Act on the lease-to-purchase of housing

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the laws on rent-to-buy. This is a form of housing or a contractual possibility that exists today but which we will now receive a more secure regulation of through legislation. This obviously means that we can create good conditions to develop this system.

I think it is good that we have plenty of different housing solutions in society so that we can meet the needs of different groups but also strengthen the possibility of owning one's own home. What we are discussing today and the bill that is on the table is part of this.

The possibility for more people to own their home is important for economic reasons but also for the reason that we know that one protects their home when one owns it oneself. One protects one's local area. It creates good order, and people take care of each other to a greater extent. Therefore, I think it is good that one creates these paths into the owned home.

Agreeing to purchase a home at a predetermined price through a hire-purchase agreement, where one can also later during the period agree to purchase the home, is a good way to create conditions for more people to own a home. With this legislation, we secure the regulatory system surrounding hire-purchase. By creating an extensive duty of information from the seller towards the buyer, we also create conditions for the system to feel safer.

The advantages are many. It means that from the beginning one avoids having a down payment, which means that one can build up the down payment over time. This can occur during a period when one might be establishing their employment and working on creating better economic conditions to enter the owned market. One can also get the opportunity to work with structured savings.

That we get this new law in place means that we can secure a good system that exists today, while at the same time we can ensure that those who enter into these agreements can feel safer.

We naturally need to follow up on this legislation just like many other things. However, I am confident that the foundation we have laid is a very good prerequisite for it to result in a good outcome in the end.

Mr. Speaker! In the bill on the table, there is also the issue of safer condominium apartments. There, with the new legislation, we provide an opportunity for those who own condominium apartments to secure their housing by ensuring that neighbors who also own a condominium apartment in the property but who neglect the rules of order that exist in the legislation and in the condominium association's statutes can be forced to sell their condominium apartment through an extensive process.

This means that we make it safe for those who own a condominium, and we create conditions so that this model also feels safer to step into.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move for the approval of the proposal in the committee's report.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are considering the government's proposal for a new law on rent-to-buy of housing. The government describes this as a way to help more people into the housing market, and it sounds appealing, of course, as everyone in this chamber knows that the housing crisis is real.

That people are having a difficult time on the housing market does not mean that every proposal claiming to solve the problem actually does so. Vänsterpartiet shares the ambition that more people should be able to live securely and long-term in good housing, but we cannot support a model that shifts almost all the risk onto the economically weaker party and simultaneously opens up for unserious arrangements and significantly worsened consumer protection. It is therefore why we have proposed that the Riksdag should reject the proposal in its entirety.

Mr. Speaker! The criticism of the government's proposal has been very extensive and unanimous, both from the referral bodies and from the Council on Legislation. The Council on Legislation questions whether the law will at all fulfill its stated purpose, namely to create a secure regulatory system with good consumer protection. The Council also notes that those who will actually enter into these agreements will likely not fully understand the significant risks.

Who is the government targeting then? Well, people who are vulnerable on the housing market, people who lack capital, people who do not get mortgages, and people with limited economic margins. It is therefore the households that have the least room to bear economic risks that the government now wants to place in a new, complicated, and legally uncertain form of contract.

Mr. Speaker! The government tries to describe rent-to-own as a simple way into the owned housing market, but when one examines the bill, one quickly sees that it is rather a construction where the risks are privatized while the profits are secured for the seller.

The proposal also enables so-called front-loaded agreements. This means that very large payments can be taken early during the contract period. The lessor can thus maximize their income already at the beginning, while the lessee takes the large risk if life changes – and life changes, Mr. Speaker! One can be quite sure of that. People get sick, people separate, people lose their jobs, and people experience changed family circumstances.

The government's bill takes no account of this reality in practice. If the agreement terminates prematurely, there are no proper rules regarding repayment or offsetting. The hire-purchaser can therefore have paid very large sums over a long period and still be left without a home, without ownership, and without a right to compensation. In practice, it becomes entirely an installment purchase, but it does not have the protective rules that normally apply to installment purchases.

The government is thus creating a new market where economically vulnerable people are encouraged to take large financial risks without sufficient protection. The proposal means that the lease-buyer can, for many years, pay very large sums without building up any actual protection.

According to the proposal, the rental fee shall be able to lie far above what would otherwise be considered reasonable rent. The Government itself acknowledges that the fee is not to be equated with use-value rent. It is therefore explicitly opened up that the payments can exceed normal rents. This implies an obvious risk of circumventing the rules of the rental laws regarding reasonable rent.

Mr. Speaker! A major problem with the government's proposal is that the rent-to-buy fee serves a dual function. It is intended to be partly a payment for the use of the housing, and partly linked to the possibility of purchasing the housing in the future, but the government has not ensured any clear regulation of how this should be reported or accounted for. How much of the payment can actually go towards the housing? How much is a future capital contribution? How much does the rent-to-buy buyer lose if the agreement terminates? That is not known, and it is precisely this that makes the proposal so serious.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to highlight some of the criticism that has been voiced by the Real Estate Broker Inspectorate. The authority warns that the government's rent-to-own [hyrköp] will take place without real estate brokers. This means that an important control function will disappear. It is not just about advice, but it is also about supervision, documentation, control, and transparency.

Mr. Speaker! Housing policy must be about security, justice, and long-term perspective, not about creating new risk markets for people who are already in a vulnerable situation and not about letting economically weak households function as guinea pigs in a new market experiment.

A housing policy is needed that involves building more rental apartments with reasonable rents, which strengthens the social housing policy and views housing as a right and not as a financial experiment.

Against this background, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the Left Party's reservation 2.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! When Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal in the USA during the 1930s to take the country out of the depression, the basic premise of his housing policy was that a nation of homeowners is unconquerable.

The same thought characterized the Swedish home ownership movement. By facilitating for ordinary people to own their own housing, strong families were created, and strong families created a strong society.

Owning one's home means security, responsibility, and an opportunity to build economic stability over time. It is about being able to influence one's own everyday life and create something long-term for oneself and one's family.

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates want more people in Sweden to have the opportunity to own their own home. However, far too many people are excluded from owned housing today. High thresholds, large cash contributions, and a housing market that has functioned poorly for a long time mean that many – not least young adults and newly formed families with children – have difficulty taking the step from a rental apartment to owned housing.

Seven out of ten Swedes want to live in their own house, but only five out of ten do. That means that every fifth Swede dreams of a garden where the children can jump on the trampoline while the parents cook dinner on the grill.

Mr. Speaker! This is not just about people with weak finances. Even professional groups with relatively good salaries are today finding it difficult to make the housing economy work. A police officer and a nurse find it difficult, on their own salary alone, to afford to buy their own house in any of the metropolitan regions. The Moderates', and my, election promise is to change this.

Mr. Speaker! Since the 2022 election, an average family with children has received 5,000 kronor more in their wallet per month. This is because the Moderate-led government has prioritized letting hard-working Swedes keep more of their salary. In the next mandate period, we will double that figure, to 10,000 kronor more per month, because effort shall pay off.

Strengthening the wallets of ordinary families is not the only thing we have done so that more people can own their homes. We have also reformed the mortgage rules. The ceiling for mortgages was raised from 85 percent to 90 percent this spring, and the so-called reinforced amortization requirement, which meant that one amortized up to 3 percent per year, was removed. In order for more people to be able to own their homes, we have also introduced tax exemption for the first 300,000 kronor on investment savings accounts. This is a saving that we know often goes towards precisely buying a home.

Today we are addressing the third important reform so that more people can own their home, namely the introduction of a law on rent-to-buy. Rent-to-buy means that one rents their home while saving up for a down payment and testing whether one really wants to live in the home. When one feels ready, there is an opportunity to buy it.

Mr. Speaker! Different forms of hire-purchase already exist on the market today, but without a clear legal framework. This creates uncertainty for both buyers and sellers. Now we are introducing legislation that provides better security, clearer rules of the game, and greater predictability.

Mr. Speaker! The Government also proposes improvements for condominiums. Condominiums are still a relatively small form of housing in Sweden despite being common in many other countries. It is a pity, because condominiums combine the freedom of owned housing with flexibility and can contribute to a more dynamic housing market. Therefore, we think it is important to make the housing form more attractive and secure.

One of the proposals in the bill concerns strengthened opportunities to act against serious disturbances. Owning one's home implies freedom but also responsibility towards neighbors and the surroundings. Safety and order in the housing are crucial for people to want to invest in their home and their area.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a housing policy that focuses less on obstacles and more on opportunities. We need more ways into the housing market, more forms of tenure, and a regulatory framework that strengthens people's own empowerment. As Franklin D Roosevelt stated: A nation of homeowners is invincible.

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

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are therefore debating the government's proposal for a law on lease-to-purchase of housing.

This is about truly important economic issues in individuals' lives. For the vast majority, housing transactions are the clearly largest economic events in life. From a societal perspective, the housing sector is naturally a huge part of the economy. When new legislation in the area is now proposed, it is important to do it right from the start, otherwise individuals will end up suffering.

Several referral bodies – including Bofrämjandet, Bostadsrätterna, Byggföretagen, the Rent and Lease Board in Gothenburg, the Faculty Board of Law at Lund University, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Obos AB, the Swedish Bar Association, and Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner – consider that it would have been advantageous if the investigation underlying this proposal had received a broader mandate regarding different purchase models, including those involving so-called partial ownership of housing. I can state initially that such alternative models for rent-to-own are not investigated, Mr. Speaker.

Even more importantly, a significant number of referral bodies have rejected the proposal for new legislation that we are debating here.

Fastighetsmäklarförbundet, Fastighetsmäklarinspektionen and Mäklarsamfundet see a risk that the rent-to-buy model will be used without the involvement of real estate agents and fear that it could be exploited in money laundering contexts.

Hyresgästföreningen considers that the proposal has too weak consumer protection and that the consumer runs too great a risk in cases where one does not have the possibility to exercise one's right – the option – to purchase the housing.

The Swedish Bar Association, Mr. Speaker, considers that the tax and commercial effects of the proposal need to be analyzed more deeply before it can be implemented.

Mr. Speaker! I intend to read aloud from the Council on Legislation's summary assessment of the bill that we are debating here today. It is written:

"Overall, a hire-purchase agreement according to the proposed law will involve significant risks for the hire-purchaser if the conditions change in the ways described above before the option can be exercised."

The risks that the hire-purchaser will not be able to exercise the option and will not benefit from those parts of the hire-purchase fee that cannot be said to relate to compensation for use are so great that it is difficult to imagine that persons who understand the extent of the risks would perceive a hire-purchase agreement for a dwelling as attractive. The risks are difficult for consumers to perceive, and it appears inevitable that persons will enter into hire-purchase agreements without realizing or considering what risks the agreements entail. This applies particularly as the intention is that the type of agreement is primarily aimed at persons who have few other opportunities to enter the housing market.

Against this background, the Council on Legislation considers that the design of the bill is such that the law cannot be assumed to satisfy the purposes that have been stated, namely to create a secure regulatory system with good consumer protection. To satisfy these purposes, a more extensive review of the bill is required.

So the Council on Legislation writes. The Government's response to this is:

"To, as the Council on Legislation seems to request, add many more protective rules for more or less conceivable situations that could arise is, according to the government, neither appropriate nor necessary and would change the character of the agreement and the parties' relationship in a way that is not justified. As the Council on Legislation is touching upon, it is however of importance that the lease-buyer realizes and has the prerequisites to consider the private economic risks that lease-purchase agreements typically are associated with. It should therefore – compared with the proposal in the Council on Legislation's referral – further requirements be set that the lease-seller informs the lease-buyer about the risks that are associated with the lease-purchase agreement."

So, more information is to be provided.

We move on, Mr. Speaker. Svea Court of Appeal considers that supplementary proposals are needed to counter the risk that the regulations will be misused. Stockholm District Court, which notes the investigation's reasoning regarding the risk of circumventing the ban on trading with lease contracts, requests an analysis of other potential risks of circumventing the provisions of the Land Code. Stockholm District Court also requests further considerations in the issue of a lease-buyer's possibility to deposit the lease-purchase fee with the County Administrative Board. This criticism is also briefly dismissed by the Government in the bill.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats welcome more ways into the housing market and that more people should have the opportunity to own their home, but the government's proposal for a new law on rent-to-own of housing has such serious flaws that the Riksdag should reject the proposition in that part. We share the Council on Legislation's fears. We see that the proposed rent-to-own regulation involves economic risks that can be very difficult to oversee for the rent-to-own buyer as a consumer. We also fear that the model can be used to bypass the rules in the Rent Act regarding reasonable rent.

I therefore move for approval of our and the Green Party's joint reservation 1.

Mr. Speaker! It is remarkable how this government relates to referral bodies and the Council on Legislation. Case after case, in completely different policy areas, they do not take into account the views of referral bodies, and they simply override the Council on Legislation. We can do better. I know there are political parties and representatives on the other side who can do better. After the election in September, Magdalena Andersson and we others will have to lead the way, I think.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats have for a long time pushed for more owner-occupied housing as a central part of the housing policy. Ownership should not only be seen as an economic issue but also as something that strengthens personal responsibility, security, freedom, and social stability. It is ecologically, economically, and socially better for people to own their own home.

The proposal we are now debating concerns a new law that makes it possible to live in a residence against rent or a fee with a binding promise of being able to purchase it later. Part of the fee can go towards the purchase price. This lowers the threshold for people who have difficulty putting together the down payment and mortgage directly. This can particularly help young people, families with children, and people with irregular incomes. I see rent-to-buy as a ladder to home ownership.

The Christian Democrats see ownership as a way to break down exclusion and strengthen integration. Rent-to-own can contribute to more mixed housing and give more people the chance to build up their own capital. Through regulated formal requirements, clear conditions, and protection for the rent-to-own buyer, freedom and personal responsibility are balanced. This is close to the Christian Democrats' view of humanity – the individual should be able to take personal responsibility without unnecessary state bureaucracy.

What does this mean in practice? We can imagine that a housing developer has built an apartment building with 50 apartments. When it is time for move-in, the market is quite weak, and ten apartments remain unsold. Then the developer can offer rent-to-own of the unsold apartments. A rent-to-own buyer can move in, pay a rent-to-own fee, and receive an option to buy the apartment at a predetermined price in, for example, three or five years. This means that the developer receives income during that time and also gets a more secure sale of the property. The rent-to-own buyer can move directly into their desired home and save for the down payment.

The law makes the option binding for real estate. The consumer thus receives stronger protection and can complete the transaction; the property developer cannot withdraw from it. I mean that this implies lower risk for developers, the possibility to build more housing, and a way into the housing market for more people who might not get a bank loan just that day but can get it a bit further ahead.

This sounds like a fairly good law if you think that people should own their own housing? We did, however, hear the Left Party, which with precision says no to all proposals that involve owner-occupied housing for people. They simply do not want to find solutions so that people can own their own home, and in doing so, they miss the point itself. People get a more secure housing both socially and economically if they own their home and do not need to be in the hands of property owners who might raise the rent disproportionately all the time.

If one is interested in making people's lives more stable, one should want to find more ways that allow people to own their housing. Vänsterpartiet says, however, with precision, no to all proposals that involve people being able to own their own house.

Then we have the Social Democrats, who welcome more ways to owner-occupied housing. That is good, but they say no to this and many other proposals and use others' arguments for it. It would be pleasant if one used their own arguments and said: We do not want people to do it in this way – we do not think it is good.

I mean that the proposal in this bill would actually increase consumer power. It contains frameworks for how hire-purchase should proceed and ensures that there is a law regulating it. I believe that it is good for the consumers. I also believe that it is good for consumers to own their own housing. The Social Democrats also think so; that was said in the rostrum. One says, however, unfortunately, no to doing this.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Larry Söder, for the speech!

I rise to correct Larry Söder's misleading description of our Social Democratic position. This is not something to be mocked.

Yes, we welcome more ways into the housing market. We safeguard owner-occupied housing, housing cooperatives, and rental housing. We do, however, move for a rejection of the proposed legislation with reference to our own concerns. From a consumer perspective, there are great risks that individuals might end up very poorly off within the framework of hire-purchase deals in accordance with the entirely new legislation. We are therefore not fundamentally opposed to hire-purchase models, Mr. Speaker, but we are opposed to this specific legislation.

It would have been entirely possible for Larry Söder's party and Larry Söder's government to listen more to a number of important referral bodies and to the Council on Legislation and to meet some of the critical views. Perhaps it would have delayed the legislative matter by some half-year – what do I know?

My simple question to Larry Söder is: Does Larry Söder seriously mean that there is such a hurry with this specific legislation that one can ignore the Council for Legislation's very sharp criticism? I and the Social Democrats agree with that criticism.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is sweet music to my ears when the Social Democrats now speak of the government being in a hurry. Throughout this entire mandate period, it has been said that we have not been in enough of a hurry, but now the Social Democrats think we are in a hurry.

The proposal in the bill has been processed throughout the entire parliamentary term. I said in my speech that the Social Democrats welcome other ways to own housing; there we share the same opinion. The issue concerns how we view the human being. I believe that the human being is capable of entering into agreements, of seeing the risks themselves and – with a finished proposal in front of them – judging whether they can manage it financially or not. The Social Democrats see greater risks with people being able to make this choice themselves and want more "safety nets" in the proposal, if I have understood the whole thing correctly.

I mean that people are capable of taking that responsibility. Christian Democratic policy is about giving people opportunities as well as responsibility, and that is precisely what this proposal entails.

We in this chamber agree that more housing must be built so that more people can own their homes. This is a way to increase housing construction within that part so that housing developers do not need to consider how many homes they have sold before they start building. They can build and then also sell via rent-to-buy.

I believe that this is only good for the market. There will be more housing, and it will be better for the individual. I am a bit disappointed that the Social Democrats are saying no to this path to owner-occupied housing.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes it is difficult to debate. We are, therefore, not saying no to this path, but to this specific design of a new piece of legislation. We welcome this path to owner-occupied housing in principle but would have liked to see more thoroughly worked-out legislation in this area, in accordance with powerful objections from completely central referral bodies and the Council on Legislation.

The Council for Legislation's opinion will be available when a referral to the Council for Legislation is submitted. I have not said that the government has been in any hurry or been slow in general in this process, but rather stated that the government, after the referral to the Council for Legislation was presented and the Council for Legislation had issued its opinion, has hardly taken any account of the Council for Legislation's criticism, which we share. We share the concern that the Council for Legislation expresses regarding the fact that this is a very complicated matter for an individual person and an individual household.

Our social democratic conviction is that society needs to give people a push in difficult and challenging situations. In the area of consumer rights, we have this principle. We see that this is about very complicated transactions and agreements, and to avoid individuals getting seriously hurt, it would be desirable that this legislation becomes really good right from the start.

Why do Larry Söder and the Kristdemokraterna not think so?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are obviously in agreement on the basis, that is, that more housing for owner-occupied housing is needed. We are, however, not in agreement on the way there.

I believe in the individual's ability to see where the dangers in such a deal lie. What the government does is to provide frameworks for such a deal, which means that the consumer can see the entire transaction from the beginning. I cannot see that it would yield more to regulate how it exactly should look, because I believe that fewer homes would be built then. If one, like I, has the perception that more homes that people can own need to be built, this is a very good proposal.

There is nothing that says one cannot develop this based on what the market says, but I believe that if we regulate more, we will not get the development we desire.

It is, of course, about a balance between people's own responsibility and the protection of consumers. But I believe that people can take their own responsibility, and this bill is important so that more housing can be built.

I realize that the Social Democrats stand firm in their view that this is not a good idea. I believe, however, that we can meet in other ways when it comes to achieving more owner-occupied housing, and sometimes we must ensure that people take their own responsibility.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Mr. Speaker, members and listeners! The organization I want to host was formed to shed light on what it calls the double locks on the housing market. By double locks, it is meant that young people have neither the days needed to obtain a rental apartment nor the money needed to buy a home. It has been quite a while since the organization was formed, but the obstacles have become more, not fewer. New production is also a problem because both the rents and the income requirements are high, and Miljöpartiet has in previous debates demanded that the income requirements be reviewed so that more people can enter the housing market.

Mr. Speaker! Against the background of the tough situation for young people on the housing market, I was very pleased to see that a law on lease-to-purchase of housing was to be introduced. A lease-to-purchase agreement means that a lessor undertakes to sell a home within a certain period and that the lease-purchaser is granted the right of use of the home until the lease-purchaser can buy it. Properly designed, with strong consumer protection, a lease-to-purchase model can complement the housing market in a good way and make it possible for more residents to have an owned home.

But what we in Miljöpartiet see with great concern, and which makes us reserve ourselves against the government's proposal, is that the current design of the model has very large flaws. As previously mentioned, the Council on Legislation has directed strong criticism at the design, and many referral bodies reject the bill, which is not common.

The main criticism is that consumer protection is very limited for the hire-purchaser, which is extra serious because hire-purchase is often aimed at first-time buyers on the housing market, i.e., at people who otherwise have difficulty entering the housing market.

The Council on Legislation's criticism is based on the fact that the circumstances of both the hire-seller and the hire-buyer can change such that the hire-purchase agreement cannot be fulfilled. The hire-seller can, for example, go bankrupt, and the hire-buyer can become unemployed or ill or wish to move. The hire-buyer can then terminate the agreement, but the money that has been paid in can be lost. The rent in a hire-purchase home is often higher than a regular rent because one pays an extra part as an installment on the home, and if the agreement ends, there is no statutory right to get back the amortization part. If the seller goes bankrupt, the protection for the hire-buyer to continue buying the home is weak, and if the hire-buyer wants to move, the possibilities are small to get out the money that has already been paid in because it requires the seller's consent to transfer the agreement.

Mr. Speaker! The Council on Legislation argues that it is difficult to imagine that persons who understand the extent of the risks would enter into such a lease-purchase agreement as the government proposes. It is therefore likely that persons will enter into the agreements without realizing or considering what the risks are.

The debate has been about consumer protection and the individual's right to choose for themselves. Of course, one should trust the individual, but for us it is also clear that society should stand up for all individuals, including those who are not experts on legal agreements – and these are very complicated agreements. It is also about people who are not used to housing transactions but are entering the owner-occupied housing market for the first time, and it can be the largest financial transaction one makes in their life.

Overall, this model puts the tenant-buyer in a very vulnerable situation, which we view with great concern.

Miljöpartiet argues that the government should not have proceeded with the proposal in its current form. Instead, the criticism from the Council on Legislation should have been incorporated. I believe we could have reached an agreement across the party blocks if the model had been designed in a way that also strengthens consumer protection. The government therefore would not have needed to hurry to finish within the mandate period. Miljöpartiet is positive towards hire-purchase, but a prerequisite, as mentioned, is that consumer protection must be strong.

I naturally support reservation 1 but move for approval only of reservation 3 regarding the future design of the law.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs more ways into the housing market. For many young people, families with children, and people in the middle of life, the dream of owning their own home is just a dream. They have jobs, pay their rent every month, and manage their finances. Now they want to settle down, build up capital, and gain the freedom that comes with owning their own home, but they face high hurdles and a housing market where those who are already in have opportunities while those who are outside are told they just have to wait. That is why the government's bill on a law on rent-to-buy of housing is important; it opens a new door.

Mr. Speaker! A rent-to-buy agreement fundamentally means something quite simple. A rent-seller promises to sell a home within a certain period, and the rent-buyer gets to live in the home during that time. The rent-buyer thus gets an opportunity to live, save, plan, and later buy.

It is not about the state forcing anyone to enter into an agreement. It is about creating a clear, secure, and modern regulatory framework for a form of agreement that already exists today in various forms but which has until now lacked a coherent legal framework.

Today, as has been said, various hire-purchase models already exist on the market, but without a uniform regulatory system, it risks becoming difficult for the individual to know what actually applies. What is the promise worth? What conditions apply? What rights does one have as a consumer? What happens if life changes? With the government's proposal, the answers become clearer.

A hire-purchase agreement shall fulfill certain requirements. It shall be clear what the parties have agreed upon. There shall be rules for termination. There shall be protection for the hire-purchaser. And it shall be possible to make a binding commitment regarding future sale, also of real property and land lease.

It is also a reform for mobility. The thresholds to enter the owned housing market have been raised. It hinders many people's desire to own their home, it hampers people's ability to demand housing that better suits their needs over time, and it hampers mobility in the housing market. People simply get stuck. They get stuck in housing that is too small, the wrong housing, or no housing at all.

Rent-to-own is not the whole answer, but it is part of the answer. It is an entry model, a bridge and an opportunity for households that do not yet have the full down payment but who have the finances to cover the ongoing costs.

Mr. Speaker! Housing is for most people the biggest economic decision. Therefore, there should be no uncertainty. People should not be lured into bad deals. As a consumer, one should not be left alone. Through a new legal regulation of the model, better opportunity is given to assess contractual terms and consequences. It strengthens protection and contributes to competition neutrality between actors.

We are also implementing changes that make the system of condominium apartments more attractive and better functioning. This includes, among other things, strengthening the possibilities to manage disturbances and creating security in the housing form.

Mr. Speaker! For the Liberals, this is ultimately about life chances. It is about people being able to go from their first job to their first home without having to inherit capital. It is about ensuring that those who strive, work, and save can also see a way forward, for there are few things that create as much faith in the future as being able to put the key in the door to a home that one knows can become one's own.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 May.)

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