the perspective of what universal accessibility is about. It is not just about me, as a person with a disability, getting a chance to study at the same university as others and have an apartment, even if somewhere else, but it is about me being able to live my life like others.
I thought of this when we had Camilla Waltersson visiting the Social Affairs Committee to talk about how the government is working based on the criticism that the UN Commission had put forward, to see how we follow the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. At the same time as she talks about the government's mandate and directives to various agencies, the same government is submitting proposals to weaken the accessibility requirements for new student housing.
What is the most sustainable way to build? Well, it is to build housing that lasts over time, that is in demand over time, and that can be used and adapted over time. It is not the case that people want to go back to a time of overcrowding, worsened noise levels, and worsened light intake.
In conclusion: I remember the trip when we went around, and first we were to visit an area where they were going to renovate – and I could not go inside. Instead, I was given a small study tour around Picassoparken. I have nothing against Picasso, but right there it hurt. It was the first time in a long time that I felt disabled.
I do not feel disabled in normal cases. It is only when my wheelchair cannot get anywhere that I become disabled.
Relaxations in the building requirements for student housing
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.