Right of compensation as well as insolvency and execution rights

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of all reservations.

Tonight we are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report CU15 on the law of obligations as well as insolvency and execution law. Several areas are covered in the report, and since time is limited, I will try to stick to a few areas.

Mr. Speaker! Behind legal concepts such as prescription, distraint, and debt restructuring, human suffering is hidden in many cases. Over-indebtedness is today one of our most serious social and economic problems. At the turn of the year 2023/24, over 417,000 people were registered with the Enforcement Authority. The total debt amounted to approximately 119 billion kronor. Over ten years, the debt amount has increased by almost 50 billion kronor.

These are not just numbers. It is about people who have become trapped in a debt trap, often as a result of aggressive lending, deficient credit checks, and a credit market where loans can be taken in a few minutes, around the clock.

Over-indebtedness leads to mental ill-health, social exclusion and, in the worst cases, suicide. It also affects children. Around 180,000 children live in households with debts with Kronofogden. At the same time, creditors, entrepreneurs, the state and not least crime victims are affected when payments are missed.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats argue that lending must become more responsible. The credit assessment is central. Today, lenders lack a complete picture of a person's total indebtedness. Collection debts and parallel loans from different actors are not always visible in the credit report. This is a serious problem and a deficiency.

We therefore consider that a complete debt register should be investigated and introduced so that creditors receive a comprehensive picture of the borrower's debt burden. The credit assessment must always be based on actual data regarding existing debts and payment problems. It should not be possible to grant new loans to already over-indebted persons because the system is fragmented.

We welcome the government's work to strengthen consumer protection and counter risky lending, but more needs to be done.

We also believe that the disbursement of quick loans should be restricted during evening and night hours. Many ill-considered loans are taken in situations characterized by gambling addiction or other issues. Other countries have introduced time limits. Sweden should consider similar measures.

Mr. Speaker! Preventive work is crucial. Knowledge in personal finance needs to be strengthened, especially among young people. The school has an important role to play. Cooperation between school, authorities, and the financial sector should be developed.

Municipal consumer guidance is also an important preventive tool. Today, approximately half of the country's municipalities no longer offer consumer guidance, which is problematic. In order for the support to be equal across the country, the state should take a more overarching responsibility to strengthen and develop local consumer guidance. Preventive work is more cost-effective and more humane than repairing damages after the fact.

Mr. Speaker! In the question of exemption and distraint, the aspect of justice is central. Those who have debts shall pay their debts. This applies regardless of whether the debt is to the state, to companies, or to a crime victim. The distraint system needs to become more efficient. It should not be possible to evade distraint by transferring assets to others.

We believe that awarded damages should be able to be seized before they are paid out through a check against the Enforcement Authority's registers. It is not reasonable that a person convicted of serious crime has compensation paid out without existing debts, for example to crime victims, being considered. Damages shall be equated with other seizable assets. The justice system must be consistent.

Mr. Speaker! Debt restructuring is an important opportunity for those who are permanently over-indebted, but it should be used restrictively. On average, around 89 percent of the debt is written off in a debt restructuring. This means significant losses for creditors – sometimes for small business owners, sometimes for the state, and sometimes for crime victims. Debts originating from criminal activity shall not be covered by debt restructuring. Victims should not have to see their damages erased because the perpetrator is granted debt restructuring.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to touch upon Nordic cooperation. Today, a decision on debt restructuring is not automatically recognized in all Nordic countries. This creates problems for mobility in the labor market and for individuals who wish to settle in another Nordic country. Sweden should take the initiative for strong Nordic cooperation and work for mutual recognition of debt restructuring decisions. This would benefit both legal certainty and mobility within the Nordic region.

Mr. Speaker! The right of compensation as well as insolvency and execution law are ultimately about balance – balance between responsibility and the possibility of a new start, balance between the debtor's situation and the creditor's right, and balance between social consideration and the principles of the rule of law. The Sweden Democrats' line is clear. We want to prevent over-indebtedness through stricter credit assessment and better consumer protection. We want to strengthen knowledge in personal finance. We want to make the seizure system more efficient. We want to protect the rights of crime victims, and we want debt restructuring to be used responsibly and restrictively.

Mr. Speaker! With that, I once again move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all reservations.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! When we debate the right of compensation as well as insolvency and execution rights, it is in many ways about questions of justice. It is about the balance of power between strong actors and individual people.

The over-indebtedness in Sweden is alarmingly high. The mountain of debt has increased with record-breaking figures in both the number of cases and the total debt amount. Behind every case is a life characterized by stress, ill health, and limited freedom, something that also affects children and relatives.

The rapid increase indicates that many are struggling with the economy with high interest rates and living costs, which makes it very difficult to pay ongoing interest. The risk of long-term indebtedness is high for those who have already ended up in the register. Many debts are driven through debt collection where interest and fees cause the debts to grow and become difficult to get out of.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that debt restructuring should be granted earlier and cover more people. The debt restructuring period shall be shortened from five to three years. A fixed repayment amount shall be introduced so that work and increased income actually pay off. It is not reasonable that people are kept in debt traps that lack an endpoint.

When it comes to the main rule on offsetting in execution, the current order is that the funds received through execution shall first be offset against interest and fees and thereafter against a principal amount. Only when overdue interest and fees are paid is an offset made against the principal amount.

This order leads to a difficult economic situation where the total debt grows. Therefore, we want the main rule to be changed so that funds coming in shall primarily be offset against the principal amount of the claim. It is crucial for debts to decrease and not just be administered.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to lending, increased responsibility must lie where the decisions are made. Today, unserious actors can make money on lending and collection and combine several short-term credits in order to bypass applicable interest caps and cost caps. It is virtually risk-free for these companies to lend out money. In many cases, they have their own collection companies and thus earn additional money from the borrowers who cannot pay back. Ultimately, these companies turn to the Enforcement Authority to collect unpaid debts.

We therefore consider that a debt and credit registry would be a powerful tool to ensure that those who have been granted loans also have the ability to repay them. We also consider that lenders who fail in their credit assessment should bear a much greater cost during enforcement at the Enforcement Authority.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the right to compensation, it is ultimately about security. But today we see how insurance terms erode the protection, especially for vulnerable groups. Many insurance companies apply insurance terms which mean that the legal protection in a home insurance policy covers custody disputes only after a full year has passed since the parties' separation.

This risks hitting hard against women exposed to violence with limited means to pay for a representative. It is difficult to protect oneself against the perpetrator's continued violence when he uses the child in a custody dispute to get to both the woman and the child. Furthermore, this can lead to a great inequality in the process and ultimately to the economically weaker parties giving up and not having the strength to fight for their children's interests. The Government should therefore review the possibility of letting the legal protection in a home insurance cover custody disputes without any condition regarding the waiting period.

We also see that insurance law is now facing entirely new challenges. One issue that has become extra relevant is the increasing number of storms, floods, and fires. In my county, Västernorrland, we were hit very hard by heavy rainfall and floods in September last year. Residents had to evacuate. There was major damage to roads, railways, private plots, and properties.

The insurance companies themselves have warned that insurance for houses and properties in certain areas may become very expensive and be completely canceled in the future due to extreme weather. This could lead to many being left without insurance for houses that, for example, have been damaged in a flood.

Here, we Social Democrats mean that insurance should be a part of society's basic security. Therefore, we want the government to take an initiative for an insurance solution that shall ensure solutions in the face of increased climate risks and that people, even in areas where there is a high risk, can both take out insurance and afford it. We want to introduce requirements for better comparison tools between different insurance companies. The insurance companies shall be clear and be able to communicate what is included in the insurance.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, there are criminal companies that obtain competitive advantages through black labor, illegal labor, and sham employments. Here, we need further reforms to counter these problems and combat crime in the labor market. We see tactical bankruptcies being used as criminal tools. We see companies reappearing in new companies and employees who are left without wages. The state loses its tax revenues, and serious companies are competed out. Therefore, we want to see stricter rules against just tactical bankruptcies.

Mr. Speaker! In summary, we Social Democrats want to prevent debt, give people a real way back, ensure that insurance works when life hits a crisis, and put a stop to bankruptcies that are used for cheating and exploitation.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 8.

In this speech, Denis Begic (S) agreed.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report CU15, which is a motion report on the right to compensation and insolvency and execution law. It is a comprehensive report with a large number of motion proposals within several closely related areas: damages, crime compensation, debt restructuring, execution, and prescription.

It is important to emphasize here that the fact that these motions are being rejected does not mean that the issue lacks significance. It means, above all, that we have a proactive government that is carrying out extensive reform work.

Mr. Speaker! This Sunday is International Day of Victims of Crime. It is a day that reminds us that the rule of law is ultimately demonstrated in how we treat those who have been subjected to crime. Victims of crime should receive redress and not have to pursue their own compensation.

Today, crime victims are all too often left to their own fate when they are to receive the damages they are entitled to. It is completely unreasonable that the person who has been subjected to a crime also has to hunt down their own perpetrator in order to obtain the awarded compensation.

With a Moderate-led government, we will see a change in this. When a judgment for damages has gained legal force, the crime victim should be able to receive their compensation directly, without first having to continue the process and alone pursue the person who subjected them to a crime. The Crime Victim Authority should, of course, pay out the compensation and subsequently demand the amount back from the perpetrator.

This is a clear systemic change where the responsibility is shifted from the crime victim to the state. It is part of the paradigm shift being implemented within crime policy, where the crime victim, not the perpetrator, stands at the center. This should have been a self-evident matter a long time ago, but during the spring, a bill will be submitted to the Riksdag where it can become a reality.

The investigation that forms the basis for the bill also contains proposals that involve facilitated voluntary payment of crime damages through reductions, waived fees for quick payment, and limitations on further assessment prohibitions, so that more compensations can be claimed in favor of crime victims, because it is fair. It strengthens crime victims' actual opportunities to receive payment and not just be proven right in court.

Mr. Speaker! When we talk about crime victims, we must also talk about the different forms of violence. As recently as today, the government reached a decision on a bill to criminalize psychological violence. It is an important reform, because violence is not only physical. It can be systematically controlling, destructive, and above all, economic.

Economic violence is a reality in many relationships. It can involve one partner incurring debt for the other, controlling income, preventing access to bank funds, or manipulating the joint finances. When such a relationship ends, a division of property is also actualized where assets and debts are to be distributed. If economic violence has occurred, the victimized party may enter the division of property with extensive debts in their name, completely without any financial margins. At the same time, there is a crime and a claim for damages where the question of compensation becomes decisive.

Here, civil law and criminal policy meet in some way. In that case, we must get order on property divisions and on economic violence in order to be able to meet the serious economic consequences it can have for the individual, and we must strengthen the protection against violence in close relationships. In that case, the compensation system must work in practice. In that case, crime victims must not be left to further processes in order to receive compensation.

Mr. Speaker! A large part of this report concerns over-indebtedness. Household debts have increased significantly for a long time. Here, however, I want to point out that it is not necessarily bad to take out loans. A functioning loan market is, on the contrary, a prerequisite for a functioning economy. A functioning loan market is important so that people can be able to buy a home and so that people who do not have access to capital in other ways can make larger investments. It is important in our society that there is a good opportunity to borrow money.

But the large increase in unsecured consumption loans – the so-called unsecured loans have almost doubled in ten years, Mr. Speaker – is a major problem. It leads to people being squeezed. It is a development that risks leading to long-term debt problems and, in the worst case, social vulnerability.

The government is acting on several fronts here. Firstly, consumer protection has already been significantly strengthened. Banking licenses are now required to grant or mediate consumer loans. The interest and cost caps have been expanded to cover more consumer credits. The interest cap has been lowered from 40 to 20 percentage points above the reference rate, and the possibility to extend terms has been limited.

Secondly, the interest deduction for this type of harmful unsecured loan has been phased out. It is now completely abolished starting from 2026. It is not reasonable that risky unsecured consumer loans should be encouraged through tax deductions. This we have now phased out.

Thirdly, the government has appointed a major inquiry into, among other things, so-called perpetual debtors. The inquiry shall analyze and produce proposals on absolute prescription, a changed order of settlement so that capital is paid before interest and fees, as well as changes in the debt relief rules so that those in long-term debt can move forward. This is a far-reaching work. It is not point-by-point measures but a systematic review of how we prevent and manage over-indebtedness.

Mr. Speaker! We have also strengthened financial stability by incorporating central credit restrictions, for example, amortization requirements and mortgage caps, into law. We are raising the mortgage cap to 90 percent of the property's value for those purchasing a new home. We will then remove the tightened amortization requirement, while the original amortization requirement remains in place.

Reducing the amortization requirement specifically for the group purchasing their first home – which is often families with small children – strengthens household finances and reduces the risk of further risky credits. At the same time, additional loans on the property are limited to 80 percent of the property's value to establish a good amortization culture over time and reduce the risk of excessively large loans.

The Riksbank's role in macroprudential supervision is strengthened by it receiving a greater responsibility for the countercyclical capital buffer. Through this, we strengthen the requirement that banks build up resilience in good times so that they can stand firm when economic conditions turn. It is a responsible macroprudential supervision and an important part in reducing the risk of future financial crises.

Mr. Speaker! This is a balanced reform to lower the thresholds to the labor market, safeguard a sound amortization culture, and ensure stability in the financial system.

In conclusion, I would like to say: Crime victims should receive compensation without having to drive the process themselves. Households in debt need protection against irresponsible lending. Both parts are about the credibility of the rule of law. That is where the government is working broadly, long-term, and systematically.

Against that background, I would like to move for the rejection of all motions treated in the report.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! The recent years have been straining for the country's finances. Prices for electricity, food, and housing have skyrocketed. For many families, it is no longer about making the money last for holidays or savings, but about making it last until the end of the month.

Every third Swede states today that they feel anxiety about their finances. When margins disappear, people are forced to resort to desperate solutions. Quick loans with sky-high interest rates have become a last resort. We see the consequence clearly. In just five years, debts at the Enforcement Authority have increased by 70 percent. Two children in every school class today have parents with debts at the Enforcement Authority. It is not a coincidence. It is a result of a development where more and more people have fallen behind.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in a debt crisis, and it demands political accountability. The Left Party therefore proposes several concrete and powerful measures to break the debt spiral.

One such measure is that the debt restructuring process shall be shortened from five years to three years. Five years is an eternity for those who are already struggling. Three years is still a great responsibility, but it is a realistic path back. Another measure is that a final prescription period for debts shall be introduced, just as in Finland. No human being should carry old debts as a life sentence. We must give the over-indebted a real chance to be able to start over and build up their finances.

But we must also address the cause. Unserious actors who lend money to people without the ability to pay should not be able to continue making money from their vulnerability.

Household over-indebtedness is more than an economic issue. It is a question of security. No one should have to feel trapped in an endless debt spiral. No one should have to live with constant financial anxiety. It is time to act.

With this said, I would like to move for approval of reservation 8.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats say: No human being is a figure in a balance sheet. Every person has a unique, inviolable value and responsibility. Therefore, we must have a justice system that bears traces of both justice and humility towards vulnerability – not one or the other, but both, simultaneously and hand in hand.

Today, it is not easy to plan one's finances. We see that there are different parts that make it difficult to plan, both for companies and for individuals. We have had a pandemic. This with electricity prices happened in 2022. There have been interest rate hikes and inflation. Yes, we can well imagine that there will be more in the future that makes it difficult for people to plan their finances. The planning difficulties also make it difficult to predict how many bankruptcies there will be in Sweden and how many individuals will have problems paying their debts.

What is the biggest reason that a person becomes over-indebted? One might imagine that it is overconsumption, but that is not the case. It is, for example, that one ends up in temporary unemployment, illness, or divorce. It is therefore a major setback financially that perhaps causes one to end up in that situation. It does not therefore have to mean that the individual has made a wrong choice, but it can be circumstances that make one actually end up there.

I believe that being unable to pay one's debts is extremely demanding both for the companies that are affected and for private individuals. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether the individual is the only one responsible for not being able to pay their debts or if someone else is also jointly responsible.

Have the companies that accepted the credit conducted an acceptable assessment, as one should do? Has the company had access to all the facts in the form of the individual's entire debt profile? Of course, the individual is always the one who should bear the responsibility and who should therefore do everything in their power to repay their debts. But it is perhaps not always the individual who alone bears the responsibility.

As we have heard before, today one pays interest and fees before paying off one's debt. Just as the Social Democrats and the Left Party have stood in the rostrum and said we should change the order of settlement. Just as the Moderates speak of, there is an investigation looking at how this can be done in the best way. There, the opposition and the majority are in agreement. One must be able to make settlements in a different way, so that one pays off one's debt before paying fees and interest. We Christian Democrats think that it is a better order than that one is constantly only paying interest and fees and never can pay off one's debt.

Vänsterpartiet also has a point regarding the final prescription period. It is the same there. The opposition and the majority agree that it needs to be reviewed. There is an investigation looking into this. That means that perhaps during the next mandate period in this chamber, we will come to a conclusion on which prescription period we should have. Vänsterpartiet proposes 15 years. We Kristdemokrater had a similar part during the last mandate period. It was also 15 years. We believe that it is quite good that one can see that people can restart their finances and not carry this with them all the time.

The Social Democrats spoke about the debt restructuring period. They want to reduce it from five years to three years. We agree with that. It is absolutely excellent. Five years is quite a long time. It is not as if one is in debt restructuring during the first year one has debts, but rather that one has lived with the debts for a very long time. I do not think it helps anyone that one does this for five years instead of for three years. One has already taken the hit as a person. One has lived with debts for quite a long time. It probably takes a great deal for people to request a debt restructuring – that is what I would like to assert.

Then I still have to say that the Left Party is somehow leaving the door open. People talk about it being the price of food that is the problem. The government has presented a proposal that the food VAT should be reduced. The price of electricity is the problem, according to the Left Party. It was lower in 2025 than in 2022. Then perhaps it is as if we have eased the burden on the individual household's wallet.

I think that the motions are quite good in large parts, and I believe that many of them will be fulfilled if we help each other. But in this situation, the government is working on much of this, and therefore I think they should be rejected. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 February.)

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