A more flexible rental market

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have two issues to debate in the matter that is on the table today. One of them concerns a new private rental law. It is a law that is intended to enable better conditions when renting out private homes.

I and the Sverigedemokraterna truly safeguard those who own a condominium and who are members of a condominium association. We want to secure their conditions when it comes to subletting. At the same time, we want to create good conditions for people to make use of the housing they own. They should not have to lock themselves completely into it, but there should be a flexibility that the whole society can benefit from.

I mean that we can utilize the housing stock better if people can more easily rent out their housing in the second hand. This means that we can create conditions for more people to study. We can also provide the opportunity to test new jobs without knowing if it is something that holds up over time. If one is stuck in one's housing and is not given the opportunity to rent it out in the second hand, it is difficult to be flexible in that area.

A home is a major investment, and one may not be able to leave one's home just however one likes. Therefore, we believe that under the right conditions, which are sufficiently secure, one should be able to rent out one's home in second hand in order to be able to try out work, studies, or a cohabitation. With the new private rental law, we enable this while simultaneously creating security for both the housing cooperative and for those who rent in second hand and those who rent out.

That the permitted rental period is extended and becomes longer than one year, as it has been, means that one can truly study, take a job, or test a cohabitation. At the same time, we tighten the requirements regarding lodgers for the subletter. With future legislation, we also enable strengthened security regarding condominiums by making it possible to evict criminals who own condominiums and hold those who sublet to persons who commit criminal acts accountable.

With the upcoming legislation and the bill that is on the table today, I as a Sweden Democrat feel confident that we will adopt the new legislation.

Termination of sublease tenants on short notice is removed. It therefore requires a more serious incident for a sublease contract to be able to be terminated. This secures the tenants.

A lease agreement for an indefinite period shall have a notice period of three months. This applies to both the owner of the housing and the tenant. This creates security for both the landlord and the tenant.

We also protect against excessively high rents by allowing one to go to the Rent Tribunal if one feels that the rent that has been set has become unfavorable.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats support the proposal that has been tabled in the Riksdag regarding private rental.

The proposition also contains a new model for block rental. Today, there is an opportunity to block-rent housing. There is an opportunity for entrepreneurs to rent housing to their staff. I think this has been good. Now we get a model that secures the entire system. We need to have a flexible labor market. We need to make it possible for companies in a hot labor market to bring in competence and give staff the opportunity to live and work where the job is during the time when a transition needs to be made. Then one can find their own housing, provided that the job becomes long-term.

That introducing a regulation for this makes the entire system safer. That a permit is required for the purpose means that one can no longer use subletting in any other way than what is intended. The Rent Tribunal can reject applications for permits for block rental, which means we get a review of the system that allows us to get rid of the deviations that we have seen in the system.

The companies that rent housing for their staff become, indirectly, in the long run, cost-bearing in this system. That one can go to the Rent Tribunal when it does not work as intended means that there is also a protection against unreasonable rents here.

Madam Speaker! I and the Sweden Democrats support even this part of the bill.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Roger Hedlund, for the speech! This is starting to become something of a habit.

In the tenants' own newspaper Hem & Hyra, the Sweden Democrats' housing policy spokesperson said that the Sweden Democrats would not contribute to market rents. He even said that a vote for the Sweden Democrats is a vote for the utility value principle. Now I stand here and ask Roger Hedlund how it is that the Sweden Democrats are now doing the exact opposite of what was said in the tenants' own newspaper.

Madam Speaker! The utility value system is not a technical detail, but it is a protection for ordinary people which means that the rent shall reflect the apartment's value for the tenant with regard to location, standard, and characteristics. The rent shall not be set according to what the market is willing to pay. It means that the rent shall not be set according to how hard a person can be pressured. It means that the housing shall be a home and not be subject to bidding wars. It means that the person who rents shall have rights, security, and a reasonable chance to plan their life.

When the Riksdag later today votes on the government's proposal regarding so-called corporate housing via block rental, a parallel track is opened in the rental market. Property owners shall be able to rent out apartments via intermediaries. The person who actually lives in the apartment runs the risk of ending up further away from the rights that ordinary tenants have.

My question to Roger Hedlund is: How is it that the Sverigedemokraterna say one thing but do exactly the opposite?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Markus Kallifatides for the question.

I want to assert that it is important that this system exists so that our labor market can function in a good way and so that one can provide the competence that is needed. There may be reason to have a system that enables a more flexible labor market.

We are talking here about temporary housing that companies have the opportunity to rent to arrange accommodation for their staff. We are not talking about a broad labor market or about ordinary people who rent their homes, but we are talking about specific cases. With this, growth is enabled in hot labor market regions.

Madam Speaker! This is something completely different than market rents in new production. I can promise that the Sweden Democrats are a guarantee that market rents are not a current topic in Swedish politics. I think we have proven that during this parliamentary term.

The question is where the Social Democrats actually stand here. How important is this issue for the member? Are market rents something that one is prepared to stand up against, or are market rents an alternative for the Social Democrats as long as power is within sight?

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Roger Hedlund for the reflections and the questions to us Social Democrats, who are opponents of market rents. This is also the background to my question to the Sweden Democrats and Roger Hedlund: Why does the party today intend to carry out the opening of a potentially broad parallel track with a system of market rents in the middle of the rest of the rental market? How large this system will become, we will unfortunately have to see over time.

The proposal for new rules for block rentals implies great opportunities to negotiate away the security of tenure. It also involves agreements on so-called adjusted rent, that is, market rent, which the Hyresgästförening's chief legal counsel explained with several others in yesterday's Hem & Hyra. I am unsure if the Sverigedemokraterna have even understood what the proposal in this part implies.

The proposals have received criticism from a number of referral bodies, with Hyresgästföreningen at the forefront, as well as other actors who combat the march towards market rents in the Swedish rental market. The Council on Legislation notes that the protection mechanisms referred to in the bill are "fragile" but otherwise does not take a position on the merits.

Madam Speaker! This vote is a crossroads. The question remains: How is it that the Sweden Democrats say they defend the use-value system but at the same time open a back door for a widened sector of market rents? I do not understand that.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! This system has existed for a long time. The Social Democrats have not done a damn thing to try to rectify it. Now we are coming with a proposal that allows us to achieve a regulation of the entire system. Then the Social Democrats say: "Good God, you are introducing market rent!" The system has existed the entire time during the Social Democrats' time in government.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the issue of market rent, the Social Democrats in Hem & Hyra give no promise at all of tearing up this legislation. It clearly shows the hypocrisy in this issue. One knows that one is dependent on a future government with the Center Party, which will push through market rents in new production – perhaps even market rents in existing stock.

The Social Democrats have no strength in their negotiating position to stand up for the issue of market rents, or else the issue is not important enough for the Social Democrats, but rather one is prepared to negotiate it away. That was proven during the last negotiation with the Center Party regarding the January agreement. They placed the weight on maintaining power and abandoned their principles.

The same thing will happen again. The only party that has shown in practice that they are not prepared to negotiate on the issue is the Sweden Democrats. The Social Democrats dropped the issue of market rents immediately when it came to gaining power in the Riksdag. The Sweden Democrats have not dropped it. This means that during the four years that have passed, we have shown that the Sweden Democrats are the guarantor that market rents are not introduced in Sweden. The Social Democrats have shown that they are not the guarantor but the doorman for a new market system in Sweden tomorrow.

(Applause)

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's proposal for a more flexible rental market. But behind the word flexible hides yet another step towards a more insecure and more market-driven housing market.

The government presents its proposals as a way to increase the availability of housing and create greater mobility in the housing market. But behind those formulations, we find a policy that risks worsening the housing situation for ordinary people.

Vänsterpartiet opposes this type of policy, which drives the development of a larger, more expensive, and more insecure secondary market. Instead of building more rental apartments with reasonable rents, the government chooses to further favor private rental and speculation. It is the wrong path to take.

Madam Speaker! Already when the law on the rental of one's own housing, the so-called private rental law, was introduced in 2013, Vänsterpartiet warned of the consequences. We saw the risk that housing would increasingly begin to be viewed as investment objects and sources of income instead of homes. Unfortunately, the development has proven us right.

The private secondary market has grown significantly since the law was introduced. Private rentals have almost tripled, and the market now turns over billions of kronor. At the same time, we have seen more insecure housing, more short-term contracts, and more people forced to pay very high rents without either security or influence.

The new private rental law implies no improvements for sublease tenants. On the contrary, it risks further weakening their position. The government wants to make it easier and more profitable to rent out privately owned housing, but they are doing nothing about the fundamental problems in the sublease market: the high rents, the insecure housing situation, and the weak protection for the tenants.

Madam Speaker! The Government's proposal aims to make it easier to rent out housing in the second hand. Several referral bodies have warned that this could lead to speculative purchases and diminished security in housing cooperatives. Vänsterpartiet shares that criticism.

We already see in other European major cities what can happen when housing is increasingly treated as investment objects and not as homes. Stockholm must not become like Barcelona, where extensive speculation through short-term rentals has pushed ordinary residents out of the housing market and made it harder for people to stay in their own neighborhoods.

Madam Speaker! If we want to create greater mobility in the housing market, the starting point must be different. Those who no longer need their housing for their own residence should, in the first instance, sell it on, so that more people get the opportunity to buy and live permanently.

To truly make more housing available, it is also required that we build more rental apartments with reasonable rents. Subletting shall be a complement to the housing supply – not a central solution to the housing shortage. Furthermore, the rights for sublease tenants must be equally strong regardless of whether the apartment being rented out is owned or rented. With this, I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 1.

Given the previous exchange between the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats, I also want to add that the Left Party is the only guarantee against market rents in Sweden's Riksdag. We brought down the previous Social Democrat-led government because of that issue, and we are prepared to bring down such a government again if the misfortune should occur.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! If there is one thing that is close to my heart, it is political integrity. Even though I chose to take a reply, my speech actually refers to the previous exchange of replies where Centerpartiet, and what it de facto stands for, was spoken about in the third person with various inaccuracies.

It is no one, Madam Speaker, who wants to introduce market rents. None of the country's eight parliamentary parties want to introduce market rents. The Tenants' Association makes things up and lies to recruit members, but this shall not reach the country's decision-making assembly.

Madam Speaker! There is no party here that is a guarantee for something that will not be implemented. I therefore want my colleagues in the chamber to be objective and honest. This bill is about being able to rent out one's residence when things happen in life, for example when one gets a cohabitant or gets a residence in another location. To, as Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez, assume that people are sitting on several million and have various residences to rent out is beyond unreasonable.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! I did not perceive a question, but I welcome it if it is the case that the Center Party does not want to introduce market rents in new production. That was actually the proposal that applied under the January Agreement, but the government had to resign because the support in the chamber was no longer there. If the Center Party is no longer in favor of that proposal, I of course welcome that very much, and it facilitates our ability to form a future government.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I said in my previous speech that objectivity is important, and I want to repeat that. The Centre Party wrote in the January Agreement that we wanted to see freer rent setting in new production. Let me inform everyone listening and also the chairman of the Committee on Civil Affairs – a warm welcome to us – that real estate companies can already today set the rents to make the calculations work. To call it market rent when it costs the real estate company to build is incorrect.

That proposal was about, Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez, and why Hyresgästföreningen went bananas was that this model, over a hundred-year perspective, would erode Hyresgästföreningens hittepåroll on the Swedish housing market. That was why they went out with these lies about market rents.

I appeal one last time: Hold the banner of objectivity high! It is extremely important that we in this deciding assembly manage to have objective debates without attaching labels to issues that de facto have never even been on the table.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe we in the chamber should be careful about accusing Hyresgästföreningen of being liars. I have great confidence in this organization, which represents hundreds of thousands of tenants in this country.

The proposal that was submitted during the previous parliamentary term concerned exactly market rents in new production. That was how it was, and one can go back to the debates or google and see the articles, and then one will find it. Many of us were in the chamber then as well.

If we are to be objective, we must also stick to the facts.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has for a long time had a housing market that does not function as it should. For too many people, the step to their own housing is far too large. Young adults are forced to stay at home longer than they want to, and students find nowhere to live. The person who gets a job in another city declines because it is not possible to arrange housing, and companies all over the country testify that competence cannot be recruited because housing is lacking. At the same time, we know that there are dwellings that could be used better than they are today, and it is against that background that we today discuss the government's proposition on a more flexible rental market.

Madam Speaker! At its core, this is about something quite simple. We must move from a housing market characterized by rigid rules and lock-in to a housing market characterized by mobility, flexibility, and better utilization of the housing that already exists. Therefore, the government now proposes a new private rental law with clearer and more accessible rules, both for private individuals who want to rent out their housing and for private individuals who want to rent housing from other private individuals. More people should dare to rent out a room, their condominium apartment, or their house without fear of unclear regulations and bureaucratic hurdles. The person who rents should also feel greater security in daring to rent.

With clearer and simpler rules, stronger incentives are also created to actually rent out. In practice, this means that more housing becomes available in the existing stock. It also means that more people will be able to stay in their house or villa because it becomes easier to rent out parts of the home, perhaps part of the lower floor, a few rooms, or an attefallshus. For others, being able to rent out a part of the home can be the decisive piece of the puzzle to make the finances work when they want to buy their first house. This is sustainability for real – socially, ecologically, and economically.

Madam Speaker! The bill also contains clearer rules for subletting condominiums. It is an important reform. Today, many condominium owners face an ambiguity that, in practice, complicates subletting.

The government now proposes clearer rules and a more reasonable order where previous rental only shall be taken into account if it has occurred to a significant extent. This increases the security for those who want to rent out temporarily while, for example, studying in another location or working abroad. This also means that one can avoid selling and moving.

It is important to point out that the housing association's board or the rental tribunal must still approve the rental, and one cannot buy an apartment solely to rent it out or to speculate on value appreciation while simultaneously renting it out.

Madam Speaker! With this bill, the distinction between subletting and lodgers is also clarified. It is important that the regulatory framework is understandable.

Madam Speaker! A functioning housing market is also about creating diversity and freedom of choice for those who have other needs or preferences or find themselves in a special situation.

Now we are improving the possibilities for corporate housing by updating the rules for block rental and making them more purposeful. The regulatory framework has existed for a long time in Sweden, but there have been loopholes that unscrupulous actors have been able to exploit, while recent judgments have made it difficult for serious actors to continue offering companies the opportunity to rent housing. For many companies, access to housing is crucial if they are, for example, to be able to recruit international competence or get people to take jobs in places where the housing shortage is great.

Madam Speaker! Shared housing, which means that one rents a room but shares, for example, the kitchen and social spaces, is a growing way of living, especially for young people or people who want to try living in a city but also for, for example, older people who are seeking a social environment. Here, the legislation has unfortunately also been rigid and hindered innovation and development of housing forms.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates believe in reforms that increase people's freedom and strengthen their opportunity to shape their lives. This also applies to the housing market. When housing is used better, when more people dare to rent out, and when the rules become simpler and clearer for both the one who rents out and the one who rents, mobility increases and the matching on the labor market improves, and more people get the opportunity to find a home.

The government's bill does not solve all problems in the housing market, on the contrary. Sweden continues to need increased construction and more structural reforms. But this is an important step in the right direction.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, David Josefsson, for the speech!

We Social Democrats and many others know that the Moderates want to introduce so-called security rent, which is to say something that I, in the name of honesty, regard as market rent step by step in new production or as apartments become vacant in the rental housing stock. We know that the Moderates want to see subletting via intermediaries, that is to say market rent in a parallel system. We know that the Moderates broadly want to strengthen property owners at the expense of the tenants. It is not something new, Madam Speaker.

But there is something new in the bill that we are debating today, and it is that the Moderate-led government and the Sweden Democrats are going directly against the organizations that represent Bostadsrättssverige regarding the proposal to further expand housing cooperative owners' possibilities to sublet and rent out apartments in second hand. The criticism is that the rules that exist today are already generous and that it has not been shown that there is a need to expand the possibilities for second-hand subletting.

Authorities such as Boverket and Tillväxtverket have also criticized the proposal on expanded opportunities for subletting, and Fastighetsägarna as well.

In light of the criticism, the risks of speculative behavior, and the negative consequences for the associations' functioning and the neighbors' safety, my question to David Josefsson and Moderaterna is: How is it that the government and Moderaterna are presenting proposals that run contrary to the critical views of so many referral bodies?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Markus Kallifatides, for your questions!

To paraphrase a previous debate, I thought Alireza Akhondi expressed it very well: There are eight parties here in the Riksdag that are the primary guarantee against introducing market rent, because no one wants unregulated rent setting.

However, we can observe that the current model in Sweden does not function particularly well, and I believe that our eight parties also say that. Those who are affected most severely are those who stand furthest away from the housing market. Then we say: Can we not have a substantive discussion and try to consider whether we can regulate rents in a different way, as is done in, for example, our neighboring countries?

Trygghetshyra is not market rent. What we are implementing now is not market rent. I think Roger Hedlund described it very clearly when he said that it is a very strictly regulated rent setting. It shall be tested in the Rent Tribunal if one considers the rent to be unreasonable and so on. It is actually a model that already exists in Sweden which we are now updating.

Regarding the discussion on subletting, the member asked why we are doing this. It is because we do not share the Left Party's view that someone who owns a condominium and who is going to work abroad or study in another location can simply sell it. It is people's homes we are talking about.

The rules that we are now changing actually concern two things. One is that we say that previous rental cannot be a basis for the housing cooperative to say no, and the other is that one should be able to rent out for a bit longer.

It is still the case that one is not allowed to buy an apartment for speculative purposes. You are not allowed to buy it just to rent it out. It is still the case that the housing cooperative or the Rent Tribunal must give its approval. The only thing we are doing is that we are making it possible for more people to, for example, be able to live abroad and work or study for a few years and then move back to their apartment. I think that is a freedom reform for the individual human being.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! In this discussion, it seems that the concept of market rent is something that is not possible; it simply cannot exist. I do not know what more would be required for it to be market rent. Is it the right to set any rent at all in real time and then the tenants have to move if it is not sufficient?

The proposal on security rent implies a free negotiation between the property owner and the incoming tenant regarding the rent, at that time, in a newly produced or vacated apartment. It is market rent, step by step, in the housing stock. I am an economist, and I find it very difficult to see that there would be anything strange about the concept of market rent pricing.

My question, Madam Speaker, was therefore why the government and the Moderates are opposing Bostadsrättsföreningarna, HSB, Riksbyggen, Fastighetsägarna, Tillväxtverket, and Boverket in the issue of further increased opportunities for secondary rental of condominiums.

A housing cooperative apartment (bostadsrätt) means that one has the right to live in an apartment in a property that is owned jointly by an association which has to manage it. It is not intended to be a speculative object or a hotel room, but rather one has acquired the right to live and be part of an association together with one's neighbors. We believe that it is worth carefully nurturing this form of housing in Sweden.

I repeat my question: How is it that one goes against what Fastighetsägarna, Boverket, HSB, and Riksbyggen state in this issue by opening up for more speculative behavior and increased insecurity in condominium housing?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if there is a problem with the microphone or if the documents have not been read, but it is not the case that we are making any major changes to the possibility of renting out one's condominium in a second hand.

What we are saying is that the fact that one has previously worked or studied abroad for a few years cannot in itself be a reason to deny a rental again. We also say that practice should be changed to enable slightly longer periods. You still may not buy a condominium to rent it out. It will not be like in Barcelona. You will not be able to buy up condominiums and rent them out in the secondary market, because that is, therefore, not allowed. You may not buy to rent out. That is not what is stated in the bill.

When it comes to market rent and security rent, we can state that there are no parties in here that want unregulated rent. Then I understand that there are spin doctors on Sveavägen 68 who think it is a good question, but it is a matter of being honest and objective in this debate, which Alireza Akhondi highlighted in a good way.

I would very much welcome a substantive discussion where we can discuss the problems that exist in the Swedish housing market and whether we want such a market. Do we want it to take 42 years of waiting time to get an apartment in Stockholm's inner city, which was the waiting record this week? Do we think that is good, or do we think it is not good? Apparently, there are parties that think it is good, and there are parties that do not think it is good and who want a discussion. Can we regulate rents in a better way, as has been done for example in our neighboring countries? I would gladly have a substantive debate about that.

I think it is indecent that there are strong lobby organizations with connections to the Social Democrats and Social Democratic and Left Party members of Parliament who deliberately lie and say that there are parties in here who want to introduce market rents and who argue that it should be completely free and unregulated. It is not worthy of the Swedish Parliament.

(Applause)

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, a rental apartment should be a home and not someone's business idea.

And with the bill we are now debating, the government and the Sweden Democrats are opening the back door for market rents if the Riksdag votes in accordance with the Committee on Civil Affairs' proposal.

For many years, a parallel housing market has emerged in our major cities. Apartments that were actually intended to go to people via, for example, Bostadsförmedlingen have instead been rented out to companies whose business idea is quite simple: to rent apartments and then rent them out further at significantly higher prices.

Ordinary rental apartments have in practice become hotel rooms. This has been a very profitable business model, but it has also had clear consequences. When apartments disappear from the regular rental market, the housing shortage becomes even greater and the rents are pushed up for everyone. Furthermore, the system has obvious links to crime. Apartments rented out via intermediary companies have even been used for brothel activities and as so-called "pressure apartments" in connection with serious crime.

In recent years, however, the development has begun to turn. After several guiding judgments from Svea Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in 2022, clearer boundaries were set for this type of arrangement. Apartments that were previously rented by rental companies have, to a greater extent, returned to the normal, regular rental market. It has had an effect. More apartments have returned to the housing queue, and the waiting times in, for example, the Stockholm region have decreased in recent years.

So, the government and the Sweden Democrats now want to change the law. With the support of the Sweden Democrats, the government proposes new exemption rules that make it possible for companies to rent apartments on a larger scale. In practice, Madam Speaker, it opens the door again for the same business models that the courts recently put a stop to.

The problem is that there are no clear limitations in the proposal. When property owners can obtain significantly higher revenues by renting out through intermediary companies, the entire logic of the rental market changes. Why rent out an apartment to a regular tenant for a reasonable rent if the same apartment can be rented out to a rental company which in turn charges significantly higher rents?

The result threatens to be that more and more apartments are moved from the regular rental market to a parallel market where the rents are significantly higher. That is how market rents are introduced through the back door.

This is happening at the same time as the housing shortage is already one of the biggest problems for many people. Young people who are about to move out from home, families who need larger housing, and people who move to take a job are already facing a difficult housing market. The Sweden Democrats often say that they stand on the side of ordinary people. But in housing policy, they are now driving a reform that threatens to make the housing shortage even more profitable and push up the rents further.

Sweden needs more housing and a rental market that works for ordinary people – not new loopholes that make it possible to bypass the protection rules of the rental laws.

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag should therefore reject the government's bill in the parts concerning the expansion of the possibilities to make exceptions from the security of tenure in subsequent stages in block rental, the introduction of rules on adjusted rent, and that the so-called "frontman rule" shall not apply in block rental. Furthermore, the part of the bill concerning rental to a legal entity for further rental to a legal entity should be rejected.

We Social Democrats naturally stand behind all our reservations, but to save time in the chamber, I move for approval of only reservation 3 in the report.

Madam Speaker! The bill also means that the government and the Sweden Democrats are going directly against the organizations that represent Bostadsrättssverige. The proposal to expand the possibilities for condominium owners to lease out their apartments to a second party has received criticism from several important referral bodies.

The criticism mainly concerns that the rules are already generous today and that there is no need to expand the possibilities for subletting of condominiums. Authorities such as Boverket and Tillväxtverket have also questioned the proposal and warned against, among other things, speculative purchases of condominiums. Property owners have also rejected the proposal, citing the risk of speculative behavior and negative consequences for the associations' functioning and the neighbors' security.

We Social Democrats agree with the referral bodies' criticism, and for us, these objections carry more weight than the reasons for the proposal that the government cites in the bill. The Riksdag should therefore reject the government's proposal on expanded opportunities for secondary rental in the housing association act.

It is directly remarkable that a government that speaks with such conviction about safety issues in this matter goes against all warnings regarding increased insecurity in residential environments. A condominium apartment is a home within an association – not a pure speculative object and not a hotel room. A condominium apartment is a right to live and be part of an association together with one's neighbors. It is worth carefully nurturing this important form of housing in this country.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats safeguard owner-occupied housing, condominiums, and rental housing, as well as the distinct characteristics of the different forms of tenure. Furthermore, we want to see a powerful and active state housing policy, something Sweden does not have today.

The starting point for us Social Democrats is that an active housing policy is required so that more people can live well. We must build more and better, and our country shall be characterized by beautiful architecture and smart urban planning. We must build housing where people with ordinary wages can afford to live. We want to build away the segregation. Construction must take place throughout the country, in urban areas as well as in the countryside. A modern life should, of course, not have to be synonymous with an urban life. Service, welfare, and good infrastructure must exist everywhere in our country.

Temporary housing needs can and should be met with well-thought-out solutions in the form of, for example, student housing, youth housing, hotels, apartment hotels, sublets, and sometimes corporate housing. None of this should, however, involve further restricting the availability of sensible housing solutions for ordinary people.

When the right now lets the market loose even more, we Social Democrats want to go in a completely different direction for housing policy and for Sweden. We want a stronger society, built on collective responsibility and respect for all people's needs for good housing and living environments.

(Applause)

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! We from the Center Party will vote for this proposal, and we therefore accept the government's proposal.

Let me be clear right from the start: The reason I am standing up in the debate is not that I want to praise the government's housing policy. I am not doing it to describe the proposal as some major reform agenda, because it is not. I am certainly not doing it either to pretend that Sweden, after nearly four years with this government, has obtained a functioning housing policy.

The consideration is a best-case scenario – one step less in the guardianship that has largely characterized public Sweden. The subjective truth is that this mandate period has, in large parts, been four lost years for Swedish housing policy.

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing changes that are intended to create a more flexible rental market. And certainly, some of these changes are reasonable. If some of the changes had been implemented, perhaps thousands of people would not have to live in barracks in Skellefteå.

Sweden needs more mobility. We need a better use of the existing housing stock. We need to reduce unnecessary obstacles and red tape. It is fundamentally sound, and I believe that the vast majority can agree on that. But the problem is that the government seems to believe that minor adjustments at the margins are the same as having a housing policy direction. It is not.

During this parliamentary term, housing construction has collapsed. Bankruptcies in the construction sector have increased sharply. Thousands of people have lost their jobs. Young people are getting further and further away from the possibility of their own home. This is not something that this reform aims at.

At the same time, the government is in practice without any major structural reforms – four years into the mandate period! Direction is lacking. Tempo is lacking. Above all, there is a lack of understanding of how serious the situation de facto is.

Madam Speaker! The housing market is not a special interest. It is fundamental for the Swedish economy – over 10 percent of Sweden's GDP. When people cannot move to where the jobs are, the labor market functions worse. We have a situation where 100,000 more people have become unemployed during the parliamentary term. We want people to be able to take a job, and then people must be able to move to where the jobs are.

When young adults live at home well into their teens, it affects family formation – I believe that above all the Christian Democrats have highlighted the need for more children – but also studies and faith in the future.

When companies cannot recruit because people cannot find housing, it also affects growth. If we are to be able to manage the demographic development, we need growth in this country. Housing policy is therefore growth policy. Housing policy is therefore labor market policy. Housing policy is therefore also, fundamentally, future policy.

I was at a seminar with Kairos Future perhaps 15 years ago. There, I heard something that stuck in my way of thinking, Madam Speaker. It was said that what gives people hope for the future are construction cranes. Against that background, one can also see that the government has failed.

Madam Speaker! The most remarkable thing is perhaps still the level of ambition. Sweden is in the deepest construction crisis in decades, and the government's response has been surprisingly passive. People are happy to talk about the market solving the situation. The problem is only that the market does not function in a vacuum. When interest rates rise sharply, investments freeze and households' purchasing power is pressured; political leadership is needed. Then reforms are needed that actually get the wheels turning again. Instead, we have received a government that mostly administers the crisis.

I believe I have three or four more pages of prescribed arguments as to why this mandate period should be considered four lost years. I do not, however, believe that these three or four pages would bring the debate any closer to some kind of consensus. I can therefore state that, in the absence of sensible things to vote for, we will vote for this small proposal that the government has put forward.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker, members and listeners! Housing is a social right. All people have the right to a secure home regardless of income. We in Miljöpartiet believe it is particularly important to look out for those individuals who have difficulty entering the housing market.

The government's bill, which we are debating today, goes in the opposite direction. The proposal risks leading to market rents by the back door. It also leads to insecure contracts without security of tenure, i.e., the right to stay in one's apartment. We in Miljöpartiet say no to all forms of market rents regardless of what they are called and where they are hidden. We also protect security of tenure.

A major risk with the bill is that the incentives for property owners to rent to intermediary companies are so great that fewer and fewer apartments with regulated rent will be available in private property owners' housing stock.

Madam Speaker! The government's proposal risks leading to property owners choosing to refrain from renting to individual tenants via housing queues because they receive so much more in payment from an intermediary. It becomes a much more lucrative way to manage a residential property. The risk is therefore, as said, that property owners, together with intermediary companies, drive forward market rents through the back door.

For an individual tenant, this very likely means rents that deviate from the principle of use value. Furthermore, according to the Government's bill, an individual tenant should have very small real possibilities to request a reduction of the rent. The reason is that the Government wants the security of tenure to be weakened. If one, as a tenant, requests that the rent be lowered, one risks being evicted, because the security of tenure is too weak.

Hem & Hyra has examined intermediary companies that rent apartments from property owners and then rent them out further. The review shows that over 1,100 claims for repayment have been directed against such companies. During the period January 2024 to June 2025, decisions were made on repayments totaling over 14 million. In just 18 months, the rental tribunals made decisions in 331 cases concerning intermediary companies.

Madam Speaker! This is not a fair market.

Against that background, Miljöpartiet thinks it is remarkable that the government wants to make it more attractive to use precisely intermediary solutions. We therefore reject the government's proposal on adjusted rent in block rentals for corporate housing. We say no to the bill.

I want to be clear that we are positive towards corporate housing. They are needed, and there is a shortage of such. We mean, however, that the issue of housing for staff supply must be able to be solved in a responsible manner. Municipalities, regions, universities, employers, and housing companies can find other forms of temporary housing for, for example, healthcare staff, researchers, project employees, or people who move across the country for a new job. I myself have made such a move to a corporate residence that did not go through an intermediary company but directly through the municipality on fair terms.

It is one thing to enable serious staff housing. It is something completely different to create incentives for property owners to move ordinary rental apartments out of the regular housing queue and instead rent them out via intermediaries at higher rents and weaker protection.

The proposal gives rise to follow-up questions about what the intention of the bill actually is. It is legally complicated, and we believe there are clear signs that this is a strategy to hide the issue of market rents in a legally complicated procedure. Perhaps it is intentional, perhaps not – it is somewhat unclear. But it is this that we see will be the consequence.

Then, Madam Speaker, we come to the second part of the bill, expanded possibilities for secondary rental.

The government's bill means that condominium owners shall be granted permission to rent out their apartment in a second hand for a longer period – it is already possible today to rent out one's apartment.

Several heavy referral bodies reject the proposal – Bostadsrättsägarna, Fastighetsägarna, HSB, Hyresgästföreningen, Riksbyggen, and Sveriges advokatsamfund. We in Miljöpartiet agree. We also reject the proposal. Like several of the referral bodies, we believe that there is a risk that the new proposal will lead to speculative purchases of condominiums and that the management of condominiums will be hindered.

Madam Speaker! Today's secondary market is uncertain. It is characterized by short contracts without security of tenure. The rents are many times higher than in a primary contract. At the same time, the alternatives on the housing market are often few for the groups who are referred to the secondary market. And a lack of knowledge about the regulations and fear of demanding one's rights, because one is afraid of being evicted, results in people being caught in a bind. There are also many black contracts on this cramped housing market.

Overall, it can be stated that the secondary market is an emergency solution. It is not a secure form of housing. We in Miljöpartiet want to see legislative measures and more supervision instead, in order to counter illegal subletting.

Miljöpartiet moves that the Riksdag reject the Tidö government's proposal on expanded opportunities for secondary rental. With that motion, I vote in favor of reservation 2.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! For us Liberals, this bill, A more flexible rental market, is about something very fundamental: that more people should be able to find a home, that housing that already exists should be used better, and that those who want to rent out their home should be met with clear and reasonable rules.

Today, the rules for the rental of private housing are fragmented. Different rules apply depending on which housing is being rented out, how many housings are being rented out, what type of tenure it concerns, and which law happens to be applicable. For someone who is a lawyer, it might be possible to navigate among these. But for the ordinary housing cooperative member, the villa owner, or small-scale landlords, it is often something completely different.

Many experience that it is difficult to know what applies. What rent can I charge? Which tenancy protection applies? What happens if I myself need the housing? What applies if the rental is to be time-limited? Which law should I even read?

It is not strange that people refrain from renting out. And every time someone refrains from renting out a housing unit that could otherwise have been used, someone else loses the opportunity to get a home. Therefore, a new and more comprehensive private rental law is now proposed. The rules are gathered and clarified. It shall become easier to understand what applies when renting out a housing unit.

Madam Speaker! A central change is that a private individual shall be able to rent out up to two residential apartments simultaneously. There are people who, for various reasons, have more than one residence that could be rented out. It could be about a person who has inherited an apartment, someone who is to work temporarily in another location, or a family who has a house where a part of the house could function as an independent residence.

The government's proposal means that the private rental can include two dwellings. We consider this to be reasonable and proportionate. It can contribute to more dwellings coming onto the market.

Another important change concerns the rent in private rentals. The Government proposes that, as a starting point, the landlord and the tenant should be free to agree on the rent. It is a principle that should be self-evident in a free society. Two adults should, in normal cases, be able to reach an agreement with one another.

It is not about leaving the tenant without legal recourse. It is not about us sanctioning usury. The bill contains a clear protection rule. If the rent is significantly higher than the rent that is generally charged for similar housing rented out under this law, the tenant can turn to the Rent Tribunal. Then the rent can be lowered to a level that is reasonable in relation to the actual rent level on the market.

Madam Speaker! Why is this important? Yes, because today's system creates the wrong incentives. If a person considers renting out their home but experiences that the rent does not correspond to the costs, the risks, or the actual value of the housing, many simply refrain. Then the housing stands empty. And an empty home helps no one. It does not help the student. It does not help the worker. It does not help the newly arrived researcher, the young police officer moving to another city, or the divorced parent. It also does not help the company trying to recruit. And we know that when people cannot move to where the jobs and the education are, Sweden loses strength.

The proposal also contains changes regarding fixed-term rental agreements in private rentals. Even here, it is about creating more clarity and balance. Many private individuals do not rent out on an indefinite basis. They rent out during the year they will be working abroad, during their period of study in another location, or perhaps while waiting for a child to move in. They rent out a home that they might themselves need later. In that case, it must be possible to agree on a time-limited rental in a secure manner.

For the landlord, security is about knowing that they can get their property back when the agreement expires. For the tenant, security is about knowing what applies during the contract period. The government's proposal implies, among other things, that the rules for fixed-term agreements are clarified and that the tenant's position during the contract period is strengthened.

The proposal also strengthens the tenant's predictability. The person who rents a home for a year should be able to plan their life during that year and should not have to live with the risk that the agreement is suddenly terminated without a substantial reason.

Madam Speaker! The bill also collects and clarifies the rules on private rental in a new law when it comes to the basic order of the rental, which differs from the ordinary market in terms of the tenant's right to an extension of the agreement. It is an issue that, rightly so, sparks a considerable amount of debate. A home is not just any commodity. It is a place for security, everyday life, and privacy. Precisely because of that, the rules need to be adapted to the situation.

There is a difference between a large real estate company with thousands of apartments and a private individual who rents out their own home for a limited period. If the legislation does not make that distinction, many will refrain from renting out.

Madam Speaker! We also strengthen the right to better utilize the housing cooperative stock. Today, there are housing cooperative owners who have fully legitimate reasons to rent out their apartment for a period of time – I have mentioned studies and work – but where previous rentals can weigh heavily against them, even when the reasons are reasonable. The government's proposal means that previous sublettals shall only be considered if they have occurred on a significant scale. It is a reasonable balance.

Another important part of the bill concerns block rental. This simply means that a landlord rents out several apartments to an intermediary, which in turn rents them out further. It can involve corporate housing, student housing, shared housing, coliving, and so on. Today, these rules are often unclear and restrictive. They simply do not fully build upon the conditions that have emerged in our society.

The labor market is more mobile today. Companies sometimes need to be able to quickly offer housing to people who are recruited from other parts of Sweden or from abroad. And universities and other actors need solutions for students and researchers. New forms of housing are being developed where people share spaces, services, and community in different ways than before. In that case, the legislation must keep up.

Madam Speaker! Flexibility is combined with safeguards against abuse. The Rent Tribunal shall, if there are special reasons, be able to deny permission, limit the duration of permission, and request statements from organizations with relevant knowledge. This does not mean free rein for unserious arrangements. It is a regulated model so that serious actors can offer housing where today's system is insufficient.

I vote in favor of the committee's position.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I was sitting and reflecting on where there actually is a dividing line here. It is about the fact that we Christian Democrats believe that private rental is needed in Sweden and that one needs to use every square meter in the best way so that we do not have people who are left without housing.

If one does not believe that we need private rental in Sweden, one can obviously say that this law is not needed. But if one believes that private rental is actually needed in Sweden, one cannot be against us creating a law that gathers the laws and regulations that exist, so that it becomes easy for the private individual who rents out to find what applies. I cannot really understand why one does not want a consolidated law in that case.

It is clear that we are also making changes here. We stipulate that one may have two dwellings that one can rent out. That is also reasonable. In some cases, one has, as some say, two dwellings that one can rent out.

There are those who say that this will lead to market rents. But it stands quite clearly in the proposition itself that one can apply to the Rent Tribunal to have it checked whether one's rent is an extortionate rent or not.

It is always possible to discuss whether it is good or not. But we have also regulated in what way a lease agreement shall terminate.

Now it becomes equal for both, that is to say that the one who rents out and the one who rents has an equally long period, three months, on which the agreement can be terminated. I think that is quite reasonable. It strengthens the tenant's possibilities.

Then one can always discuss the condominium regarding housing cooperatives and the individual. I think it is quite reasonable that if you have a condominium and do something else for a period, you should be able to rent out your home. It should be able to be done easily. It should not be a housing cooperative that in all cases can say: No, you are not allowed to rent out your home. I think you should have great opportunities to rent out your home.

If you have studied somewhere for a period and then moved back, it should not affect whether you later, for some reason, want to move in with someone else and see if it works. Now one can say: It is not possible. You have actually rented out your residence before, so now you cannot rent it out any longer. The individual's possibility to be able to use their own residence must increase. It must still be reasonable.

Then one can always discuss this with block tenants. We all like the green transition. But where are those homes going to come from? I believe that much of it is about the fact that when we move people to where the jobs are, they must also be able to access a home in a quick and simple way.

Block renting has been something that could be handled before. I believe it is just good that we regulate how it works. Those who consider this to be completely wrong will be answerable. How else do they think it should be?

One might think that unauthorized private rental should not be allowed, but that does not help. In that case, it is better that we regulate how private rental should be, collect it in a law and state: This is how it is in Sweden. It helps the tenant and also the one who rents out to be able to see what applies.

It is the opposition's role to always find a mistake somewhere. I am proud of what the government has done during these four years. We have done very many good things. At the last committee meeting, there were quite a few adjustments for the propositions that are coming. I am proud but not satisfied, as a prime minister said.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 22.)

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