Measures for safer residential areas

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Measures for safer housing is the bill that the government is now, together with the Sweden Democrats, submitting to the Riksdag for a decision. It has been long-awaited and discussed for a very long time. Now we finally have the opportunity to present the proposal to once again create the conditions to create safe residential areas.

Mr. Speaker! With the bill, we enable property owners to evict criminals who commit crimes in the immediate vicinity of the residential area and to evict persons for lack of proper conduct. We also enable property owners to act against mattress apartments, and there are also a number of proposals included in the matter.

The legislative changes are requested by our property owners. They contribute to safer residential areas and provide an opportunity to, for once, be able to act in such a way that one obtains a decisive result in the final stage of crime prevention work. They address deficiencies in the legislation and now also provide new tools to be able to act against lack of maintenance and crime within residential areas.

The disadvantaged areas that the police began to evaluate and report on have increased from 53 in 2015 to 59 in 2023. It is a development that has truly taken a destructive turn. We must, of course, act here. We cannot have a government like we have had previously that has been naive in this area.

Madam Speaker! 50 percent of those who live in these vulnerable areas feel a sense of anxiety about going out in the evening according to Brå's national safety survey in 2022. The risk of being harmed by the consequences of the gangs has increased enormously. Criminal networks control our residential areas today.

The laws are adapted to handle the current situation within the residential areas with the insecurity that we can read there. But they are also adapted for the development that we see in the area of crime. We know that it will not turn around without it first getting a bit worse because we have such a neglected situation in Sweden. On the other hand, the legislation enables us to ensure that we can change the course of the criminal development in society.

Criminals usually operate from their local area. That is quite natural. It means that with the legislation, we hinder that activity when we can evict criminals who then come from their local area where they have their network established. The measures make it possible to intervene in crimes in the vicinity of the residence where one lives. We give an opportunity for property owners to be able to evict those who commit crimes in the immediate surroundings. It will have a clear effect.

It also applies in cases of particularly serious and lacking diligence, for example, threats against the property's staff. It also provides opportunities to be able to act with the new legislation. It cannot be reasonable that people today should be given an opportunity for a correction. They receive a reprimand from their property owner if they have threatened staff at the property, and they get an additional chance to stay. It must be possible to act directly against those who commit crimes of a serious nature. It also enables the proposal that we are presenting before the Riksdag today.

Madam Speaker! It is also about crimes where people have a supervisory responsibility towards residents, youths, and children. In those cases, the lease agreement should also be able to be taken away from the tenant when children or residents commit crimes. It is a reasonable consequence of the tenant having a supervisory responsibility towards those who live there.

There will also be consequences of crimes being committed. In this case, it is that one loses their housing. It is one of several signals that can enable us to counteract crime before it occurs. It is a natural part to include that in the bill.

Madam Speaker! Already today, families with children can be evicted in cases of serious and unacceptable disturbances or when they do not pay their rent. With the government's proposal, we are now adding crimes that occur in the vicinity of the residence. It is perfectly reasonable.

When it comes to crimes committed in the apartment, the possibility for the property owner to act is also expanded. It is quite bizarre today when one hears examples of that the property owner cannot terminate a lease agreement when extensive narcotics handling has occurred in one of the rooms in a three-room apartment because it is considered that the other two rooms are dwellings. It is not reasonable to have such legislation. We are changing that now with this proposal.

Rental disputes in connection with evictions shall be handled more expeditiously. When crimes are committed, we need to get rid of the criminals as quickly as possible. Therefore, an opportunity is provided for better expediency in the handling.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, the possibility of having lodgers is also regulated in order to counter, for example, the mattress accommodations around Sweden that we have read about. There, landlords today do not have any possibility to regulate how many people live in the residence.

This is now made possible through a legislative change where the landlord is given that possibility. The landlord is also given the right of access to the apartment for necessary supervision in order to be able to detect and obtain evidence of this type of housing. It is one of several good changes that occur with this bill.

Madam Speaker! With the legislative change, it can also be made possible to credit the safety work in the rent setting. This is an important prerequisite for property owners to be able to work with safety work in the residential environment. To ensure that those who live in the housing can feel safe, partial economic conditions are needed. This is a good change that enables property owners to work actively with the issue.

A tenant who is subjected to violence by a close relative shall be given the opportunity to retain or take over the lease agreement. This is an important measure for all those who are subjected to violence by a close relative. Here we can enable safe continued housing for those who are subjected to violence and ensure that those who subject someone to violence are the ones who are evicted.

The law enters into force on July 1, which is extremely good and important. The bill has been requested by many landlords. It is also requested by the Sverigedemokraterna and by all people who are affected by the widespread crime in Sweden and the insecure residential areas that we see around the country. It is important that we are quick-footed when we have the opportunity to be so, in order to be able to use the legislation to counteract the development we see in Sweden today.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, it can provide an effective synergy through the legislation we are presenting in the area today. But it is also about the resources that we add to the justice system in general and the stricter penalties that are introduced. The property owners have an upcoming proposal that they should enter into a BID cooperation to create safe residential areas together with authorities and civil society.

In addition, there is the stay ban, the security zones, the expanded camera surveillance, the police's expanded resources, school, social services and civil society. Together with the residents in the residential environments, we can now finally get the tools and conditions to create a safe Sweden with safe residential environments.

Madam Speaker! With that, I move for the approval of the bill.

(Applause)

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by moving to approve the Left Party's reservation 2 in the report.

At a time when more children than ever before are being evicted from their homes in Sweden, we shall today debate a proposal that will inevitably lead to even more children being evicted and thus losing the security that having a home entails. We shall debate a proposal that is solely directed at the country's 3 million tenants. It is a proposal that in several ways will further restrict tenants' rights and a proposal that also means that Sweden is now introducing collective punishment, something that does not belong in a society governed by the rule of law and a democracy.

The proposal we are to debate should, in the name of honesty, instead have had the heading "Measures to make it easier to evict innocent tenants who have not committed crimes", because that is precisely what this proposal entails.

Madam Speaker! A multitude of highly competent referral bodies have commented during the course of the matter. I feel an enormous amount of support from these knowledgeable expert organizations when I assert that the government's proposal is legally insecure, that it violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that it opens the door to arbitrariness, discrimination, and racism.

The proposals in today's report go in the same direction as all other Tidö politics. They are based on ignorance, contempt, and poorly concealed racism. But it is still an unusually sad report. Most of us understand that the proposals are not actually aimed at the whole country. Most of us understand that it is far from all people who will need to keep an eye on relatives to avoid being evicted from their homes. Most of us also understand that the proposals in reality will affect those who are already severely affected. This affects those who are already the most vulnerable in society and who are already experiencing enormous challenges.

Madam Speaker! Without going into details and evaluating the various proposals of the Tidö agreement since they took power, I can state that the entire force of the right-wing parties is being placed on repressive proposals. It is the type of proposal that the government throws out almost daily now. All social problems, both real and constructed, are to be met with increased repression.

It still feels extra heavy that innocent children and adults will now also lose their homes just because politicians engage in populist drivel instead of daring to tackle the real problems we see in society today. In short: the Tidö agreement's repressive policy will neither combat gang crime nor achieve safety in society.

Madam Speaker! Crime is a serious societal problem that requires complex solutions in cooperation between both the justice system as well as school and social services, other authorities and civil society organizations.

I will not waste a lot of time standing here once again to say that both I and the Left Party want to see measures against gang crime. Safety in vulnerable residential areas, as well as in society as a whole, must be strengthened. But it is the criminals who should be punished - not innocent children and adults.

There is a clear and decisive dividing line between me and the government. I mean that the work of prosecuting and punishing criminals even in the future shall take place through judicial review in court, and not through, for example, private property owners. We cannot solve the problems with crime through populist attacks on innocent tenants. The problems must be handled by the justice system in a way that is effective and lives up to the rule of law's principles, including proportionality.

Safety work and crime prevention work begins with a well-developed welfare for all, even in politically neglected areas. The government should therefore immediately take a holistic approach to the issues based on research and proven experience. Give children hope instead of homelessness! Give children hope instead of gang crime!

But nothing in the Tidö policy aims to strengthen socioeconomically disadvantaged residential areas. The goal seems rather to be that the children growing up in these areas should learn early on that no matter how hard they fight and strive, they are always guilty in the eyes of power. They shall learn early on that visitation zones, camera surveillance, or other repression will always be a part of their everyday lives.

What the government does not want to understand is that all children living in areas where crime is part of everyday life need to be protected. Creating safety in these and other areas should not have to stand in opposition to safeguarding the rights of all children and young people. This really is not rocket science. We simply must level the ever-increasing economic gaps in the country. We must give children hope instead of homelessness.

Madam Speaker! I quote Sveriges Stadsmissioner and Rädda Barnen: "The country's residential areas do not become safer if people lose their homes. In reality, the government's proposal will affect those who are already severely affected."

Eviction of families with children does not work as crime fighting; on the contrary, both research and civil society's own experiences show the exact opposite. Everyone knows that for the family that was once evicted, the possibility of obtaining a stable home again is extremely limited. This applies not least in large cities, where it is almost impossible. Even the government's representatives, with the Minister for Justice at the forefront, should be aware of this.

But one has ducked the question every time it has been asked. Where are the evicted families to go? To turn a blind eye to this question seems utterly strange. The family that is evicted continues to be a part of society, whether the government and the Sverigedemokraterna want it or not.

The Institute for Human Rights states bluntly that "children growing up under insecure conditions are more likely to end up in crime, which counteracts the purpose of the investigation's proposals – to increase safety in our residential areas." It thus becomes the opposite of what is being sought. Nor is this rocket science. I wonder how the government and the Minister for Justice intend to handle this. How do they think about these children? What future do the children have after they have become homeless?

Madam Speaker! It is difficult to say what is worst about today's proposal. There are so many question marks. There is so much built-in legal uncertainty and so much room for arbitrariness in the proposals.

In the proposals, the responsibility of tenants for supervision is raised and it is said that it should increase. The tenant shall be responsible for ensuring that children and other persons living in or staying in the apartment do not commit crimes in the immediate surroundings. Which crimes are intended is extremely unclear; it seems to range from blowing something up or shooting someone to graffitiing a wall repeatedly. Furthermore, no one knows what "the immediate surroundings" means. What is meant by that?

The proposal for increased supervision responsibility has met with intense criticism. How is a tenant supposed to prevent someone living in or staying in the apartment from committing crimes that deteriorate the immediate environment? And what measures are actually required of the tenant to prevent the household from being evicted? Rädda Barnen argues that the proposal will rather make the conditions for parental responsibility more difficult, as the probability of parents seeking preventive support from social services decreases if they risk being evicted.

Sveriges Stadsmissioner, on the other hand, think that the proposal "highlights the incomprehensibility of the requirements imposed on a tenant in a rental apartment". I can only agree, Madam Speaker.

Then we have the umbrella term lack of proper management, which is also to be introduced according to the proposal. No one knows what it means. Nevertheless, "lack of proper management" shall be able to lead to a household being evicted without first being given the opportunity for rectification. It is a catastrophe! That is, eviction of, for example, a family with children can occur without any authority being involved - in these days when we have such a large number of homeless people as 30,000 and families with children who are evicted every week.

Sveriges Stadsmissioner argue that "lack of responsibility" is such a sweeping concept that "it becomes very difficult for the average person to know what it means." But despite this lack of clarity, this sweeping concept is therefore supposed to be able to lead to yet another child becoming homeless in wealthy Sweden.

I wonder what the government and the Minister for Justice think. Is it a lack of proper conduct when someone swings an iron pipe? Is it a lack of proper conduct when someone cooks food that smells a bit foreign? Is it a lack of proper conduct when one speaks loudly, as I often do? Is it a lack of proper conduct when one plays music? What does it mean? Where is the line? When is it counted as a lack of proper conduct? Is it the same for me, a man with an Afro-Swedish background, as for an ethnic Swede or an immigrant? Who decides that? We live in a country where racism and discrimination occur all the time.

Madam Speaker! I wonder what the government and the Minister for Justice intend. This is, in fact, catastrophic.

The rules regarding lodgers are also to be tightened, as we heard here earlier. Perhaps this is the measure that most clearly shows that the Tidö government's focus is on immigrants. Landlords shall be given the right to demand access to the individual's home to "inspect the residence." And whose homes do we think will be inspected? 9998113523823 It is not the Minister of Justice's villa, in any case, we can state. Nor will all the children who live in a villa or a condominium be affected.

Madam Speaker! How can the discrimination that is already so great in society generally and on the housing market in particular be reduced with this proposal? The Equality Ombudsman and many others believe that the proposal on live-in tenants risks leading to a lack of predictability, arbitrary assessments, and an inconsistent application of the law. I can only agree.

Madam Speaker! Swedish democracy is going downhill. It is not brown troll factories, but rather the government's dark blue ability to completely ignore all facts, all knowledge, and all experience that actually exists. Many heavy and highly knowledgeable referral bodies have criticized the government's proposals. Consistently, it is emphasized that the proposals are deeply insecure regarding the rule of law and lack a basis in research. None of the expert organizations point out that the solution to the new recruitment to gang crime would be to convict more innocent children and adults. Only Sveriges fastighetsägare seems to share that analysis with the government.

The massive criticism against the proposals comes primarily from the expert organizations that in one way or another actually work in the areas and with the families that the government parties and the Sweden Democrats have envisioned will be affected by the new legislation. These are organizations that have long experience with the issues in question and who know what they are talking about. The criticism that is raised is so great that it would be impossible to manage to convey everything here in the chamber today.

The Council on Legislation also criticizes the government once again. But neither the Council on Legislation nor expert knowledge impresses the Tidö parties. As usual, they could not care less about such criticism that does not fit into their distorted picture of reality. It is utterly regrettable.

They should listen when the critics say that their repressive measures risk becoming counterproductive and that the demands placed on tenants are unreasonable. Rights are becoming fewer, and the punishment – to be evicted – is not in proportion to the crimes that are so unclearly described in the proposals. They should also listen when the critics say that the proposals lead to increased stigmatization of both areas and people – and in this case, additionally to a collective punishment of the country's tenants, which means that Sweden thereby abandons the important legal principle that everyone should be judged and punished based on their own actions.

Collective punishment is not a path toward a safer society. But it is a clear path away from democracy.

Madam Speaker! The evictions of children continue to increase in the wealthy but unequal Sweden and are now at the highest number since the Enforcement Authority began measuring in 2008. That the government in this situation nevertheless chooses to fully consciously contribute to even more children being evicted is, to say the least, outrageous. How can anyone seriously believe that more homeless children and young people will reduce crime and make Sweden safer? How can this be the government's priority? How can they take so lightly that innocent children lose their homes? Is it because they know that it will never be their own children who are affected?

The zero vision that Sweden claims to have for the eviction of children is increasingly becoming a paper product without value.

Madam Speaker! As members of Parliament, we must enact laws that are morally justifiable, based on a scientific foundation, and in line with the principles of the rule of law and international commitments.

Finally, Madam Speaker: The Government and the Sweden Democrats choose fear, polarization, populism and even lies. Everything is used to discredit and stigmatize both the rental housing as a form of housing and those who live in it. The pursued blue-brown policy lacks all grounding in reality and drowns in its own prejudices.

There is no populist shortcut to a safer Sweden. It requires both economic resources and a well-elaborated policy. New recruitment to the gangs must decrease. Children and young people must manage through school. We must address the overcrowding and tackle both the residential segregation and the society's economic inequality.

A government with self-respect would have worked on those issues instead and immediately withdrawn the unjust and unlawful proposals being presented in this chamber today. Unfortunately, it is nothing I believe we can expect from the blue-brown Tidö parties and their government.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! "I feel that I have to move." Hässleholm, April 2022.

"I resigned my contract tonight. So we are moving now. It is not possible to stay here. I am quite shocked, but also disappointed. It is such a shame because I liked this area." Hässelby, Stockholm, June 2023.

"I want to move from here. It doesn't feel safe." Linköping, September 2023.

"We think it feels very difficult, that the violence has crept in so close like this. We will probably consider moving away from here. Honestly. We are doing that. We have a two-year-old daughter." Majorna, Gothenburg, January 2024.

"Now it is time to move from here." Gävle, February 2024.

"It doesn't matter where we move, Sweden has become the criminals' home, apparently. It is terribly sad." Farsta, Stockholm, March 2024.

Madam Speaker! All the quotes I have just read out are from neighbors who have been interviewed in the media when they have just been affected by acts of violence near their homes - ordinary honest people who, due to the violence and gang crime, have now been forced to consider or even decide to move from their homes.

Madam Speaker! Why have we in Sweden had a rental legislation where criminals' right to remain have been stronger than neighbors' right to live free from crime? Why have we had a rental legislation where landlords have both been obliged and had the tools to address a number of disturbances in the housing - except for just threats, violence, and crime? In those cases, landlords have instead many times been almost powerless.

Let us not be naive. This is not just about individual apartment owners who are rowdy towards their neighbors. This is also about serious criminals who use apartments and stairwells to deal drugs or who store weapons, explosives, or stolen goods in homes and apartment storage rooms. It is also about pure acts of violence in connection with the residence, such as assault and shootings - even fatal shootings.

The criminals have held stairwells, properties, and entire neighborhoods in terror through criminal violence. It is no coincidence that the criminals' impact on the local community today is one of the criteria when the police identify vulnerable and particularly vulnerable residential areas.

Madam Speaker! The consequence is not only that individual neighbors give up and move. It affects people's movement patterns in everyday life, and it creates migration patterns where certain areas are stigmatized when the criminals take over.

Almost one in five men and more than one in three women feel so insecure in their own residential area that they choose not to go out alone in the evening, according to the Crime Prevention Council's safety survey 2023.

Safety has also become an increasingly important aspect when people choose where they want or do not want to live. According to a report from Mäklarsamfundet that arrived a few weeks ago, safety is now at the top of the list of priorities that are important during a potential move.

According to an opinion poll that The Global Village conducted together with Novus in 2021, approximately half of the residents in Sweden's vulnerable areas wanted to move because of the crime.

Madam Speaker! The strengthening of the rental legislation that we are debating today, where the protection for the tenant against criminal neighbors is reinforced, will obviously not alone solve all problems with insecurity in residential areas. But it is one of several important pieces of the puzzle.

To strengthen safety in our residential areas, especially in areas exposed to serious organized crime, the Moderate-led government has also introduced both stay bans for criminals and security zones where the police are given expanded opportunities to prevent serious violent crimes.

To that should also be added the moderate-led government's historical investments in the justice system and significant sentencing increases against gang criminals.

Madam Speaker! In addition to strengthening the rental housing sector by making it easier to evict criminals and thereby protecting other neighbors, this bill contains a few further proposals that are worth mentioning specifically.

One of them is the tightening of the regulations for lodgers.

I do not believe that anyone in this chamber has missed the concept of mattress housing – that unscrupulous landlords rent out bed spaces in overcrowded apartments.

The Tenants' Association's magazine Hem & Hyra has been able to show that a single bed space can be rented out for several thousand a month.

In the book Imperiets barn by Liza Alexandrova-Zorina from 2023, such a mattress accommodation in Jakobsberg is described:

The apartment has three rooms. The largest is furnished with only beds - standard and bunk beds. In a corner stands a rolled-up mattress. Several Ukrainians who have come to the country to work in the construction sector live here. In one of the smaller rooms, new people live there almost every night; the sleeping spaces are rented out for a day or two at a time. In the third room, Chechens live. They live there for free - the apartment's owner is Chechen - in exchange for them keeping the place in order.

In the morning and evening, there is a queue for the bathroom and for the sink in the kitchen, where many of the residents wash themselves (they still don't have time to shower). During the day, the residence is empty, everyone is at work.

You have to keep track of your things, even your shoes. Things are stolen all the time. Everything of value must be taken with you to work - passports, money, everything that can be sold.

Madam Speaker! Another important change concerns the fact that we are now strengthening the ability of women who are victims of violence to take over a rental contract.

It can specifically be about that in cases where violence in close relationships is the reason that the lease is forfeited, the victim of violence shall be given the opportunity to take over the lease. But also in other cases, the victim of violence shall be strengthened in the rental law relationship, for example if this person has been granted financial support to be able to take over the apartment.

No woman subjected to violence should have to wonder whether she dares to report or not out of fear of losing her housing.

Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government's bill that we are now discussing involves important reinforcements of the rental legislation - reinforcements that will lead to increased security in our residential areas, to fewer mattress accommodations, and to more women affected by violence being able to remain in their homes.

For me and for the Moderates, this question is fundamentally about which side society wants to stand on. Whose rights stand highest? Is it ordinary honest people who should move when criminal gangs shoot, explode, and deal drugs in a residential area? Or is it the criminal who should be evicted to enable others to live in peace and security?

The neighbors in Hässleholm, Hässelby, Linköping, Majorna, Gävle and Farsta who considered or decided to move should not be followed by more who are forced to leave their homes.

Now we are changing the legislation. Now it is not the victims but the perpetrators of violence who shall move.

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

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Now it is not the victims but the perpetrators who should be evicted, says David Josefsson. But that is not true. It is to mislead the Swedish people. It is to lie to the Swedish people.

Let us tell the truth here now! This legislation says that if a child lives with their parents and perhaps even has siblings and the child happens to end up in criminal environments or is suspected of crimes in the surrounding area - it does not even have to have committed a crime, because it is not required to be a crime that the court shall make a decision on - the whole family shall be evicted. Then it becomes strange when David Josefsson stands here and says that it is not the victims but the perpetrators who are evicted. The mother, the father and the siblings who have not ended up in criminal environments, are they the perpetrators?

The proposals are chilling. They demonstrate a deep-seated contempt towards rental housing and tenants. It is visitation zones and surveillance on steroids. Some want to send the military to the suburbs. It is assumed that these families do not have the ability to take care of their children. In that case, one should ensure that the entire family is evicted.

Save the Children argues that the proposal will rather make it more difficult for parents to take responsibility because the probability that parents seek preventive support from social services decreases if they risk being evicted.

Parents contact the police and social services. They contact all authorities to get support. But now with this legislation, they know that if they do so, they can lose their homes. What then is it that says that these parents will reach out to these authorities?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Jallow, for the question!

It is colorful to accuse another member for standing and lying in the Swedish Riksdag.

We can start by stating that quite a lot is being mixed up and given in this reply. I have not spoken about that the military should be sent to suburbs and so on.

What I think is important is what perspective one has here. Whose side should we stand on? Should we stand with those people who behave themselves or with those who actually do not behave themselves?

If one does not behave in an area, one should not get away with the fact that someone else is on the lease. That is what this legislative change is about. Previously, the legislation stated that one can be evicted if it is the apartment holder who commits a crime in close proximity to their residence. Now we are changing that – now we are broadening that concept and saying that it can also be in the surrounding area, as well as when someone in the household commits a crime and the apartment holder does not perform the supervision that can be required.

To answer the member's question, it is rather the opposite. An apartment holder who can show that they have contacted the police and social services has actually fulfilled their duty towards the landlord and their neighbors, and therefore there are not sufficient grounds for eviction. But if one sees that a crime was committed and does not care about it or does anything, then one has actually not fulfilled one's duties towards either the landlord or one's neighbors.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! What the member says is not correct. According to the legislation, one can be evicted without any possibility of redress. Even if the parents say they can speak with social services and receive support to help the child, the property owner has the right to evict them, without any possibility of redress. It is appalling, especially when children are involved. When you propose new legislation, it is important that you stand behind the entire legislation as it appears in the proposal and do not say anything completely different from what is written. That is to mislead people.

There are 33,000 homeless people, and the number of evictions of families with children is increasing. This many families with children have not been evicted from their homes since measurements began in 2008. When all these families with children are evicted - what does the government, David Josefsson and the Moderaterna intend to do with these people? Where are they going to go? I have asked the question several times, even to the minister, but no one has been able to answer. Please David Josefsson, answer the question!

When another 20,000 people are homeless, what do David Josefsson and the government intend to do with them? I would also appreciate it if he answered why this legislation only applies to the country's 3 million tenants. Does it mean that the children of those who live in villas and condominiums do not commit crimes? Is it the Moderaternas intention to tell the Swedish people that children and families living in condominiums and villas do not commit crimes? If that is not the case and if we agree that those children also commit crimes and end up in criminal environments, how is it then that this legislation does not also apply to them? Why do we have legislation that punishes those who live in rental apartments while the same problems exist among those who live in villas and the legislation still does not apply to them?

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is very bold to claim that someone is lying or misleading. Member Jallow is welcome to show what it is I have lied about or misled regarding.

If we are to stick to a factual debate on this issue, it is fundamentally about strengthening the rental legislation and enabling neighbors to live free from disturbances from criminal elements living in a house.

The proposition states that in serious cases, one should be able to evict someone without that person first being given an opportunity for rectification. But this could involve serious violent crimes, shootings, handling of explosives in the apartment, or the sale of large quantities of narcotics. In those cases, representatives of parties in this chamber apparently still think that one should first be given an opportunity for rectification. One example is a case that has been current in the media, where the son in the family shot and killed a person on the balcony. In that case, representatives of the opposition, for the Vänsterpartiet, think it is reasonable to demand rectification and that it is only when the son has shot and killed another person on the balcony that the landlord should have the right to evict someone.

I think we should have a factual debate about this. I understand the objections that exist regarding landlords not being allowed to evict anyone however they want, but this is fundamentally about strengthening the right of tenancy as it currently stands. There will still be a legal review when someone is evicted. Eviction will still be carried out with the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden). But we are strengthening the possibility for people to actually live in peace and freedom.

I am not worried that particularly many will be evicted in the context of this new legislation. I believe that it will have a preventive function. But I am worried about all the people I cited in my speech, who feel forced to move from their residential area because criminal gangs are taking over. That is what is important to me.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! The bill Measures for safer residential areas is the result of an investigation commissioned by the Social Democratic government in July 2022. We Social Democrats take the widespread insecurity linked to crime seriously, not least the crime that is spreading in politically neglected areas in both large and small cities. These areas are more vulnerable to crime.

It is a self-evident starting point for us Social Democrats that all residents should be able to live in safety in and around their homes. We therefore primarily stand behind the proposals for legislative changes that the bill entails. The proposals provide a greater possibility to evict a tenant from their rental apartment in order to maintain safety and to prevent recurring crime in residential areas. The legislation targets tenants who seriously impair the safety of their residential area and their immediate surroundings—not only through crimes in the apartment itself, but also more broadly in the surroundings.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats also believe that the legislative matter involves complex trade-offs and has significant repercussions in society. Sveriges Allmännytta is a referral body that should be listened to in this context. It is the organization's members who own the most apartments in the areas most affected by crime.

Sveriges Allmännytta highlights that a consequence of the proposed legislative changes is that siblings of children who have committed crimes, who live in the same apartment but themselves have not committed any crime, may also be forced to move if their parents have to move. They point out the risk that completely innocent children may be affected in a very negative way. Sveriges Allmännytta therefore proposes that the government consider that a termination of a lease when children live in the apartment should be preceded by a written notice of rectification and a notification to the social welfare committee.

The city of Stockholm, where I live, is a large municipality that is highly affected by the investigation's proposals. The city expresses in its referral response that it can be seen that there may be a need to shorten the process for terminating rental contracts in certain cases. However, it emphasizes that this is a process that should not be handled lightly, as this could mean that families with minor children are evicted and face significant difficulties re-entering the housing market. We Social Democrats have a corresponding position, and I therefore move for approval of our and the Center Party's joint reservation number 5 that a written request for rectification from the landlord's side must be required before termination becomes an option for a family with minor children.

Madam Speaker! The National Safety Survey, NTU, conducted by Brå, the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, shows that insecurity exists in all types of housing. In areas with socioeconomic challenges, approximately 35 percent of those who own their home have stated that they feel very or quite insecure in their own residential area. For rental apartments, the figure is approximately 45 percent and for condominiums approximately 39 percent.

Both rental apartments and condominiums can, according to current legislation, be forfeited through particularly serious disturbances in the housing. Similar to some of the referral bodies, we Social Democrats see no reason why the expansion of the possibility of forfeiture proposed in this bill should apply only to rental apartments, but since such a demand does not fall within the scope of this matter, we intend to return to the issue in another context.

Madam Speaker! The type of measures we are debating today raise much broader questions about the municipalities' and the municipal social services' responsibility for and work with the individuals and families who are affected by criminal convictions, terminations, and evictions, which includes situations linked to men's violence against women and violence in close relationships. It is pointed out by a number of referral bodies that the municipalities' possibilities and resources to handle those types of situations are lacking, even in the all too many cases where, among other things, families with children are evicted from their homes, and then usually due to unpaid rent. Of particular importance is the availability of apartments or houses that are provided through social contracts or with the support of rental guarantees in areas other than the most disadvantaged.

We Social Democrats believe that a new housing supply act and a national plan for housing supply are incompatible. Such a plan also requires measures from the state. We highlight this in our housing policy committee motion.

Madam Speaker! It can only be stated that the Tidö majority here in the Swedish Riksdag is very one-sidedly focused on the type of more repressive measures that will likely be voted through here. The preventive work, unfortunately, is not at the center of attention.

Residential segregation is pervasive. There is a shortage of police. There is a shortage of proactive and powerful social work. There is a shortage of sports and culture for many children and young people. Preschool and primary school do not fully fulfill their mission. Large sectors of the labor market are characterized by crime in the workplace and great insecurity. We are standing and pouring out a teaspoon or two from a bathtub that is filled to the brim by criminal gangs while the tap is running at the other end. The new recruitment to the gangs must be stopped.

The Tidö majority only sees half of the problem and therefore only presents half solutions. They are also of very varying quality, Madam Speaker. Even the underlying government investigation in this legislative matter sees the risk that the problems are moved around rather than remedied by increasing the number of terminations of rental apartments.

Madam Speaker! It is most likely what happens both before and after a dismissal that, to a much greater extent, shapes the neighbors' safety in the residential area. We Social Democrats and the entire united opposition believe that the Riksdag should request that the government promptly returns with an evaluation and analysis of the effects of the expanded possibility for termination of rental agreements. And we believe that the opinion of the investigation and the Council of Legislation regarding when the legislative changes should enter into force should apply.

Furthermore, we emphasize that completely different measures must also be focused on in order to increase safety in our society, not least in neglected residential areas.

(Applause)

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Does one as a tenant have the right to feel safe in one's own area? Does one as a tenant have the right to expect that the public sector does what is required so that one feels safe in one's own area? Should one be able to walk back and forth to the store without having to look over one's shoulder? Should one be able to sit for a while on the area's lawn? Does one as a tenant have the right not to have to be worried about what happens time and again during the nights in one's area?

Imagine that you have a family with small children and that criminals live and carry out criminal activities in the area where you live. You do not dare to let your children out to play in the area because you do not know what could happen in the next second. This everyday life is far from the everyday life I grew up in. Mother let me out in the yard, and then I heard her again only when she spoke about the food being ready.

I believe that today's families have the right to demand exactly the same security. Why do today's families not have the right to demand the same security that existed then? Why are criminals allowed to set the agenda in a residential area?

The government's proposal aims for people to feel safe in their own residential area. They have the right to demand that society does its utmost to ensure that it becomes so. We are now taking a step forward to help as much as we can towards this goal.

I want to assert that we as a society have for many years been quite naive about the development in Sweden regarding criminals. This government is trying to reverse the trend in many different ways. It is not a single measure but many measures together that make us succeed, and this measure is one of them.

We are putting quite a lot of pressure on property owners and setting requirements that they must ensure that residential areas are as safe as possible. In that case, it is reasonable to give them the opportunity to evict apartment holders who have criminal residents with them. This implies a greater responsibility for the holder to take action and creates the possibility for a safer living environment for everyone in the area. That is actually what the proposal is about.

A lease agreement shall be able to be terminated if the tenant commits crimes that typically deteriorate the immediate environment for those living in the apartment's surroundings. The responsibility that the tenant has for children and other persons living in or staying in the apartment shall also apply to ensuring that these persons do not commit crimes that create insecurity for other residents.

A lease agreement may further be terminated in more cases if the apartment is used to commit crimes, namely in the case of serious or extensive crime.

What is the problem with such a law? Doesn't the neighbor have the same right to be safe? I do not understand how one can have a different opinion.

The member of the Left Party said from the rostrum that it was collective punishment. Yes, letting criminal elements stay in the residential area is collective punishment. The Left Party and I have completely different views on this. I believe that the person who is the apartment owner also has a responsibility.

The Left Party said that the proposal opens the door to racism. How so? If one is a criminal, one should not have a haven in Sweden. One should be pursued until one realizes that criminals have it difficult in Sweden, and one should become law-abiding. It has nothing to do with racism at all. Crime has no color or skin. Crime is wrong.

The Left Party says that we are targeting those who are already vulnerable. No, we are helping those who are in the area and who actually want a secure upbringing, even if they live in a rental apartment.

We also heard the Social Democrats' speech. It was reasonable and understanding nonetheless. One still wants to look a bit further ahead and have preventive activities. I agree. The problem is that we don't quite grasp that decision in the legal texts we are talking about here and now. But obviously, we shall help those affected by crime as much as possible and ensure that they do not end up there. But we must also help those who actually want to help.

Property owners want to help and ensure that their areas are safe. Then we must give them the opportunities and tools that exist.

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

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Larry Söder asks: What is the problem? He says that there is nothing racist about this proposal. Perhaps Larry Söder chooses to turn a blind eye to or has not seen the news about troll factories that incite people when it comes to immigration and that spread hate, threats, and racism about all immigrants. It is said that immigrants are criminals.

It has consequences. It affects people who are racialized more than it affects Larry and many others who live in this country. Racism exists as a system, and it affects people. It causes certain groups to be exposed more than others. It depends on how they look, if they are Muslims, if they come from the Middle East or Africa, and if they are black or white.

Racism is important in this context. The Equality Ombudsman has said so. Discrimination will increase. There is a risk that it will become profiling. Certain groups living in rental apartments will become more vulnerable. To say that this is not collective punishment is to turn a blind eye to the truth.

Larry Söder asked if criminals should be prosecuted. Yes, they should. I have no problem with that. That is what the Left Party thinks, and that is what I said in my speech.

Larry Söder asks: Do all have the right to feel safe in their housing? Yes, everyone has the right to feel safe. But the question I ask Larry Söder is: Do all who are innocent have the right not to be punished for crimes that someone else has committed? I think that one has the right not to be punished for someone else's crime. This is the difference between me and Larry Söder. Larry Söder thinks that everyone else in the family, for example children who have not committed crimes, should be punished by being evicted and made homeless. Vänsterpartiet does not think so.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is very interesting if the Left Party thinks that every time one hunts criminals, one is a racist. That is exactly what Malcolm Momodou Jallow says. I mean that we must hunt the criminals together, completely regardless of what background they have, so that law-abiding people can live in residential areas that are safe.

Who is actually being punished? It is the neighbor who is being punished, who cannot do anything about their situation and who pleads with the property owner to do something – it is unsafe where I live, and I cannot let my children out in the area because there are criminal elements. It is they who are being punished. Malcolm Momodou Jallow heard what David Josefsson read out. People move away from areas because they do not feel safe there. Who is it that is being punished? Yes, it is the law-abiding people who do not even live in the apartment.

What rights does the apartment owner have and what is their own responsibility for those who are in the apartment? I mean that that responsibility must be strengthened and that the property owners must be given the opportunity to do something about this.

Unfortunately, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, you are undermining the safety in residential areas. You are undermining our ability as ordinary people to actually live in rental apartments by trying to make the criminals the victims. The criminals are not victims. They are the ones we must hunt, day in and day out.

Then it is exactly as the Social Democrats say. We shall ensure that those who want to leave crime receive as much support, help, and protection as possible and that no one ends up there. But that is a completely different story than the one we are discussing today.

You cannot protect the criminals, Malcolm Momodou Jallow.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! I can state that Larry Söder and the Kristdemokraterna say that everyone who has not committed a crime is also criminal. It is this that we hear Larry Söder saying here. It is about all the children, not about those who have committed crimes and those who have ended up in criminal environments – there we agree. I want to clarify this. But what Larry Söder and the Kristdemokraterna say is that if one person in the family commits a crime, the entire family is criminal. It is this worldview that Larry Söder has.

When it comes to racism, there are many with immigrant backgrounds who live in rental apartments. Everyone knows that. If we agree that crime is a societal problem that exists everywhere, why do we not have legislation that combats crime everywhere? Why does this only apply to rental apartments and not to those who live in villas? Is Larry Söder standing here and saying that the children who live in villa carpets never end up in criminal environments? If that is not what is being said, if they also commit crimes, why do we not have legislation that also applies to them so that we can create safety?

I want safety in the whole country, regardless of whether one lives in a villa or in a rental apartment. And I do not want to punish the children and parents who have not committed a crime.

I want, Madam Speaker, to conclude by saying that I asked a question to David Josefsson about where all these people are going to go when they become homeless. I received no answer from David Josefsson. I ask the same question here again. If you succeed in evicting a number of families and they have nowhere to go and become homeless, where are they going to go? Please, answer that question! I would really be happy if I received an answer. I have asked this question many times, but none of the government parties have wanted to answer it.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Why should the innocent be punished? Yes, that is what I want to ask the Left Party. The neighbor is innocent, just like the neighbor in the other stairwell. The person living in the property next door is innocent. But all of them are affected when there is a criminal in an apartment. It is obvious to me that the property owner must be given greater opportunities to ensure that this person is evicted, in order to have a safe and calm area. I do not believe this is an easy thing for a property owner to do, but it is necessary in some cases. We give them the opportunity to do this. I cannot understand that the Left Party is against safer residential areas.

Why is it important for us to give the property owner this opportunity? Well, because those who are tenants are dependent on the property owner doing something about the problem. They can contact their property owner, but if this owner has no muscles or opportunities to do anything, the tenant is in the clutches of the criminal.

I did not think I would hear a Left Party member say that one wants to protect the criminal because one feels sorry for them. I believe, however, that Malcolm Momodou Jallow fundamentally thinks exactly like I do. The problem is that kindness cannot be taken all the way. We must also in some way ensure that society can protect those who are law-abiding, take their side and say: Yes, you shall have a safe residential area even if you choose to live in a rental apartment. This is something people have chosen, and it is something people will choose. They must be able to feel safe and know that their property owners have these possibilities.

I think this law is very good, and I believe it will help us. But I also believe, just like David Josefsson, that more must be done in a preventive sense. Here is another tool that the property owner can use in the end, but I do not think it will be used particularly much.

I believe, however, that Vänsterpartiet must rethink. Who is it that you want to protect, the criminal or the law-abiding?

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind that all members speak through the Speaker, as that is the rule we have had in the chamber for a long time.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Far too many people today live in areas that are classified as vulnerable and that are strongly characterized by exclusion and have been for a long time. These are areas where unemployment and insecurity have taken hold, and here the risk for the residents to end up in a vulnerable position is significantly greater. Vulnerability takes root more easily when residential areas are not taken care of – when we let properties decay, overcrowding is widespread and the outdoor environment is not maintained. The basis for all people to have the conditions to feel safe in their areas is that they are secure and that everyone who lives and stays there follows the laws that exist.

All around our long country, we have children, youth, and adults with great ambitions for their future and commitment to their fellow human beings. They deserve for us to ensure that they feel safe in their homes and residential areas. The vast majority of people are honest and behave well, and it is a few individuals who have been allowed to destroy and for far too long dominate the public space.

Feeling safe in one's residential area so that one does not feel forced to, for example, forgo an evening walk or to keep one's children indoors because one does not dare to let them play outside is about freedom in everyday life. It should be a self-evident matter throughout all of Sweden, but that is not the case today. We obviously cannot accept that such areas exist. It is about providing the conditions for all people to be safe at home.

Madam Speaker! To lift these vulnerable areas in the long term and reverse the negative development, both long-term vision and perseverance are required. It is about powerful interventions, measures, and legislative proposals in a long series of different areas. For example, urban planning needs to be developed to ensure the interests of everyone who lives and works in the areas. Areas that are dysfunctional and that encourage crime shall be built away, and those who live in the area must be given real power to influence how their immediate environment develops and be involved in this from start to finish.

Liberalerna have, as a party, long worked to promote integration and safety in our residential areas through a number of different proposals. We realize that one of the primary threats to safe residential areas is that crime has been allowed to gain a foothold in our immediate surroundings. Therefore, it is clearly of the utmost importance that we now, based on today's problems, develop tools to combat and prevent this.

We consider that, for example, the housing companies are an important player. They belong to the actors who have a strongly cohesive and present force in the vulnerable areas, and they often have a very good overall picture of the local problem areas.

Property owners therefore have a key role in maintaining safety, together with the public sector. The owner of a property also has obligations, as society depends on the property owner managing their properties well and treating people who live or work in the properties or visit them in a socially and environmentally sustainable manner.

Already today, there is a possibility to terminate a contract if a tenant, for example, operates a brothel in the apartment. But as we have heard here earlier today, it is significantly more difficult to reach the criminals who use parts of the residences to handle, store, and sell drugs or weapons.

Under current legislation, the property owner must prove that the criminal activity is commercial and conducted systematically, i.e., that it displaces legal areas of use. This means that it is possible to evict someone if the apartment is a logistics center for drugs as long as the person does not live there. You can hear for yourselves how absurd this sounds. But now we are taking measures to change this.

Therefore, we now propose that a lease agreement should be able to be terminated if the tenant commits crimes that typically deteriorate the immediate environment for those living in the apartment's surroundings. This is not only a way to protect the residents from insecurity but also a way to ensure that the residential areas remain attractive and livable for everyone who lives there. It is, as said, the majority, who are honest citizens, who should feel freedom and security in their areas.

I also want to emphasize that the tenants' responsibility extends beyond their own actions and also includes the actions performed by those they are responsible for, other persons who live or stay in the apartment. It is of the utmost importance that we all take our responsibility to maintain safety in our immediate environment.

Madam Speaker! Tightenings are also being made in the law regarding the issue of so-called mattress housing, where a tenant in their apartment provides sleeping places for a large number of people. Unfortunately, it is relatively common for tenants to house outsiders in a manner that does not correspond with organized property management.

Just overcrowding is a source of several social problems. We know that children living in overcrowded conditions do not always get the opportunities in life that they have a right to. According to Boverket, overcrowding can lead to, among other things, stress and mental ill-health. Several studies show that children who share a room at home perform significantly worse in school. For example, they do not get peace and quiet to do their homework, but instead may be forced outdoors even if they do not want to, and there do something other than study. In this area, there is much left to do.

Violence in close relationships is a societal problem. This is also an area where society has tiptoed for far too long. Actions have consequences. Criminal acts must not only have legal consequences but also many more. Today, it is common that victims of violence in close relationships have to bear these negative consequences. We are now changing this as well. We shall evict the perpetrator who beats their partner and give the lease to the victim. In this way, we can give the perpetrator a clear negative consequence early on while simultaneously giving the vulnerable victim the power back over their life. A safe home must be a starting point.

Now we are placing greater focus on crime victims and propose improved conditions for a tenant who is affected by violence to retain their apartment in the event of a notice of termination.

The legislative changes that the government is now proposing are necessary steps towards creating safer residential areas for everyone. By combining responsibility from both landlords and tenants, we can create an environment where everyone can feel safe and secure.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Third time lucky, I thought. I asked this question to the Moderates and received no answer. I asked the same question to the Christian Democrats and received no answer. I sincerely hope that I now receive an answer from the Liberals.

Should we evict perpetrators of violence? Yes, I think so. We have legislation that makes this possible already today, before we have adopted the proposal we are talking about today. We have no problems with this. Should we continue to prosecute criminals? Yes. Should we fight crime and gang-related violence? Yes, absolutely. Vänsterpartiet is for all these things. So, we are in agreement there.

But all the others in the household, who have not committed crimes, are not gang members, and do not move in criminal environments, will still be punished by being evicted. Where are they supposed to go? Enough families have been evicted. We have 30,000 homeless people today, and the evictions of families with children are increasing. As I mentioned, we are now seeing the highest figures since they began measuring.

The risk that more families with children will become homeless is very great. My question is: When all these children and families with children become homeless, where are they supposed to go? Does the government have a plan for that?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malcolm Momodou Jallow, for your persistence! The third time lucky, so.

In the proposal, there is a balancing of interests to be made when children are involved. Extra consideration must be taken into account when such occurs. I absolutely do not believe that the property owners would do this somewhat haphazardly, like a lottery - in some previous posts it has sounded that way - but it will be carried out based on a degree of suspicion and a burden of proof, just as it has always been when it comes to legal reviews.

In the cases where the parents have done everything they could, they will not be subject to an eviction and neither will the siblings, but it will rather be a review of the care of the child in question. It will therefore only be another tool for crime fighting aimed at children and young people.

At the same time, there are many cases where the parents do not do what they are supposed to do and many times are part of the child's criminality - one is, in other words, so cowardly that one does not go out onto the streets but sends out their children instead. In that case, it is obvious that our perspective should be focused on the honest citizens who live in the area. We shall put them in the foreground and kick the others out.

Where are they to go then? Yes, it could be to a residential facility or a home. For the adults, it might involve prison. In other cases, it is the municipality's responsibility to take action. Evictions are happening today as well, and there is a system for how it should proceed. This is just another way to strengthen the security for the honest citizens who live in these vulnerable areas.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Patrik Karlson, for at least trying to answer my question! I appreciate that very much.

Patrik mentioned that one should use ordinary legal reviews. The problem is that ordinary legal reviews are carried out by legal instances that possess competence and have knowledge of how to do it. Now, this is being handed over from courts, police, and legal instances to property owners, who have zero competence in these matters.

All referral bodies say that this will be wrong. It is based on facts and common sense. Property owners are not police officers or judges. They cannot perform the legal assessments that a court or the police can perform. Therefore, it will be wrong.

Patrik Karlson assumes that perhaps it will not be more who become homeless. I hope that is not the case. But my question is about what happens if more still become homeless. There are already many families with children who are evicted every week. We have the highest figures since 2008. According to the referral bodies, more will become homeless. What do you do then?

Patrik Karlson speaks about the municipalities. The municipalities are struggling to find housing. 190 municipalities have no housing. No housing is being built. How are the municipalities supposed to help these people? It is not possible.

Finally, I want to squeeze in what Stadsmissionen said: The country's residential areas do not become safer if people lose their homes. In reality, the government's proposal will affect those who are already severely affected. Eviction of families with children does not work as crime fighting. On the contrary, both research and civil society's experiences show the exact opposite.

There is evidence for this. This goes against the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why do we have legislation in Sweden that conflicts with the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Malcolm Jallow for the follow-up questions.

I assert that we in the report take the Convention on the Rights of the Child into account, and as I said earlier, it will be considered in all cases.

What we are starting from is how we are to put a stop to the destructive, criminal development we see in many residential areas, which is gaining more and more ground and creating a culture of silence that causes people to move away from there even though they actually do not want to.

I worked in municipal politics myself before coming to the Riksdag, and I know that there are challenges when it comes to housing. But I also know that there is great competence in the municipalities, that this is taken very seriously, and that there are already structures in place to take this further.

I also do not believe that it will occur on such a large scale that an immense number of people will be affected by it. The bill will not overturn the municipalities' activities in this area but rather address the insecure housing situation in a number of residential areas.

I understand your reasoning, Malcolm, but I do not share your concern and instead believe that this will occur in a safe and secure manner.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have clear thoughts on what I think about the proposal we are now debating, but only for that reason do I not think it is a simple debate.

Of course we would all want there to be clear legislative proposals that gave us the safe residential areas we all want to see. There is no one who wants that one should not be able to feel safe where they live. Residents in Bredäng should not have to wake up another morning and hear about new shootings. The person who goes to or from work should not have to feel discomfort walking alone in their residential area. One should not have to feel that one does not dare to go for an evening walk or does not want to let their children out to play alone in the yard because one does not feel safe with their neighbors or other people where they live. No one wants it that way, and I know that none of us want anyone else to have to have it that way.

Many residents in vulnerable areas are today tormented by a great sense of insecurity due to serious crime. Housing can be used as a tool for crime, and the criminals' negative impact on the local community is amplified if they can continue to build up their activities in the same area where they have built up their influence and their contacts. Therefore, it is important that we at all levels do what we can so that as many as possible feel safe regardless of where they move, but not least where they live.

Unfortunately, the government's proposal is not the solution.

As a member of the Green Party, I believe, together with many referral bodies, that the bill does not live up to its intentions at all, but instead risks counteracting its purpose in large parts by increasing insecurity - in several parts moreover to a degree that risks leading to an increase in polarization and suspicion between residents, society, and authorities, and a decrease in cooperation and trust. It could be devastating for us all.

Miljöpartiet therefore wants the government to withdraw the larger part of the proposal and do it over and do it right. Sweden needs a legally secure legislation that does not create greater insecurity than security.

Right from the start, there is a strange angle to the investigation as it focuses solely on people living in rental apartments. We all know that the same problems with insecurity exist among condominiums and in areas with terraced houses and villas. In the investigation and the bill, it is made to sound as if it is the form of housing that is the root of the problem, not the social vulnerability.

By the fact that the proposal has a large focus on people being more easily able to be evicted from their homes, even in cases where they themselves have not committed a crime, there is a great risk that many more will end up in a situation that causes them to lose some of the basic security that housing generally provides. It can create both suspicion and mistrust, especially in those areas that risk simultaneously being designated as visitation zones, secret camera surveillance, and other preventive coercive measures, and above all when one risks being hit very hard despite being innocent oneself.

It is not least about the people who, according to the proposal, are considered to lack supervision of those they live with and who can therefore be deprived of the right to remain in their home. When the supervision of children, cohabitants, and lodgers is also extended to cover what these persons do outside the residence, the problem becomes quite obvious. We do not think that one should be able to be evicted because one has not had supervision around the clock over someone one lives with, regardless of who it concerns.

That a family where a minor child is involved in gang crime can be evicted and that completely innocent siblings are then affected makes this legislation deeply problematic. Few believe that parents and families do not do everything they can to keep a child away from a criminal life. The implication is, therefore, that the parents who have "failed" in their parenting should be able to be evicted together with the children who are completely innocent of their sibling's criminality. The consequences for a family that is put on the street can be great, not least for the children who are torn away from school, friends, and leisure activities to an existence that, in the worst case, becomes drifting and unstable.

That this proposal has been moved forward from the investigation and appears to be supported by a majority is both surprising and outrageous. It should have been scrapped already at the draft stage. Many referral bodies also highlight the issue of legal certainty. That innocent families should be more easily able to be evicted and furthermore without being able to seek redress is not worthy of a rule-of-law society. We have previously agreed that children should not be evicted, but now the possibility of evicting just children is increasing.

According to the proposal, landlords will be given greater opportunity to act when a tenant or resident commits a crime or makes the area unsafe. Here, one can broadly ask whether it should not be the police rather than the landlord who should act when someone commits a crime, and whether it is truly reasonable that the punishment involves being deprived of one's home. It is important to emphasize that when it comes to combating serious crime, it is fundamentally the police and the justice system that should act, in the best case in good cooperation with property owners, landlords, and the surrounding community. More resources should therefore go to cooperation and preventive work and not specifically to property owners' and landlords' crime-fighting work.

When it comes to being punished by being evicted, it is already the case today that one can lose their apartment by using it for criminal activities in cases where it can affect neighbors and residents. We think that the expanded possibility to evict someone even when only a part of the apartment is used for crime is entirely reasonable. Furthermore, there can also be a reasonableness in losing one's apartment if one not only destroys the living environment from one's apartment but also repeatedly commits criminal acts in connection with one's residence. However, the design of the legislation in the proposal is so unclearly designed that most referral bodies, including courts and the Swedish Bar Association, have reacted sharply.

Madam Speaker! The responses from the referral bodies clearly show that the proposed legislation will not be legally secure. Several referral bodies emphasize that the commission's proposal leaves a large scope for the application of the law to assess in which situations the forfeiture of the residence can occur, which can lead to a lack of predictability, a risk of arbitrary assessments, and an inconsistent application of the law. That is, of course, not how we are to design laws.

I have listened to what the different party representatives have to say about the bill in both today's debate and in previous debates, and even now, completely different interpretations are being made of what the proposal will entail and how the legislation is intended to be used. There are views that the proposal will make everything from a minimal difference to great harm for many people. Problems have been raised regarding increased homelessness, increased pressure on the municipalities, and doubtful assessment grounds, as well as that the legislation in the worst case can be used to evict residents in order to reduce the housing shortage for others.

When representatives for the eight Riksdag parties have different views on what a bill can mean, while legal authorities claim that the legislation will most likely become legally uncertain due to its lack of clarity, there is every reason to listen closely, especially as the proposal risks affecting large groups, including children and particularly vulnerable people.

Today's debate is very much about us and them. Sometimes it is even suggested that serious crime should be punished with deportation instead of, for example, imprisonment. It then becomes a very strange debate.

There are certain parts of the proposal that I would like to see revised, not least the proposal regarding women and men who are victims of violence. But in large, much simply should be redone from the ground up to achieve greater accuracy and seriously reduce the insecurity in our residential areas.

We need large-scale measures to increase safety in the residential areas where insecurity is greatest. We need to increase trust between tenants, property managers, municipalities, and the police, and we need to create safer environments where there is trust and community.

We need to find ways to create safety and help for parents and siblings of children who are drawn into criminal gangs, and we must therefore not introduce laws that create further walls between people. Collective punishment affects innocent people, including children, and furthermore on an insecure legal basis.

I and Miljöpartiet thus have a large number of views on the proposal. I stand behind all of them but, for the sake of time, move for approval only of reservations 4 and 7 in the committee report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 May.)

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