Relaxations of the building requirements for student housing
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD considers that easing the building requirements improves economic conditions and the availability of student housing 1, and argues that 20 percent accessibility adaptation is a high level that does not negatively affect the interests of people with disabilities 1. KD considers the proposal to be long-term and that the 20 percent requirement is generous since only 1.5–2 percent need adapted apartments 2. KD argues that the proposal enables cheaper construction production and lower rents through increased resource efficiency 1 3. V considers the proposal to be a betrayal that excludes persons with disabilities 4 and favors property owners without guarantees for reduced rents 4. V are prepared to invest money in students through investment support 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Roger Hedlund (SD)
Madam Speaker! On the Riksdag's table today lies a government bill regarding relaxations of building requirements for student housing. The Sweden Democrats have both championed and worked on this issue for very many years. There is a notice from approximately ten years ago. I am pleased that we have now reached a breakthrough in this issue with a new government supported by the Sweden Democrats and our Tidö Agreement, and that we have a proposal on the table with measures in this area.
The proposal on the table can improve both the economic conditions and the access to housing for our students. According to the measurement that CSN made during its mapping in 2021, 22 percent of all students had had difficulty accessing housing. This is not news, as it has been that way for very many years. But we nevertheless see an improvement in the area. According to the measurement that Boverket provided in 2024, 14 of 38 higher education municipalities had a surplus of student housing. That is a doubling in the last year. We therefore still view the measures in the area positively.
The shortage of student housing that exists is, in any case, important to address. It also concerns the issue of the economic costs that it entails to be a student. It has been shown that 36 percent of incomes are spent on housing costs. It is, of course, not particularly easy for a student to have costs at that level for their housing.
There is a concern from the disability organizations regarding how the relaxations in the building requirements for student housing may affect their interests. I can understand that that concern exists. However, from my side, I can feel secure that this is not going to affect their situation and their interests. Even moving forward, accessibility and usability must be taken into account in 20 percent of the new production of student housing, and it is around 3 percent that have need of such a home. I therefore think that very high consideration has been given to that interest in the proposal that is on the table today. 47 percent of the existing student housing in the stock is also accessibility-adapted, which means that the supply clearly outweighs the demand.
It is important that we take measures in this area to promote studies and to promote innovation in this country. Sweden is a country rich in innovation. We are in need of educated and competent students who can fill the needs of the business sector. It is about the competitiveness of the whole of Sweden.
Therefore, it is important to address this issue and to take more measures in the area to ensure that those students who are in need of a residence in the study location also get access to a residence. Otherwise, it easily happens that one chooses another path in life or another study location, which is not even their first choice.
The model, if one puts it that way, that is presented to the Riksdag means that 80 percent of the housing built in new production does not need to be made accessible, while 20 percent shall be made accessible. This also applies in the renovation of existing premises and housing.
This enables exactly what I have touched upon in my speech, to produce more housing and create better conditions for all our students. The effect of this is that more housing can be built on the same area, and it naturally means that one can have more student housing in a property or on a plot of land. It also makes it possible for a student apartment to be fewer square meters, and a consequence of that will, in the long run, be cheaper rents.
In the extension, Madam Speaker, this also involves environmental and climate effects thanks to increased resource efficiency. It is a plus in the context of this bill.
Increased flexibility in the design and enabling industrial construction in this area is extremely important for producing more housing but also for achieving cheaper construction production in the development of these homes – and in the long run, lower rents. In this way we can, Madam Speaker, promote the future studies that Sweden – this innovation-rich country – is in need of and provide the business sector and society with the education and competence that is truly needed so that we can compete with the rest of the world.
Birger Lahti (V)
Madam Speaker and colleagues! This is my first debate in the Committee on Civil Affairs – it will be exciting!
Sweden suffers from an acute and long-lasting housing crisis, and for students, the situation is particularly difficult. Long queues, high rents, and a lack of alternatives make it difficult to manage studies, especially for those without financial support from home. Therefore, it is understandable that solutions are being sought. More student housing needs to be built, preferably faster and cheaper. That is something we are likely in agreement with Tidögänget on as well.
But what the government is proposing now is not a solution – it is a betrayal. In the pursuit of short-term cost reductions, they want to lower the accessibility requirements for student housing. This means that future student accommodations can be built without being adapted for people with disabilities. It is nothing other than deliberate exclusion, even if it states that 20 percent of the housing shall be built with adaptation. It is a return to a time when people with functional variations were not counted as full citizens – and this in a time when the country has become richer in every way. But the money ends up somewhere else.
Madam Speaker! The Government claims that it is about creating opportunities. But in reality, they are removing opportunities for a large group of students who already face obstacles today. They are opening up for a future where access to housing, community, and education only applies to some, not all.
The Tidö parties' proposals also involve a number of other deteriorations. In addition to lowered accessibility requirements, they have already proposed lowered requirements for daylight, lower ceiling heights, and higher permitted noise levels for student housing. Slowly but surely, they are creating a separate, inferior regulatory framework for young adults trying to make their way in life. And they are doing this primarily to benefit property owners, not to improve life for students.
The criticism against the proposal has been massive and unanimous. It comes from all sides – from Sveriges förenade studentkårer, Diskrimineringsombudsmannen, Socialstyrelsen, Institutet för mänskliga rättigheter, Folkhälsomyndigheten and the disability rights movement. Everyone says the same thing: The proposal violates both Swedish disability policy and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Still, the government chooses to turn a blind eye – to ignore expertise and ignore reality. It is claimed that persons with disabilities can still visit student housing. But what does a visit actually mean if it is not possible to cook, use the toilet, or stay overnight? What kind of participation is being offered? I think it is a mockery.
Madam Speaker! Being able to visit friends or partners on equal terms as everyone else is a self-evident matter in an inclusive society. It is not a luxury; it is a human right. But the government reduces participation to being able to cross the threshold, not to being able to live a life on equal terms.
Furthermore, the alleged economic gains are heavily exaggerated. The Government expects that a 20 percent reduction will result in a decrease in construction costs of only 7 percent. At the same time, there are no requirements for or guarantees that the rents will be lowered.
What will the result be then? Worse housing, the same high rents, and a group of people who are excluded from community and access. It is a high price to pay for a marginal economic gain that, moreover, ends up in the pockets of the construction and real estate companies, not with the students.
I think it is time to speak plainly: There is nothing to indicate that this proposal will provide access to housing with reasonable rents. The only thing it will lead to is that student housing becomes cheaper to build, not cheaper to live in.
The signals from the real estate sector following the proposal are worrying. There is already talk of removing the accessibility requirements for more housing types. This is only the beginning, and therefore we must draw a line now. Because if accessibility becomes optional, equality also becomes optional.
We in Vänsterpartiet say clearly: Students with disabilities shall have the same right to housing, community, and participation as everyone else. Nothing else is acceptable in a democratic society.
But when we say this, it is called principle-riding by the government parties. They claim that our demands do not help homeless students. But it is not our principles that have created the housing shortage. It is decades of conservative politics – sell-offs, market adjustments, and the dismantling of the common – that have done that, not our "principle-riding." Call us old-fashioned if you want, if it means that we stand up for the right to a home for everyone.
Madam Speaker! There are alternatives. A state investment support for student housing was needed, with clear requirements for reasonable rents and accessibility, of course. That is how we build a society where young people get a fair chance and where no one is left behind.
We want more housing, but not at any price. We primarily want low rents so that people can afford to live, but not by sacrificing people's rights.
Madam Speaker! Therefore, I move for the approval of the Left Party's reservation 1.
Larry Söder (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for the speech! I noted down some things that the member mentioned: short-term solutions, conscious exclusion, removed opportunities, decades of bourgeois politics and sell-out.
I would like to assert that all these things are incorrect. Building new student housing is not a short-term solution. It takes years of planning and construction to get new student housing. It is highly relevant that this is a long-term part in order to be able to get new student housing.
Is it about deliberate exclusion? No. If one says that 20 percent should be accessibility-adapted, it is not deliberate exclusion, I mean. It is currently about 1.5–2 percent who need an accessibility-adapted apartment, and then 20 percent is calculated very high.
In Finland they exempt 95 percent while we exempt 80 percent. I think we have still been very kind and taken into account that no one should be excluded.
Are opportunities being removed? No, I do not think that is what is being done. There are opportunities for all types of people to study, and we shall encourage people to study.
The chairman speaks of decades of bourgeois politics. But as far as I know, the Social Democrats and the left have governed for at least 50 of the last 70 years. In that case, the sell-out is something that the left has done.
Birger Lahti said that he wanted cheaper student housing, but he did not say how he wanted to build them, other than that he wanted to shovel more money into investment grants. The problem for Birger Lahti is that he says no to the proposal that is here. There is a definition of student housing there that would enable targeted support, but Birger Lahti says no to that because he says no to the entire proposition.
Birger Lahti (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Söder, for the remark!
We can look at how it is to rent an apartment in Finland. Then it doesn't need to have a stove in there. Is that the next step in Sweden? The rules regarding what must be in an apartment when it is rented out are different. In Finland, you can take your fridge and freezer with you when you move. That is not something you can do in Sweden.
The leadership does not seem to have the insight into when housing is sold off. Yes, it is when there is a change in the municipalities and it becomes conservative rule. Then one is quick to let someone profit from the public housing. They turn them into condominiums. To say that it is in principle only social democratic governments that have privatized much of our welfare is a lie.
How does the member mean that one should secure housing if this is not the first step? What is then the next step when one goes out? We are a rich country. Somewhere, the rules were established so that everyone would be included in society. Now they are being shifted slightly. I understand that one seeks solutions to find student housing – I buy that argument – but what is the next step if one says that it works to remove requirements on accessibility? Yes, then one builds a residential area where one says that it is sufficient for 20 percent to be accessibility-adapted.
A wealthy country that backs down when it comes to accessibility requirements is something that I will never accept. Now we see that the money is being distributed elsewhere, very boldly, and then some people end up caught in the middle. I will never accept that as long as I am a politician, Larry Söder!
Larry Söder (KD)
Madam Speaker! It can be observed that the Left Party had no proposal on how to reduce the costs for student housing. The proposal that exists is that more money should be shifted in from someone else instead of reducing the costs for student housing.
We have a proposal that actually makes it so that the square meters are used in a different way and makes it cheaper for the individual student. I think it is a good proposal. One takes into account how many who would need accessibility-adapted apartments, and one takes very much into account for that when saying 20 percent.
The Christian Democrats as a party have the ambition to reduce the costs of building new housing. This also applies to student housing. But for us, this does not mean that someone else should pay, but the costs of building housing must become lower. For those who rent a student housing unit, it must also become cheaper.
I cannot see that Vänsterpartiet, in its statement or in its reservation text, has in any way shown how they want to reduce the cost, other than wanting an investment grant. The problem is simply that Vänsterpartiet removes that possibility by not agreeing to have a definition of student housing, which is present in the bill.
I am very pleased that this is included in the bill, because it makes it possible to direct support specifically to student housing. Today, that cannot be done, and instead, it goes to all rental apartments.
Can Birger Lahti in some way speak about how he wants to reduce the costs for student housing without using others' money?
Birger Lahti (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Söder, for the remark! I consider students to be the future. It is spoken beautifully about them being the future, and I agree. Sweden has always been a country where we have taken new initiatives. We have championed research and development, and students are the future.
I am prepared to invest money in the students in the form of investment support when housing is built. But I am not prepared to go the way that is now being proposed, with poorer quality for the students and a belief that market solutions should handle everything.
It doesn't say anything about it becoming cheaper to rent the new homes. It says they are cheaper to build, but where do the money go? So many times in my life have I seen where the money goes when a bourgeois government rules, and it is not with the students or with those who need the money, the money ends up in other pockets. So it is also this time, unfortunately.
Roger Hedlund (SD)
Madam Speaker! I have a reflection regarding the statements that Birger Lahti makes in his speech and what can be read in the Left Party's reservation. It states there that the economy is a negligible effect of the proposal. I really question that wording in your reservation. I have at least received the impression that the Left Party means that one is working for people's opportunities to educate themselves. And there, the economy is not a negligible parameter, but on the contrary, the economy is completely decisive for one to be able to choose to study.
If the number of square meters in the student apartment is reduced by making the toilet smaller, the rent will of course be lower. Fewer square meters result in lower rent. It is a natural effect of the whole.
It is clear that we will get an effect from the proposal. I actually do not understand the reasoning surrounding this.
The member argues that even if construction costs are lower, it does not provide any benefit in the form of lower rent. Then I ask myself: How can the subsidizing of construction, as the member proposes, result in a lower rent? The member argues that lower construction costs do not result in lower rent.
Birger Lahti (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Roger Hedlund, for the question! When we still had investment support for rental apartments, I visited Gällivare and asked what effect it had and what effect it had to abolish it. I believe it was a large two-room apartment the example concerned, and there the rent would be 8,000 with the investment support, and it rose to 10,000 without. There were requirements on those who built regarding how the rent was to be charged and what effects it would have. It worked.
If one does not want to see any form of commitment from the state so that people can afford to rent, one is forced to try to find other ways. In that case, the available way becomes to reduce the quality. You reduce the ceiling height, the daylight and so on, so that it becomes cheaper to build. But this is not something that guarantees what the rent will be.
In a house containing eight apartments with a certain rent and two apartments with a higher rent, naturally everyone will want the apartments with the lower rent. How does this benefit those who need the larger toilets and the accessibility? It becomes once again some form of exclusion of students.
The students are our future. It is no secret that I am prepared to invest society's money, that is to say, distribute the money from the taxpayers, on those who are our future, namely the students.
The system that the proposal is based on provides no guarantees for lower rent. There are no guarantees for lower rent.
Roger Hedlund (SD)
Madam Speaker! Construction costs are insignificant, we will hear from Birger Lahti. I still do not understand that reasoning. It means that we do not need to work on lowering material costs or labor costs when housing is built. We therefore do not need to work to increase competition and enable more smaller construction companies to participate in the procurements. We do not need to work in all areas because the production cost does not affect the rent in the end.
This is a completely unreasonable argument, but it is a clear argument from Vänsterpartiet that everything linked to costs for housing production is completely uninteresting. The only thing that is interesting is a large, costly investment support, which we all know has not given the effect that is demanded. The effect has been large costs for the state and reduced opportunities to make interventions in other important areas.
We are therefore not creating the conditions for more people to get a lower rent or access to the housing that is being built. The most important thing from the Sweden Democrats' side is to gain access to the housing that is actually being built by keeping construction costs down. It is an incredibly important part to make it possible for more people to demand what is being built.
Birger Lahti (V)
Madam Speaker! I thank Roger Hedlund again for the exchange of remarks.
I agree that the construction costs are not insignificant, but the difference between how much the cost is reduced and how much effect that would have on the rent is not impressive. I would buy the proposal in the government bill if there were guarantees specifying how much the rent must be lowered when lower quality is used, but that is not on the map.
To allocate money from the taxpayers to that which is our future, where even the member's presented arguments hold, is something that Sweden has been successful with. But the picture is that one allocates the money to those who already have, not to the students. I have a different prioritization.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.