2025-05-212024/25:CU19 · p.3CUCivil law & housing
Evaluation of the new legislation
Should parliament mandate an evaluation of the new building rules for student housing?
What's at stake: A mandatory follow-up would give clearer answers on how the easing actually affects construction, housing costs, and accessibility for people with disabilities, while a voluntary follow-up gives the government more flexibility but less guaranteed oversight for parliament.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether the government should be required to evaluate the effects of the new easing of building requirements within a set time and report back to parliament, or whether it is enough for the government to follow up and evaluate the rules on its own, without such an instruction from parliament.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee assumes that the government will follow up and evaluate the new rules on easing building requirements for student housing in an appropriate way without a special instruction being needed, and therefore rejects the motion for a time-bound evaluation.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 5 (S, V, MP)
The reservation (S, V, MP) wants parliament to require the government to evaluate the effects of the new legislation two years after it takes effect and report back to parliament, arguing that it is unclear how the easing will play out and that there are shortcomings in the government's impact assessment that make an evaluation necessary.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 5 by S, V, MP.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
What each plan points to — and how the party voted
For each party: the vote its own election manifesto and party programme point to in this case, next to how the party actually voted. A plan can only point to Yes or No; a party can also abstain.
| Plan | Vote | Confidence | Evidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | No | No 0/21/0/3 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| S | No | No 0/93/0/13 | follows the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| MP | No | No 0/14/0/4 | follows the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| C | No | Yes 17/0/4/3 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| L | No | Yes 14/0/0/2 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| KD | No | Yes 16/0/0/3 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | derived |
| M | No | Yes 60/0/0/8 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | derived |
| SD | No | Yes 64/0/0/8 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
Broke with the party line
| CAnders W Jonsson (C, Gävleborgs län) | Abstain — party line: Yes |
| CChristofer Bergenblock (C, Hallands län) | Abstain — party line: Yes |
| CJonny Cato (C, Skåne läns västra) | Abstain — party line: Yes |
| CStina Larsson (C, Skåne läns södra) | Abstain — party line: Yes |
MPs whose vote differs from their party's majority position in this division. Marked with a dark ring in the chamber view.
Committee proposal
The Riksdag rejects motion 2024/25:3367 by Jennie Nilsson et al. (S) item 2.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motion 2024/25:3367 av Jennie Nilsson m.fl. (S) yrkande 2.
Riksdag decision: It shall be possible to grant exemptions from requirements for accessibility and usability in a building containing student housing. The Riksdag approved the government's proposal for amendments to the Planning and Building Act. Exemptions from the requirements apply to at most 80 percent of either the total number of student dwellings in a building or the number of student dwellings that are added to a building when a measure is taken. The exemption shall create conditions for increasing the construction of student housing with lower rent. At least 20 percent of student dwellings shall still meet the current requirements for accessibility and usability. A student dwelling covered by the exemption shall, however, be able to be visited by a person with impaired mobility or orientation ability. The law amendments come into force on 1 July 2025.
Counter-proposals
- The counter-proposal wants to reject proposals for lowered accessibility requirements for student housing. (S, V, MP) — Reservation 5
Plan vs actual vote
Every party, in chamber order: what its own plan pointed to, how it voted, and the reasoning behind both. Highlighted rows are where the two differ — but a vote that follows the plan is a result too, so the reasoning is there for every party.
The plan requires that political proposals be built on solid research and that they prove effective and just when implemented.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires that political proposals be built on solid research and that they prove effective and just when implemented. A mandatory evaluation two years after the building regulation relief enters into force is exactly such a test, especially when the plan simultaneously requires that all parts of society be made accessible and that rental apartments with reasonable rents are prioritized.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver att politiska förslag bygger på stabil forskning och att de visar sig effektiva och rättvisa den dag de genomförs. En obligatorisk utvärdering två år efter att lättnaderna i byggkraven trätt i kraft är just en sådan prövning, särskilt när planen samtidigt kräver att alla delar av samhället görs tillgängliga och att hyresrätter med rimliga hyror prioriteras.
- proposals should be tested in realitydecisive»förslag som visar sig effektiva och rättvisa den dag de genomförs.« (party programme ↗)“proposals that prove effective and just when implemented.”
- politics grounded in research»rörelse för ett bättre samhälle behöver bygga på stabil forskning och« (party programme ↗)“movement for a better society needs to be built on solid research and”
- accessible society»och göra alla delar av samhället tillgängliga.« (party programme ↗)“and make all parts of society accessible.”
- rental apartments with reasonable rents»Vi vill prioritera att bygga hyresrätter med rimliga« (party programme ↗)“We want to prioritize building rental apartments with reasonable”
The plan says nothing about evaluation of building regulations.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan says nothing about evaluation of building regulations. The closest commitments are that people with disabilities shall be able to live their lives like others and the party programme's demand that tax-financed activities can be scrutinized and responsibility required. A mandatory evaluation after two years is a way to test if the easements really provide cheaper housing without hitting accessibility. The plan therefore supports the demand, but the evidence is weak.
Original (Swedish)
Planen säger inget om utvärdering av byggregler. Närmast liggande åtaganden är att personer med funktionsnedsättning ska kunna leva sitt liv som andra och partiprogrammets krav att skattefinansierad verksamhet ska kunna granskas och ansvar utkrävas. En obligatorisk utvärdering efter två år är ett sätt att pröva om lättnaderna verkligen ger billigare bostäder utan att slå mot tillgängligheten. Planen stöder därför kravet, men underlaget är svagt.
- accessibility shall be preserveddecisive»Personer med funktionsnedsättning ska kunna leva sitt liv som andra.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“People with disabilities shall be able to live their lives like others.”
- scrutiny and accountability»Oavsett i vilken form skattefinansierad verksamhet drivs ska medborgarna ha möjlighet att« (party programme ↗)“Regardless of the form in which tax-financed activities are conducted, citizens shall have the opportunity to”
- affordable housing»Vi ska fortsätta att bygga hyresrätter som vanligt folk har råd att bo i.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“We shall continue to build rental apartments that ordinary people can afford to live in.”
The plan sees lack of accessibility as a form of discrimination and requires that the quality of publicly funded activities be constantly followed up.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan sees lack of accessibility as a form of discrimination and requires that the quality of publicly funded activities be constantly followed up. Relaxations in building requirements with unclear effects for persons with disabilities should therefore be evaluated. The counter-proposal's requirement for an evaluation after two years lies in line with the plan's follow-up principle.
Original (Swedish)
Planen ser bristande tillgänglighet som en form av diskriminering och kräver att kvaliteten i offentligt finansierad verksamhet ständigt följs upp. Lättnader i byggkraven med oklara effekter för personer med funktionsnedsättning bör därför utvärderas. Motförslagets krav på en utvärdering efter två år ligger i linje med planens uppföljningsprincip.
- accessibility must be followed updecisive»Bristande tillgänglighet är i sig en typ av diskriminering och måste därför bli en ny diskrimineringsgrund.« (party programme ↗)“Lack of accessibility is in itself a form of discrimination and must therefore become a new ground for discrimination.”
- ongoing follow-up»Kvaliteten ska ständigt följas upp med olika slags verktyg.« (party programme ↗)“Quality shall be constantly followed up with various tools.”
- housing for everyone»Minst lika viktigt är att det finns bostäder för alla oavsett socioekonomisk situation eller eventuella funktionsnedsättningar.« (party programme ↗)“Equally important is that there are housing options for everyone regardless of socioeconomic situation or possible disabilities.”
- evidence-based policy»Politikens koppling till forskning är viktig och forskningens resultat bör tas tillvara för att utveckla lösningar på samhälls- och klimatutmaningar.« (party programme ↗)“The policy connection to research is important and research results should be utilized to develop solutions to social and climate challenges.”
The plan says nothing about evaluation of building regulations, but it requires results-driven leadership and reforms that are long-term sustainable.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan says nothing about evaluation of building regulations, but it requires results-driven leadership and reforms that are long-term sustainable. Since the easements concern accessibility, which the plan states is crucial for people with disabilities, its principles argue that the effects are actually followed up. The conclusion is derived from general principles and therefore uncertain.
Original (Swedish)
Planen säger inget om utvärdering av byggregler, men den kräver ett resultatinriktat ledarskap och reformer som är långsiktigt hållbara. Eftersom lättnaderna berör tillgängligheten, som planen slår fast är avgörande för människor med funktionsnedsättning, talar dess principer för att effekterna faktiskt följs upp. Slutsatsen är härledd ur allmänna principer och därför osäker.
- results-driven politicsdecisive»Ett resultatinriktat ledarskap som säger nej till kortsiktiga populistiska satsningar och istället söker långsiktiga och konstruktiva överenskommelser förankrade i mitten.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Results-driven leadership that says no to short-term populist initiatives and instead seeks long-term and constructive agreements anchored in the centre.”
- full accessibility»Tillgängligheten är avgörande för människor med olika funktionsnedsättningar.« (party programme ↗)“Accessibility is crucial for people with different disabilities.”
- long-term sustainable reforms»Vår politik bygger på reformer som är långsiktigt hållbara« (party programme ↗)“Our politics is based on reforms that are long-term sustainable”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan establishes that Sweden shall be an accessible country, that deficient accessibility shall be seen as discrimination and that systematic supervision is needed to remove obstacles.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan establishes that Sweden shall be an accessible country, that deficient accessibility shall be seen as discrimination and that systematic supervision is needed to remove obstacles. A mandatory evaluation two years after the relief measures come into force is one way to control precisely this. The plan says, however, nothing about evaluation of building regulations, so the position is derived.
Original (Swedish)
Planen slår fast att Sverige ska vara ett tillgängligt land, att bristande tillgänglighet ska ses som diskriminering och att systematisk tillsyn behövs för att få bort hinder. En obligatorisk utvärdering två år efter att lättnaderna trätt i kraft är ett sätt att kontrollera just detta. Planen säger dock inget om utvärdering av byggregler, så ställningstagandet är härlett.
- deficient accessibility is discriminationdecisive»tillgänglighet ska ses som diskriminering.« (party programme ↗)“accessibility shall be seen as discrimination.”
- systematic supervision»Systematisk tillsyn behövs för att få bort enkelt avhjälpta hinder.« (party programme ↗)“Systematic supervision is needed to remove easily remedied obstacles.”
- accessible society»Sverige ska vara ett tillgängligt land.« (party programme ↗)“Sweden shall be an accessible country.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan makes evaluation, cost monitoring and quality control important political tasks and requires consequence descriptions of how various parts of society are affected ahead of planning decisions.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan makes evaluation, cost monitoring and quality control important political tasks and requires consequence descriptions of how various parts of society are affected ahead of planning decisions. Easings in building requirements with uncertain effects are precisely a case where a time-limited evaluation is needed. The stewardship principle moreover requires that the consequences of decisions are considered in a future perspective.
Original (Swedish)
Planen gör utvärdering, kostnadsuppföljning och kvalitetskontroll till viktiga politiska uppgifter och kräver konsekvensbeskrivningar av hur olika delar av samhället påverkas inför planbeslut. Lättnader i byggkraven med osäkra effekter är precis ett fall där en tidsatt utvärdering behövs. Förvaltarskapsprincipen kräver dessutom att konsekvenserna av beslut beaktas i ett framtidsperspektiv.
- monitoring as a political taskdecisive»Utvärdering, kostnadsuppföljning och kvalitetskontroll är därför viktiga politiska uppgifter.« (party programme ↗)“Evaluation, cost monitoring and quality control are therefore important political tasks.”
- consequence descriptions»Inför planbeslut ska konsekvensbeskrivningar göras, som beskriver hur olika delar av samhället påverkas.« (party programme ↗)“Ahead of planning decisions, consequence descriptions shall be made, describing how various parts of society are affected.”
- stewardship in decisions»Alla politiska beslut bör fattas i enlighet med förvaltarskapsprincipen, vilket innebär att konsekvenserna av besluten« (party programme ↗)“All political decisions should be made in accordance with the stewardship principle, which means that the consequences of decisions”
- consideration for elderly and disabled in housing planning»Särskild hänsyn måste också tas till äldre och till personer med funktionsnedsättning.« (party programme ↗)“Special consideration must also be given to the elderly and to persons with disabilities.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The party programme states that the party constantly shall be ready to evaluate, reconsider and improve what has been implemented and that reforms should be based on research and proven experience.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme states that the party constantly shall be ready to evaluate, reconsider and improve what has been implemented and that reforms should be based on research and proven experience. Since the aim of the reliefs is that more housing actually gets built, an evaluation after two years is a way to test whether the reform delivers. The counter-proposal's requirement thus lies in line with the plan's reform view.
Original (Swedish)
Partiprogrammet slår fast att partiet ständigt ska ha beredskap att utvärdera, ompröva och förbättra det som genomförts och att reformer ska luta sig mot forskning och beprövad erfarenhet. Eftersom syftet med lättnaderna är att fler bostäder faktiskt ska byggas är en utvärdering efter två år ett sätt att pröva om reformen levererar. Motförslagets krav ligger därför i linje med planens reformsyn.
- constant evaluation of reformsdecisive»beredskap för att utvärdera, ompröva, förändra och förbättra« (party programme ↗)“readiness to evaluate, reconsider, change and improve”
- reconsider in light of new knowledge»vi i ljuset av ny kunskap ständigt är redo att vårda, utvärdera« (party programme ↗)“we in light of new knowledge constantly are ready to care for, evaluate,”
- the goal is more housing»Vi vill genomföra reformer som ökar byggandet av såväl hyressom bostadsrätter.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“We want to implement reforms that increase the building of both rental and owner-occupied housing.”
flags: citat_blockerat, citat_migrerat
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan requires clear results and clear citizen benefit for each public investment and speaks against investments made completely without evidence-based results.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires clear results and clear citizen benefit for each public investment and speaks against investments made completely without evidence-based results. An evaluation of the relief two years after entry into force meets this requirement. The plan simultaneously wants to simplify building regulations, but a follow-up requirement does not conflict with that.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver tydliga resultat och tydlig medborgarnytta för varje offentlig satsning och vänder sig mot satsningar som görs helt utan evidensbaserade resultat. En utvärdering av lättnaderna två år efter ikraftträdandet svarar mot det kravet. Planen vill samtidigt förenkla byggreglerna, men ett uppföljningskrav strider inte mot det.
- results requirementdecisive»Begära tydliga resultat för varje offentlig satsning« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Demand clear results for every public investment”
- requirement for citizen benefit»Sverigedemokraterna vill koncentrera de offentliga utgifterna till välfärdens hjärta och begära tydlig medborgarnytta för alla satsningar.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Sweden Democrats want to concentrate public spending on the heart of welfare and demand clear citizen benefit for all investments.”
- requirement for evidence»Subventioner av anställningar, elcyklar och lyxbilar sker precis som mångmiljardsatsningar i integrationsprojekt helt utan evidensbaserade resultat.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Subsidies for employment, electric bikes and luxury cars occur, just like multi-billion investments in integration projects, completely without evidence-based results.”
- simplified building regulations»Anpassa och förenkla regler och processer för planering och byggnation« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Adapt and simplify rules and processes for planning and construction”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
Share and embed
Sources and documents
- The committee report on riksdagen.se (2024/25:CU19)
- Committee report full text (HC01CU19)
- Per-MP voting data (API)
- Case status (API)
Documents under consideration
- Motion 2024/25:3361 — med anledning av prop. 2024/25:132 Lättnader i byggkraven för studentbostäder av Malcolm Momodou Jallow m.fl. (V)
- Motion 2024/25:3367 — med anledning av prop. 2024/25:132 Lättnader i byggkraven för studentbostäder av Jennie Nilsson m.fl. (S)
- Motion 2024/25:3386 — med anledning av prop. 2024/25:132 Lättnader i byggkraven för studentbostäder av Märta Stenevi m.fl. (MP)
- Proposition 2024/25:132 — Lättnader i byggkraven för studentbostäder
Source: The Swedish Parliament