Property Law

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a committee report regarding property rights. I would initially like to move for approval of the proposal in the report, which means the rejection of all motions.

Mr. Speaker! Many members of the Swedish Riksdag and parties may have different views. But I also want to wish Brynäs good luck in the qualification against Malmö. I am sure that many members of parliament share my view that Brynäs was needed in the SHL.

What is the connection to this report? Well, it is that Lantmäteriet's head office is, as you all know, in Gävle. And when things are going well for Brynäs, one also becomes happy for Lantmäteriet.

Mr. Speaker! The State has an important role in ensuring that real estate transactions are conducted correctly and that construction projects can take place all over Sweden. A real estate transaction is often the largest private economic transaction a household makes. In that case, it is important that there is order and clarity in the system. There, Mr. Speaker, Lantmäteriet has a decisive role in ensuring that the correct legal or physical person owns a property.

Property Law

There are many skilled employees at Lantmäteriet, which is located in Gävle. But with that said, it is not acceptable that Lantmäteriet has the longest processing time in the Nordic countries and is the most expensive when it comes to the subdivision of properties. This creates great frustration for both sellers and buyers of properties, and it is an obstacle to social development.

When I was in Ljusdal a couple of weeks ago, I was told that there is now an eleven-month waiting time before a case officer is assigned to a matter. Then comes the processing itself. The municipal management in Ljusdal naturally says that this is completely unacceptable and a major obstacle to the municipality's development, both for those who want to build private homes and for companies that want to grow.

Here I would like to draw the Chamber's attention to the fact that when the municipalities wanted to open their own municipal land survey office, the previous government rejected all municipalities' applications. But I know that Ljusdal submitted an application a couple of weeks ago. In that case, I naturally think that the new government must approve it and view it positively that the municipalities can manage their own land survey office.

Then an argument is usually that there are no land surveyors. But then it was stated in Ljusdal municipality that there are two people there who have professional competence and are qualified but who do not want to work for Lantmäteriet. On the other hand, they have said that they would more than gladly work for the municipality. This means, therefore, that the argument about there being no staff falls. I really hope that the new Minister for Housing and the government now view supporting the municipalities' social development positively.

When the National Audit Office audited Lantmäteriet, it was unusually sharp in its criticism of the agency. Here, I suspect and believe that Lantmäteriet itself follows up on the National Audit Office's report, but also that the government ensures that the National Audit Office's criticism and remarks yield results. One such matter is the construction of the fees. The National Audit Office states that since the state has a monopoly on these services, there is no incentive for Lantmäteriet to work with productivity improvements in order to thereby be able to lower the fees. I believe that we simply must review this.

I took out a report from the Riksdag's investigation service in this matter. It states that in Denmark, for example, there are private companies that perform certain parts of this. The Danish equivalent to Lantmäteriet carries out the exercise of authority. But investigations and other things can be done by private companies.

Lantmäteriet's problems have been discussed here in the chamber many times in recent years. The question is whether measures from the previous government - they changed the director-general and the board - have yielded sufficient results.

If we look at Lantmäteriet's annual report for 2022, we can see that processing times are increasing. It is completely unacceptable. The state must be able to help and facilitate municipal social planning.

In 2028, Lantmäteriet will turn 400 years old. Now the government has a few years, and I truly hope that the digitalization will be facilitated and the legislation changed so that we here in the chamber can help to rectify the deficiencies that the Riksrevisionen has pointed out. It is also something that SKR has highlighted.

Mr. Speaker! The new M-led government takes the energy issue seriously. Here, we shall utilize all the good forces that can provide energy in Sweden. Nuclear power and hydropower are the basis of an energy system with predictable energy. And now that we have removed the ideological opposition to nuclear power, we can hear the industry and actors saying every day that they want to build nuclear power. An announcement was made the other day regarding an SMR near Stockholm, which would be absolutely fantastic.

We and the new government are also for wind power. Sometimes it is sticked on us that we are not. But in this report, we highlight that we have given an additional directive to the investigation *Stärkta incitament för utbyggd vindkraft* (Strengthened incentives for expanded wind power) that the financing shall be carried out by the operators and not by the taxpayers. The investigation shall submit proposals for systems to compensate those whose surroundings are significantly affected by a wind power expansion. Here I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when we are to supply electricity - we may need wind power - there must be an acceptance for it among those who are affected.

I would like to conclude by highlighting the issue of compensation in the expropriation of housing. It is a highly topical issue, not least in Kiruna and Gällivare. Kiruna is to be moved, and that involves expropriation for property owners. There is a completed ministerial letter from 2016 where this issue is addressed and where there are good proposals. But since it has been lying there since 2016, I hope that the new housing minister and the new government actually act on this issue, and I have every reason to believe that they will do so.

(Applause)

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish housing market is in a state of emergency. Production is falling, and construction has almost come to a complete standstill. The conditions for housing construction have deteriorated rapidly. All this according to Boverket.

Rising interest rates, inflation, and high food and energy costs have severely weakened household finances. The private sector has given up. It is said that it is no longer profitable to build.

At the same time, we have poor pensioners, students, low-income earners, families with children, women in destructive conditions, and homeless people who have a clear need for housing but lack the economic resources to demand the housing that is being built.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also take the opportunity to mention that today is March 8, International Women's Day. It is a day when we highlight the situation of women all around the world, but for the sake of the debate, let me focus on Sweden.

The wage gap between women and men is now increasing for the first time since 2007, according to a new report from the Medlingsinstitutet. Women's average monthly wage corresponds to 90.1 percent of men's average wage. Women generally have higher education than men but lower wages within all social sectors and largely in all occupations on the Swedish labor market. This entails major consequences for all women on the housing market and not least for families with children and women in destructive conditions.

Mr. Speaker! The government has been rightly criticized from all sides and corners for doing nothing at all in the housing policy area. They began by phasing out the existing policy, including the investment support for the construction of rental apartments, with the justification that it does not solve the fundamental problems that are the cause of the housing shortage. That support, which de facto led to more housing being built, therefore did not contribute to reducing the housing shortage, according to the government.

The Minister for Housing also said that the government instead wants to, among other things, develop reforms that increase the availability of developable land. So far, as has been said, nothing has been done in that area, but today the Riksdag and the government parties in this chamber have the chance to vote yes to a reform that, if needed, can contribute to just precisely more building land.

Mr. Speaker! I therefore move for the approval of the Left Party's reservation 7. In the reservation, we propose a notice that a new right of first refusal should be introduced.

The previous pre-emption act was abolished in 2010. The original purpose of the pre-emption act was to strengthen the municipalities' opportunities to acquire land needed for new development or during more extensive conversion of older built-up areas. The municipalities' opportunities to acquire properties with the support of the law were subsequently expanded progressively through legislative changes during the 1970s and 1980s. The repeal of the pre-emption act was justified by the fact that the law had played out its role as a means to satisfy the municipalities' needs for land for dense urban development.

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, the need for a new pre-emption right has increased. The pressure on the municipalities to build more housing is much greater today, and a pre-emption right could be of great importance for their opportunities to pursue an active land policy. A long-term municipal land and development policy not only facilitates large-scale housing construction but also creates opportunities for larger business establishments or the implementation of socially important climate adaptation measures that require land access. A new pre-emption right can also help to reduce and counteract segregation, Mr. Speaker.

Since a municipal right of first refusal also facilitates voluntary agreements on real estate purchases, such a law is an important and good complement to the Expropriation Act. Without a right of first refusal law, there is a great risk that we will see more expropriations, which I assume no one desires.

Mr. Speaker! The increased need for a new pre-emption law is not something that only the Left Party sees; the same point was raised both in the Byggrättsutredningen's report from 2018 and by the Equality Commission in 2020.

One of the municipalities' most important tools for offensive housing construction is land policy. A prerequisite for the possibility of implementing important community construction measures is that the municipality also owns developable land. In municipalities that become dependent on individual landowners' goodwill to plan and subsequently build, housing construction risks becoming uneven, unpredictable, and insufficient.

Just as the Left Party argued, the Building Rights Inquiry stated that the municipalities must be given more tools to be able to conduct an effective land policy and meet the extensive need for new housing. Boverket also believes that a reintroduction of a right of first refusal should be investigated. Already in 2010, the agency considered it inappropriate to abolish the then-current right of first refusal law.

Mr. Speaker! Everyone is hopefully in agreement that more housing needs to be built. To reach that goal, many different measures are required. That land policy is an extremely important tool for the municipalities to be able to live up to their commitments regarding housing supply is something that even the government's parties have spoken warmly about - but we still have not seen any proposals. We have waited and waited but have not seen a single proposal.

When it comes to land policy, one can instead observe that the municipalities' current land policy tools are insufficient to achieve high levels of construction. This is becoming increasingly clear. To increase housing construction, new tools must be added, and a new right of first refusal law is one of these. According to Vänsterpartiet, such a law should therefore be introduced as soon as possible. The starting point must be a new, modern right of first refusal law that also addresses the problems that existed in the previous one.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party looks forward to taking part in the results of the ongoing investigation A new pre-emption law, which is to report its results in December 2023.

I really hope that all parties here today can vote in favor of the Left Party's reservation 7.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Fastighetsrätt is a committee report where the committee proposes that the Riksdag reject all motions and their 40 demands. I stand behind the committee's proposal to reject all motions, but that does not mean the work is undone. I can see several common denominators - such as the motions on access to geodata, the review of Lantmäteriet and other motions - that can be taken forward in the work ahead.

I would like to talk a little bit about leasehold rights (tomträtt). The system of leasehold rights was introduced in 1907 as a solution so that less wealthy people could build houses even if they could not afford to buy the plot it stood on. Being a leaseholder means a rather insecure existence today, and the challenges in the economic conditions are great because one can get a quite radical increase in the leasehold fees all at once.

The ground rent is normally unchanged for ten years or longer. Before a new rent period, increases in land value can lead to very substantial increases in the ground rent, which can create major problems for the individual. For residents of small houses, the new, higher rents can mean that they are forced to move from their home for economic reasons, which I consider to be a situation that is not good and that we should handle in one way or another.

I think that leasehold is an underutilized resource in today's situation, where the land plot constitutes a large part of the cost for the final price of a new property. But that assumes that one solves the problems that exist in today's system. One of the motions in today's report addresses exactly leasehold and part of the leasehold's problems. There are also investigations that have been conducted in the area, but unfortunately, they are starting to become a bit dated.

I would, however, like to point out to the Riksdag that land lease is a way forward for some people if it is reformed and managed from the perspective that it should be possible to predict the costs in the future.

I would also like to speak a little bit about Lantmäteriet, just as my colleague Lars Beckman did. For a large number of operations and for the entire community building process, Lantmäteriet's efforts are of crucial importance.

Housing construction requires the formation of new properties, and the construction of railways requires land acquisitions supported by the Land Consolidation Act, the Right of Way Act, and the Public Works Act. Lantmäteriet's work is so crucial that processing times, tasks, and processes should be the focus in order to be able to do the best for both the individual and for the business sector. The lead times and processes should therefore be as short as possible.

Colleague Lars Beckman gave an exemplary presentation of the problems with Lantmäteriet, and I agree with that description. I think we should address this; it is an essential part for us to be able to move forward.

There is also something else that is important and that Lantmäteriet is good at, namely the digital parts. In my opinion, it would benefit all parties to continue streamlining the planning and building process, among other things through digital planning processes and by reviewing the possibility of open geodata for the public in Sweden.

I want to assert that digitalization in many areas is in its infancy in Sweden. We have built the highways for digitalization, but we have not taken to using digitalization to its full extent. Here, Lantmäteriet has tried to stay at the forefront and has developed a roadmap to enable open geodata. Here we must do more to be able to continue to stay at the forefront, and Lantmäteriet is an authority that does this in a good way.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today in the Committee on Civil Affairs we are also debating property rights; we have several debates here today. I would initially like to move for the approval of reservations 4 and 7.

Mr. Speaker! I am new to the Committee on Civil Affairs, which pleases me very much. The issues addressed in the Committee on Civil Affairs are truly important for our society. We will in the near future also debate housing policy, but it is no less important to debate property law.

This report addresses many important issues that, at this moment, in difficult times, feel extra important. It concerns issues such as land lease rights, charging infrastructure, wind power, the Land Survey, and so on. These issues mean very much for achieving a functioning housing market. I will concentrate on a few issues that are addressed in the report.

Mr. Speaker! Since I am new, I have looked a bit at how previous debates have proceeded. Lantmäteriet has been discussed very much. There are strong reasons to debate and discuss Lantmäteriet. It is important. Lantmäteriet shall ensure that more is built in Sweden and that processing times are reduced.

I am a strong advocate for us to digitize more. It is through digitalization that we can reach the goal of reducing times and being more transparent and more innovative. The entire society benefits from this.

I still want to raise a warning finger in these restless times. Sharing data without knowing how, by whom, and when it is used is something that members of the Riksdag must take most seriously, as this data can also be used against us.

Let me be clear: For urban planning, for the climate, and for smart and sustainable societies, geodata needs to be shared. Lantmäteriet shall do it, but we must add another dimension to this, namely the security issue. Swedish citizens demand it of us in these uneasy times.

Mr. Speaker! If we build a lot of housing, these homes need heat, electricity, and infrastructure. When we talk about property law, it is important that all aspects of construction are considered. If we are to reach the climate goals, people must be able to do things easily and correctly.

Having charging stations near home is an important priority, and therefore we should facilitate for, for example, housing cooperatives and multi-family buildings to have charging stations near home. Today, there are far too many rules that make it difficult to build charging infrastructure near home. Even if associations build charging poles, it is not certain that they will be approved. We must look at this in the Riksdag in order to facilitate the construction of charging infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker! What is happening in the Swedish real estate and housing market is of great strategic importance for society's development and an important issue for the municipalities, which have the responsibility for housing supply. Until 2010, the municipalities had the opportunity to purchase land through the pre-emption act. It was abolished in 2010 despite several instances advising against it.

Much has happened since 2010, and this unfortunately includes unwanted effects of legislation where many loopholes have arisen. It is serious that strategic land in the municipalities now often is included in advanced purchase and sale arrangements that rarely aim for any positive social development but solely concern short-sightedness and profit margins.

What is worst of all, however, is the organized crime that also exploits this opportunity. We must stop organized crime in every way. Therefore, I want to urge the government parties to promptly look at the pre-purchase law. The investigation should be finished in December, I believe, but we need to start looking at the laws already now.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in a recession. This is particularly noticeable in the construction industry. The construction of housing has not decreased but has almost completely disappeared. Several of the construction companies are now showing drastic reductions, and layoffs have begun. Yesterday we had a seminar where some pointed out that construction this year might decrease by 70 percent. This means that many people are heading towards unemployment.

The government must now act to facilitate construction. During the pandemic, we joined forces with the opposition to ensure that people in Sweden would have it a bit easier. The same applied to companies – many billions were invested in companies so that they would not go bankrupt.

Unfortunately, we cannot pull out all the stops in the same way now that we are in a recession. It is a pity, Mr. Speaker, because Sweden can afford to build more. What we cannot afford is for more people to become unemployed.

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

When it comes to charging stations, which are mentioned in the reservation that the Social Democrats' member requested approval for, there is actually no political conflict. What possibly constitutes a conflict is that it took far too long for the old government to rectify the deficiencies in the legislation. It also appears from the report that several agencies have alerted to the situation.

The transition of the vehicle fleet is absolutely fantastic; it is going very fast. The market has, in many respects, outpaced politics, both regarding the availability of cars and regarding charging stations, both public and private.

It is also about those who live in rental apartments. When the Tidö parties visited a municipal company's housing construction south of Stockholm, I asked where the tenants would charge their cars. They hadn't thought of that, said the representative for the housing company – one has to solve that yourself. In the municipal Gavlegårdarna in Gävle, which has 17,000 apartments, there is not a single charging station. How is one supposed to be able to live in a municipal housing company's property if one wants to drive an electric car but cannot charge their car?

When we visited the representative for public housing, Sabo, I asked the same question. I asked what policy, what guidelines, and what guidance they had for the municipal housing companies across the country. It turned out that they were not working that much on that issue. Then it becomes very difficult with the transition of the vehicle fleet that must take place. One must be able to charge one's car.

We recently had a seminar where we noted that some countries are now prohibiting the charging of electric cars at certain times due to electricity shortages. More charging stations for the people, quite simply!

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Lars Beckman for the remark.

This is an important issue. I myself sat in the Committee on Transport during the previous parliamentary term and worked very hard so that we could have more charging stations not only near home but also out in the countryside.

This is an important future issue for Sweden. I see now that even the Moderates and others think it is an important issue, which pleases me. Now I have extended my hand and said that we can work together here to facilitate. It concerns several things, and unfortunately, it also extends across several committees.

I live alone in a joint property where we are not allowed to build, and it is not because we do not have the possibility but because the energy company says that it is not permitted to build there - the entire infrastructure for electricity is to be rebuilt.

There are, therefore, several things here that we would gladly take care of and discuss further in order to reach a solution that means that people who live in rental apartments or housing cooperatives actually have the opportunity to charge their electric cars as close to home as possible.

I know that there are some property owners who have chosen not to have cars. There are those who are trying to investigate the possibilities of not having garages or parking without those who live there instead being free to choose to join car pools or other such things. I cannot answer that, because it is they who build, but I can promise that when we meet the different rental companies, I will find out how they think regarding this question so that we can take that with us.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that we have large, broad agreements. These are issues that actually should not be party-politically divisive.

The Tidö parties have addressed the charging station issue by stating that where the market does not exist and cannot come, one should help build out the infrastructure, and there are more proposals. Naturally, the electricity issue also comes into play here – that there is electricity available to charge the cars.

It is good that we can be constructive. We can regret that the previous government has been a bit slow on the ball, but it is positive that we might now be able to achieve a quickly expanded infrastructure. We saw, not least during the sports holiday weeks, how it could be almost chaos when people were going to charge their electric cars. People queued for hours to charge their electric car. It is completely unacceptable.

But it is also important that one can charge the electric car where one lives. If I live in the municipal housing company Gavlegårdarn, I have limited opportunity to charge my electric car because there are no charging posts. It becomes a bit inconvenient if I have to get to a charging station at Gävlebro - yes, you understand the problem. More charging posts for the people, quite simply!

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not consider that the previous government has been so slow on this issue, but on the contrary, I think that one has worked very hard to get more charging stations.

The problem, of course, for those who want to build in Stockholm is that one must have access to electricity and that everyone who would like to have an electric car in Stockholm cannot get it because the electricity is insufficient. We must therefore broaden the discussion. This is not just the Civil Affairs Committee's area of responsibility, but several committees would need to sit down and discuss how we could solve the infrastructure when it comes to charging stations and electric cars in the entire country.

It has also been a question of price. The previous government has spent many millions so that we should build more, but it has also been about innovations.

What I think may have been most problematic has been that all companies that want to build electric cars want to come with their own solutions. There, we must not only in Sweden but also in the EU ensure that regardless of which brand your car has, you should be able to charge with full power at the charging stations. Regardless of whether you are in Gävle at Lars Beckman's, in Örebro at mine, or on the coast in Spain, you must be able to charge with full power. We must work with the EU to reach these goals.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! A healthy housing market is a mix of different types of housing: rental apartments, condominiums, owner-occupied apartments, and villas in different locations and price categories. It increases the freedom of choice in housing and contributes to making the area and life there attractive.

It is particularly important in our suburbs today that the supply of housing types becomes more varied. It is too one-sided with the housing types, and by that I primarily mean rental apartments. If one wants to own their home in these areas, they need to move away from there, and that is not good.

Several of the proposals raised in the report regarding property law have good approaches, but they anticipate various investigations and preparatory works within the Government Offices and are therefore rejected. Therefore, I also move for approval of the proposal in the report.

One issue that is raised is leasehold land (tomträtt), which has been of great benefit so that more people can own their housing. For a multitude of housing cooperatives, thousands of them, this has been to their advantage. This is something that we in the Liberals encourage the government to continue working on. But better predictability is needed for those who live on leasehold land. One such thing could be to introduce an annual adjustment of the leasehold fees and also to be able to give the housing cooperatives the right to buy out the land from the municipalities. This is now becoming clearer and clearer as everything is pushed to the limit with high inflation and high interest rates at record levels.

The land lease system itself has over a hundred years behind it. Instead of buying the land, one could use the land from the municipality against an annual fee, a lease fee to the municipality which is based on the land value. But that is based on the land value being reasonable. The sharply rising land prices, especially in our larger cities, which are due to a shortage of land, risk resulting in sharply increased lease fees.

The Liberals and the bourgeois government commissioned an inquiry in 2011, which my Christian Democratic colleague also touched upon here. It concluded that an annual indexation could be a good solution. It could give housing cooperatives better predictability when it comes to planning their finances. Unfortunately, the inquiry was stopped in the bureaucratic drawer and has been there ever since.

We in the Liberals also see no inherent value in the municipalities having to own the land if it is not necessary. After ten years, it could be appropriate to be able to buy out the land from the municipality. The City of Stockholm has recently given leaseholders of multi-family dwellings the opportunity to buy out the land at 85 percent of the land assessment value. This is a good way for a housing cooperative to be able to better manage its finances.

During the last two parliamentary terms, not a finger has been lifted to help housing cooperatives that have this uncertainty in their costs. But given the previous government's view on owner-occupied housing, it is hardly surprising.

Now there is a liberal and bourgeois government that has this on its table. There are new opportunities to make improvements and provide security for many Swedes who live in a condominium on a leasehold. Therefore, this should not be preempted by any measure right now from the Riksdag.

Another thing I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, is charging points, which we have touched upon. Charging stations, if one wants to call it that, is perhaps more correct. Here we obviously have challenges with the electrification transition that our country is undergoing. And yes – if we highlight the previous government – some things have been done, but much more needs to be done. Much higher gears are needed to solve this electrification. And it is what I am convinced that the sitting government is prepared to do.

It is extremely positive that, in new construction, preparations are being made so that parking spaces can function with charging stations. Very many empty pipes are being laid right now, and that is good. For every parking space, a charging station should be able to be connected in new construction. That is very good. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of it not just being an empty pipe. It is also a matter that when a cable is drawn through the pipe, it must not be empty of power supply, but that is another debate.

Regarding the challenges facing the charging infrastructure, the authorities are on the ball and are working together with the market to see what regulatory changes may be needed, regardless of housing type.

Above all, this government is on the ball, as the Tidö Agreement clearly states that we are to focus on charging infrastructure where it is currently slow, for example in rural areas, where obstacles are to be removed to lower costs so that more charging stations can be established. This is a very clear wording in the Tidö Agreement. Therefore, I have great confidence in the sitting government and that they will prioritize this issue. It is important!

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the government's upcoming reforms for the housing market and leaseholds will be able to contribute to a more dynamic housing market where fewer people get stuck in exclusion and more can feel the sense of freedom and pride in moving into their first home, regardless of whether it is owned or rented. The housing shortage is not a law of nature but the result of something. It is the result of a deficient policy. Sweden needs a more liberal housing market and more housing with more market.

(Applause)

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, I must say that we as Social Democrats have nothing against property rights. Many of us Social Democrats own their houses. On the other hand, we have had a greater construction of rental apartments, as we have concentrated on that.

But that was not why I requested the floor, I intended to speak about charging stations. I also had a discussion with Member Lars Beckman about this. It is pleasing that the Liberals in government are taking on such an important point as the charging infrastructure. I heard Member Olofsgård say that it is now clear that one shall work with this.

Then I want to ask: What are the clear measures that the government is now coming forward with? I cannot read my way into this, but I would be very interested in hearing which reform measures the government is now going to drive forward. It would be interesting for us Social Democrats to see if this, in that case, is something that we can support or not.

What other concrete reforms does the government now want to push forward? It is interesting for us to see if we can help the government and be a support in this work, if more is to be built or if something else is to be done.

It is my two questions that I would like to have answers to.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Begic for the questions regarding charging infrastructure and other matters. But I want to point out that it is not a report from the Committee on Transport that is being debated, but the Committee on Civil Affairs' report on real estate law issues.

I want to refer again to the fact that the motions that have been submitted have a good approach, even those from the Socialdemokraterna, but that they anticipate the preparatory work that is currently ongoing in the government regarding the point in the Tidö Agreement that I highlighted. I still gave some credit to the fact that people were on their toes even from the S-government's side, but it needs to be stepped up and done more.

I ask to simply return to the specific reforms, Mr. Speaker. I myself worked within the housing industry during the last period before I entered the Riksdag and saw clear problems. One problem that one encounters is that there are not enough cables in the ground. I believe the member was touching on something similar. It is not possible to build charging stations because the electricity companies have not thought that through. This is something we could work on, so that one becomes more proactive and long-term when it comes to cable laying to properties. It becomes a new obstacle if one has to dig up the streets again to lay new cables. This needs to be solved more proactively.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that it is not the Committee on Transport but the Committee on Civil Affairs that is debating, and what I previously presented in the debate concerned exactly what we can do in the Committee on Civil Affairs' area regarding property law. It is about facilitating for rental housing, multi-family houses, and common property associations, and about the right to build. Today, there are many obstacles to that, which several housing companies and common property associations I have spoken with testify to, as I mentioned earlier. I myself live in such a common property association.

I hoped that Member Olofsgård would have an answer as to what could be done in our area. It could involve facilitating by changing laws regarding permits and construction. The energy companies can get clearer approaches regarding how they should position themselves. Another question is Lantmäteriet's price and the cost for a new facility for charging infrastructure. Today, it involves enormous sums of money, and there one could facilitate. I hope that it is such concrete proposals that the Member's government will present. It can help us ensure that Sweden moves towards a good future. This is important for the country. Innovations are also needed.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question. I absolutely ask the member to maintain hope and patience. The days that have passed since this government took office are not so many yet. I want to repeat that this is an issue that is truly being prepared. Hold on a little longer! We will return in a debate on concrete proposals when the government submits a proposition to the Riksdag. Then we can more clearly debate which proposals are involved and whether the Social Democrats also want to stand behind good solutions. I believe there is a broad consensus that measures need to be taken. But it is not enough to just talk. We must also do more.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In the debate, I would like to raise two areas regarding property law. One concerns high-voltage power lines that we run on land. The other concerns those homeowners who today do not own the land on which the residence stands and what consequences this leads to.

To begin with, it concerns future expanded high-voltage lines that are laid on the ground. Due to the large electricity shortage we have, there will be greater conditions for more high-voltage lines to be laid. This type of line encroachment, as it is expressed, where a high-voltage line is laid over a landowner's land, can lead to major consequences. These line corridors are very wide and can impair the landowner's conditions to plan their land. One loses the opportunity for timber production where the lines are laid, and there is an increased risk of storm damage.

When it comes to the conditions for landowners, it is referred to that one is waiting for the National Audit Office's review. But that does not actually prevent the government from starting the work now to provide better conditions for the landowners when land expropriation is carried out. We need to establish rules that provide conditions for more generous compensations to the landowners over whose land the high-voltage lines are drawn. We need increased annual compensations when it comes to costs, value increases, and the consumer price index. The three aspects need to be weighed when reviewing the conditions to provide better compensations to the landowners.

We need to safeguard property rights even when the future high-voltage lines are drawn across the land. Here, I can of course feel secure when we have the Liberals, Christian Democrats, and Moderates in the government, because I know that property rights are highly valued on their agenda. For that reason, I also feel secure that the future compensation levels for the landowners are being reviewed.

The second issue I want to raise is the leasehold system (tomträttssystemet), which means that smallhouse owners and also housing cooperative owners today have properties on land that they do not own themselves. Among other things, it means that we in Sweden today have 40,000 smallhouse owners who own houses on land that they do not own themselves.

The land lease institute was established in 1907. Municipalities leased out land for private construction of housing. This created conditions for private individuals to be able to build a home in a more economically favorable way without having to provide capital for a down payment to purchase the land. It thus created the possibility for more people to own a home at more reasonable prices. It was a very good system that was designed once upon a time. In 1953 it was reformed, which gave better conditions for the land lease. A new unlimited right of use was designed for the plot where the housing stood. It gave more secure conditions. Fundamentally, it was a good reform that allowed more people to own their home.

The problem today is that the municipalities, of course, have an interest in receiving compensation for the land that they lease out, if one puts it that way, from the homeowners who have their residence on the municipality's land. This stands against the interest of the private individuals who today are affected by unforeseen increased costs. Here, one should find a middle ground between the interests of the two actors.

The municipalities need to calculate in a more uniform way. There is a very large difference between the municipalities in how the system is designed. The system is unpredictable for those private individuals who have a house on land that they currently rent.

It also creates higher increases when the land value rises. The system makes it insecure and unattractive. A system that is fundamentally very positive and good has become a grinding problem and a concern among those property owners who today have a residence on a plot that they do not own themselves.

It pleases me to hear that among others the Christian Democrats, the Liberals and, as I understand it, also the Moderates have the attitude of looking at the system and creating better conditions, and the Christian Democrats hold the position of Minister for Housing.

It makes me as a Sweden Democrat feel secure when we drive these issues, something that we have also done for many years. We may be able to achieve a change for the first time. There is an investigation on the table that is ten years old. The Social Democrats have not done a thing to tackle the issue. We now have a government that makes me feel secure for the first time that there can be a change in the area.

It is fundamentally a good system that enables people to obtain their own housing with better economic conditions. We shall continue to have the system and develop it in such a way that we can enable it also in a positive and secure way in the future.

Mr. Speaker! With those words, for reasons of time-saving, I choose to move for approval of reservation 5.

(Applause)

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Roger Hedlund, for the speech!

It was mentioned a few times how one could do with the land lease (tomträtten). We have seen that the prices for land lease have increased very sharply. Some of us have had the luck to buy our plots when the municipalities offered them very cheaply a few years ago. But that was not why I requested the floor.

The land right for me [is] unasked for the question regarding the pre-emption act. There, the municipalities would be given the opportunity to strategically look at purchasing the land in order to ensure that the housing supply and companies flourish in the municipalities.

I think the question is closely associated with the land lease system. I heard nothing from Member Hedlund about how the Sweden Democrats view the pre-emption law and what is on its way in.

How do the Sweden Democrats stand on the question of the pre-emption law, where the municipalities would be given the opportunity to purchase strategically important land with priority?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Denis Begic, for your question!

It is a very interesting area that you touch upon regarding the right of first refusal. I can feel secure when I read what the committee says on this issue. Under certain conditions, one wants to give the municipality the possibility of a right of first refusal.

I think that is positive. It provides the opportunity to counteract, above all, crime. It provides opportunities to intervene and make pre-emptive purchases to counteract the establishment of criminal organizations and actors. It provides the opportunity that one perhaps lacks when it comes to the right of pre-emption.

I can state that for a very long time there has been a need to review the possibility of a right of first refusal for the municipalities. But it has not happened at all from the old government with the Social Democrats at the helm.

That leads me to ask why the Social Democrats are only now coming forward with the proposals so late. You have had the opportunity to implement this during your eight years in government.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Roger Hedlund, for the answer!

The Pre-emption Act was abolished in 2010, as the member knows. It takes a few years before one sees how it has been implemented. It takes a few years to see how the legislation has landed. Then one should investigate.

After pressure from many Social Democrats, the investigation began. It is to be completed this year. We have now seen in several parts of the country that the legislation does not work from the perspective that Member Hedlund mentions.

Organized crime exploits the law by purchasing strategic land from the municipalities. That is where criminality flourishes. It is exactly that which they want to get hold of.

That is why I asked the question: What is the position of the Sweden Democrats on a proposal for a law stating that the municipalities shall be given the opportunity to purchase land? Is it something that the Sweden Democrats consider good and important?

I still perceived from the previous post that the Sweden Democrats support the proposal that the municipalities should have the possibility to buy the land when the municipalities consider it strategically important. Is that, in that case, something that the Sweden Democrats will drive in the future?

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Denis Begic, for further questions on the subject!

I still thought I was quite clear that we from the Sweden Democrats see those opportunities positively. We know that there are large connections to organized crime. That simply means, in principle, an opportunity for the municipalities to, under certain conditions, step in and obtain a right of first refusal for land in the municipalities.

It is also that question that the special investigator from June 2022 has been given the opportunity to investigate. We will have to see exactly how that system can be structured based on what that investigation concludes.

So, in this negotiation, I can say that the Sweden Democrats are positive regarding all measures to counter organized crime. It is a heart issue for the Sweden Democrats.

We know that addressing the land issue is part of the things we can do in the Committee on Civil Affairs to truly counter the negative development that we have seen in recent years under the Social Democratic government.

It is a bit strange that one has not addressed that issue. It is part of several measures to counteract crime. One has had to evaluate the legislation over such a long period as the last twelve years from the Social Democrats' side before seeing the opportunity to step in and make certain restrictions.

It is about giving the municipality the possibility of a right of first refusal in order to counter organized crime. As I said, the Sweden Democrats view all opportunities to counter organized crime positively. Right of first refusal in certain forms could be a very good tool in that case.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is another report where the political differences are quite small. I therefore look forward to the major housing policy debate that we will have during the spring. I would, however, like to make a few points regarding certain parts of the report that are extra important for us in the Center Party.

I want to highlight the making available of open and, above all, free-of-charge geodata to construction and real estate companies. It is a fundamental prerequisite for an efficient community construction process.

I therefore hope that the government will return to the Riksdag as soon as possible with legislative proposals in accordance with the announcement that the Chamber decided on in the spring of 2021. There also seems to be a fairly broad consensus on the need for a review of Lantmäteriet.

We have also raised in the rostrum that the processing fees should be reviewed. It is therefore about the fee model, and that is something that has also been raised in the Riksrevisionen's report. There, it is written that the state interventions really need to be reviewed.

Centerpartiet has also raised the issue of the need for increased cooperation and an opportunity for others to take over parts of what are currently Lantmäteriet's areas of responsibility. It is about increased digitalization but also about the municipalities being given legal possibilities to together form a municipal land survey authority, which is not possible today.

The wind power investigation presents its proposal on March 31, and it could be quite interesting. There are several areas of conflict, depending somewhat on where the conclusions in the investigation land. I really look forward to reading the investigation and seeing how we together in this chamber can tackle the problems that exist surrounding the expansion of wind power today. This concerns the compensation models for landowners and the municipalities' role in this.

One thing that should be reviewed is today's contract forms, which should become more flexible and cover the landowner's real losses. There is also a need to review the compensation levels, which a colleague in the committee just raised here at the rostrum.

For the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 9 in the report, which concerns a review of Lantmäteriet.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today I would like to raise two proposals that I know will be important tools to increase the pace of the climate transition. They are tools that we truly need today.

It is about increasing renewable electricity production and increasing the possibility to expand charging infrastructure. I want to start again with the point about building charging infrastructure and charging possibilities within housing cooperatives.

We are currently experiencing an explosive sale of electric cars in Sweden. At the turn of the year, 56 percent of all new cars sold were rechargeable, and it is estimated as of today that we have over 450,000 rechargeable cars on our roads.

The charging points are popping up as densely as when the rain stands like poles in the ground. But there is, of course, an exception, and that is precisely among the joint property owners' associations. During my years as a municipal politician, I was often contacted by just these associations, which have simply given up when it comes to building charging posts on their properties. This is largely due to regulatory complications and to the fact that there is specific legislation for joint property owners' associations that complicates things when one is to build charging posts. It is therefore a very important task for us in the Committee on Civil Affairs to work on this.

These associations had problems with everything from regulatory complications and unclear processes to difficulties in knowing who was supposed to pay what. Sometimes they had also invested a lot of money but ultimately still could not continue to build their charging stations. There is much to be done in this area.

Most people who drive electric cars charge the car at home and would like to charge at night. It is obvious that we need to do our best to give the housing associations the same opportunities as apartment owners and those who live in villas to charge their cars.

My second point concerns wind power – also something that several have raised. Rural and sparsely populated municipalities are today struggling with the challenge of financing modern welfare and their social infrastructure for their inhabitants. The municipalities' finances are also crucial for investments and development in rural and sparsely populated areas.

At the same time, an energy transition is underway where we often lean on the countryside. I know that most Swedes are now aware of the importance of a robust and renewable electricity system with high flexibility and low costs.

We in Miljöpartiet want electricity production to contribute to local community development and that resources from electricity production should go to local communities and thereby contribute to strengthened welfare and better community services even in rural areas.

We want all of Sweden to be part of the energy transition and that the regions and municipalities that participate in the energy transition should also be able to be rewarded for it. Miljöpartiet has several proposals on this regarding wind power, including that neighbors should have the opportunity to become partial owners of wind turbines in the surrounding area. We also want a local electricity bonus where municipalities and regions receive payment for renewable electricity production in the area.

Our motion today is about giving neighbors the right to rent from the wind power companies where wind turbines are being built. We believe that it would increase fairness and also the acceptance for wind power being built where people live.

Right now, investigations are underway on how we should facilitate wind power. If I understand Lars Beckman correctly, we are quite in agreement on these issues: One should actually be able to favor those who are involved and contribute to the energy transition. I view the debate very positively, where it feels like at least the Moderaterna, and hopefully the entire government, stand behind both facilitating charging infrastructure for housing cooperatives and favoring those who contribute to wind power.

I will await the investigation on wind power, but I do not think there is any really good answer as to how we should simplify charging possibilities for joint property owners. I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 4.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just as I said in the debate with the Social Democrats, the previous government, in which the Green Party was included for a number of years, did far too little. The Swedish people bought electric cars at a very rapid pace, but the policy did not keep up.

For those who are curious about exactly what should be done, the report states what our authorities have said. I assume that the new government will now take action on these issues with force.

It is always welcome when Miljöpartiet speaks about their opinion that people should drive cars. I naturally welcome that.

When it comes to wind power, I am a bit curious. Katarina Luhr comes from the city of Stockholm, if I have understood the matter correctly. I am a bit curious about where the expansion of wind power will take place in the city of Stockholm. I believe that there are quite a few people who are curious about that.

I personally have great respect for the fact that all types of energy are needed. We need hydropower, we need nuclear power, we need predictable energy, and we need wind power. But when I say that, I also believe that one should have respect for the people who are affected by wind power. This naturally involves, on one hand, safeguarding the municipalities' veto so that local politicians can also decide, and on the other hand, safeguarding the households that are affected.

There are people who have, more or less, had their lives ruined because of noise levels, for example. Therefore, it is important that the person who experiences a significant intrusion into their residential and living environment receives compensation or restitution for it. But it is not certain that it will be enough. It could be that one has settled on the outskirts of Ljusdal Municipality because one wants to live close to nature. One wants to hear the wind and not the wind turbines. I think, therefore, that the issue is somewhat complicated. We are, however, in favor of all types of energy. All energy is needed, not least for the electric cars that are to be charged.

I am a bit curious: Where does Miljöpartiet believe wind power should be expanded in the city of Stockholm or, for that matter, in Stockholm County?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is an important issue being raised here. There are challenges with all types of power, actually, when it comes to where they should be built. It is very difficult to find a type of power - possibly with the exception of solar power, which can be used on roofs and which is not visible and does not disturb anyone - for which there are no problems when it comes to where the facilities should be located.

Regarding the city of Stockholm, we have actually looked into wind power. The city of Stockholm is very crowded; we are squeezed between infrastructure projects and housing, and we still want some open landscapes where people can exercise. We proposed a wind farm at Järvafältet, but it was stopped by the defense, who said that we were not allowed to have wind power there. We have also considered smaller wind turbines that, for example, can be placed on roofs so that it becomes roughly like solar power production. They have, however, not been efficient enough for an investment.

We have also looked from the City of Stockholm's side at investing in upcoming wind farms in the Stockholm region. But it is a bit the same thing: Then you are utilizing someone else's land.

The question is therefore not entirely simple. But I am convinced that there are plenty of good places to build wind power. For example, along major motorways, which are much noisier than the wind turbines themselves, I believe one could build much more wind power than today.

The big noise problem in the city of Stockholm today is actually the noise from traffic. That is the absolutely predominant noise issue we have. There we have much else to work on when it comes to a noise-free environment.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! This touches on much of the wind power debate: Wind power is welcome – but not here, because just here in Stockholm, it is not possible to build wind power. I have respect for that. I have respect for the fact that Miljöpartiet in the city of Stockholm is not planning large wind power parks, because you are now governing the city of Stockholm. But I have just as much respect for the municipal politicians in Hofors, who also do not want wind power. This is the problem when we are to find the balance in these systems.

Now Katarina Luhr might have to hold on with both hands, but I thought it was very good when a company came out and said: Why not an SMR reactor in Norra Djurgårdsstaden? At first, one jumped and thought: Oh dear, what were they thinking now? But it is of course important that energy production is close to the consumers, because otherwise we lose power when we have to transport electricity.

But as I said: We look forward to the upcoming investigations. I believe it is important to compensate the municipalities. I believe it is important to compensate those who are affected. But I also think it is important to safeguard the municipal veto, that is to say that those who are truly affected by the issues in question should have the opportunity to speak out, to speak up and to steer their local municipal and community planning.

Property Law

I also think it would be good if those who are now governing the city of Stockholm really work on the energy supply issue and identify large areas where wind farms can be established. I believe it would be good for credibility, if nothing else, and the energy is needed here in Stockholm.

So go out and fix areas for wind power! You do run the city of Stockholm.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, what shall I say? I can say that we have worked on the issue even within the City of Stockholm, and it was not the municipality that said no. It was the defense that said no to us being able to have wind power there.

I think one should have a good understanding that we cannot place facilities anywhere and in any way without having people's acceptance. The proposals we put forward are also about ensuring that one actually gets something back, that a municipality that has wind power also wins something from it, so that it is not just some company that gets the money that then goes towards energy production.

I believe that the proposals we are putting forward are proposals that should benefit wind power in several ways, and also benefit those who live in the parts of the country where much of the electricity we need in other places, where it is more difficult to produce, is manufactured and produced.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 21.)

Freedom of association

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