Property Law
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M (1) argues that the government is working to modernize Lantmäteriet for increased efficiency and legal certainty 1. V (2) wants municipalities to grant land with leasehold rights instead of sale and advocates for a new municipal right of first refusal 2. V (4, 6) believe that land as a speculative object drives up prices and criticize the market approach 3 4 5. SD (3, 5, 13) want a review of the leasehold system with ceiling amounts, right of first refusal, and a functioning rent-to-buy model to strengthen ownership rights 6 7. KD (7, 9, 11) want to protect ownership rights, advocate that more people should own their home through housing savings and starter loans 8 9 and argue that the market is best at building 8 10. KD (7) sympathizes with SD's desire for a review of the leasehold 8. S (12) wants society to own socially important buildings and wants a modern right of first refusal 11.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (13)
David Josefsson (M)
Mr. Speaker! When I was little, I had a luxury that few schoolchildren have today. I could walk to and from school myself. It was only a few hundred meters between the school and my childhood home, and the walking route was pastoral. It went across the cemetery, past the houses of the cantor, the church caretaker, and the priest, to then pass an oak grove and thereafter a gravel road home past the neighbor's sheep pasture.
In the mound lay a large rectangular hewn stone, and in it sat a pole of iron. It was the property boundary between two farms. It had lain there for as long as anyone could remember. I was already as a child fascinated by this iron pole and what it signified. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that the fascination has not diminished.
Now the offices have moved, the church warden has passed away and the parsonage is sold and no longer a parsonage. But the iron pole remains stubbornly in its stone block, like King Arthur's Excalibur which was driven into the stone by Merlin.
Mr. Speaker! The subject of today's debate is property law, and the iron pillar in the stone block embodies what property law is fundamentally about: the ownership right or the right of use to a property, apartment, or premises.
The authority responsible for the property division in Sweden is Lantmäteriet. It is an authority that even today drives stakes into the ground to define property boundaries, as the operations are not yet fully digitized.
Responsible for the property division is an extremely important task in social planning. Unfortunately, however, social development and technological development in many parts have outpaced the authority's methods of work and regulatory framework.
TV4 has, in a series of reports since the turn of the year, highlighted problems with Lantmäteriet. It concerns long processing times and unreasonable fees that individuals are forced to pay. Most recently yesterday, the TV channel was able to report on a family outside Norrtälje where a neighbor dispute and unclear messages from Lantmäteriet regarding a forgotten path has now resulted in over 1.5 million kronor in processing fees.
But the criticism is not just about individual cases in the media, Mr. Speaker. In an audit report from 2022, the Swedish National Audit Office stated that the state interventions within property formation have not been sufficiently effective. The Swedish National Audit Office stated that processing times are long, that the possibilities to recruit more land surveyors are not sufficient to reduce processing times, and that the fees at the agency have risen at an unreasonably high rate. The Swedish National Audit Office therefore stated that there was a great need for reform for the land survey activities in Sweden.
Despite the fact that the problems surrounding Lantmäteriet in Sweden have been increasing for several years, previous governments have not taken responsibility in the matter. This is clearly evident if one reads the Riksrevision's criticism.
Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government is now undertaking extensive work to reform the property division and Lantmäteriet in Sweden.
In May 2023, the government decided, through a supplementary directive, to task the special investigator on municipal pre-emption rights with also submitting proposals for constitutional amendments to enable property transfers through electronic transfer documents, in order, among other things, to facilitate the property registration process at Lantmäteriet.
In November 2023, the government decided that a special investigator shall examine the conditions for a system where property boundaries are primarily determined by digital coordinates and submit proposals on how such a system can be introduced. The purpose is to strengthen legal certainty and increase efficiency in property formation, exploitation, and other activities linked to properties by improving access to correct digital information about property boundaries.
Last spring, an inquiry was appointed to review the organization of the land survey authorities, including enabling more municipal land registries. The purpose is to improve the authorities' conditions to conduct an efficient, uniform, and legally secure land formation throughout the country.
The government has also tightened the regulatory letters for Lantmäteriet regarding internal control and governance, partly following the autumn revelation that confidential information could be downloaded from the agency's digital archives without a proper confidentiality assessment having been conducted. This is a problem that has persisted for several years, despite the agency's management being warned as early as 2018, according to Expressen's information.
The government has also announced that an independent investigator shall investigate what has happened and review how the work can be further strengthened at Lantmäteriet.
Mr. Speaker! When we Moderates sat in opposition during the last parliamentary term, we pointed out on several occasions that Lantmäteriet was not a functioning agency, among other things in interpellation debates in this chamber and in connection with the corresponding motion reports such as the one we are now debating. The then housing ministers and representatives for the government parties wanted to downplay the problems and argued that if the agency just became a little more digitized, all problems would be solved.
That is not how it turned out, Mr. Speaker, which the events of this autumn have shown with all clarity. I am therefore pleased that I can now report that the government is acting to modernize, streamline, and truly digitalize both the land registration and the land register. This creates both better-functioning authorities and a better social construction process, and it strengthens legal certainty and the service for individual citizens.
Mr. Speaker! The iron pin in the stone there in the oak log remains. But the work to streamline the land survey activities is now in full swing.
With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.
Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)
Mr. Speaker! Allow me, as chairman of the Committee on Civil Affairs, to begin my speech by saying a few words about the horrific massacre and terror that took place in Örebro last week.
My thoughts go to the victims of this horrific tragedy and their loved ones, as well as all of Örebro. It is an unfathomable sorrow and pain that strikes us all in Sweden today, but above all the families who have lost their loved ones. Many with an immigrant background are worried and afraid, as we have heard, after the attack in Örebro. I and many with me take their fear seriously. We understand it, and many of us share it.
No words can fully describe the loss. But we stand together in sorrow, in solidarity and in our struggle for a society where racism, hatred, threats and violence must never prevail. We must honor the victims by continuing to work against racism and for justice, safety and cohesion.
Let me now move on to the consideration, Property Law.
Mr. Speaker! Sweden continues to be characterized by a housing shortage and injustices, and more and more people are being pushed out from both the housing market and the labor market.
Housing construction is still at the same alarming low levels, and unemployment remains at record highs. Poverty and inequality continue to increase, and in the wake of the government's policy, it is becoming increasingly difficult for households with low incomes to enter the housing market. And for those who already have a home, it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep it.
Mr. Speaker! The poorest households live in rental apartments, and when property owners are allowed year after year to raise rents in a completely unreasonable way, fewer and fewer can afford the most basic things in life: food and a home. Over the last two years, housing costs have increased by 26 percent, while food prices have increased by 25 percent. People are struggling, but they can no longer manage.
The results were delivered the other day, in the form of the Enforcement Authority's latest statistics: During 2024, the Enforcement Authority carried out a total of 3,042 evictions. The number of evictions carried out has thus increased by 10 percent in one year and by a full 21 percent since 2022. These 3,042 evictions resulted in 711 children losing a home during 2024. That is 37 more children than last year, or a five percent increase.
All of this is figures. But of course, it is not about figures and percentages. It is about real children, whose lives have now been destroyed.
Mr. Speaker! There are no question marks as to why it is this way. The explanation is simply that fewer and fewer households can afford to pay their rent. It is the absolute most common reason for eviction, according to the Enforcement Authority.
The big question mark instead is: Why is politics doing nothing? Why is this allowed to happen year after year? It is politics that is the key to everyone's right to their own home.
Mr. Speaker! One of many important pieces of the puzzle in solving today's housing shortage is land policy. Through it, the municipality has a powerful tool to influence the conditions for new housing production.
For many municipalities, it may be tempting in the short term to get rid of land and sell to the highest bidder, but in the long term, it is advantageous for the municipalities to have control over as much land as possible. In municipalities that become dependent on individual landowners' goodwill to plan, housing construction risks becoming uneven, unpredictable, and insufficient. The availability of land, the price of land, and the conditions for land allocations are therefore important factors for municipal development and for meeting the need for housing. But it is also a prerequisite for carrying out other important community construction measures.
Mr. Speaker! The Left Party therefore considers that the starting point for the municipalities' land policy should be to refrain from selling land in the way that occurs today. Instead, one should choose, to a greater extent than today, to grant the land through leasehold.
Mr. Speaker! After the bourgeois government abolished the pre-emption law in 2010, the municipalities' opportunities to acquire attractive building land have diminished. The law meant, in short, that a municipality had a right of pre-emption to a property upon a transfer that fulfilled the criteria set by the law. The law was an important tool for the municipalities' physical planning and a support for more development agreements.
In today's report, a number of motions are addressed that in one way or another seek to have a new right of first refusal introduced. The purpose is to improve the municipalities' opportunities to plan for more housing, to secure socially important properties, and to strengthen the municipalities' tools in the fight against the constantly increasing housing segregation. The government's response to the motions is rather "good day, axe handle," and then they refer to the investigation report Digitala fastighetsköp & Förköpsrätt vid fastighetstransaktioner from last year.
In the preparatory works, it is proposed, among other things, that a state pre-emption law be introduced which gives the state a right of pre-emption in the purchase of properties for the defense, and that a municipal pre-emption law be introduced which gives the municipalities a right of pre-emption in the acquisition of properties to counter organized crime.
The investigation, however, contains no answers at all to what the members of parliament, including myself, are requesting, namely a municipal right of first refusal that can contribute to increased housing construction. The reason is that the government changed the directives for the investigation, which was initiated by the previous government. They simply removed the part of the directive that aimed to reduce the housing shortage.
Mr. Speaker! It is strange that this government, in everything it does, seems to work to increase the housing shortage rather than reduce it. I wonder what the driving force is. Do you not want people to have their own home? Are you afraid that the value of the own purchased home will fall if too much is built? What is the motive?
Mr. Speaker! The housing shortage has for a long time driven up land prices. This has resulted in developers who are granted access to planned land by the municipality, naturally with the aim of building on it, nevertheless having refrained from building. Instead, they have waited in the hope that land prices will continue to rise so that the return will be even higher. To hold onto buildable land in that way means, therefore, that it is not built upon, despite the enormous needs that exist today. I consider it completely unacceptable that the developers' delays and profit schemes are allowed to steer the housing supply, while there is a great housing shortage in parts of the country. It is not acceptable.
The building rights investigation from 2017 was tasked with reviewing the municipalities' possibilities to ensure that existing building rights are utilized. The background to the assignment was the great need to quickly produce housing. That need remains to this day. It was also one of the motives for the previous government when it commissioned an investigation which now results in something completely different; when the current government has had the chance to get its teeth into it. When the report Faster Housing Construction was presented in 2018, it contained a number of concrete proposals for an increased housing supply. Among other things, it was proposed that Boverket should be tasked with investigating the issue of introducing a municipal right of first refusal that facilitates housing construction in the municipalities. Boverket was to investigate a modern right of first refusal, which would also address the problems that existed in the previous law. Vänsterpartiet stands behind this, and I believe that the investigation's proposals should be implemented. To give the municipalities a sharper tool to increase the construction rate, the government should therefore immediately give an assignment to Boverket and thereafter return with a proposal for a new right of first refusal that can contribute to increasing construction.
Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! It was an interesting contribution as usual from the Left Party, which has claimed to sit in a coming government. Perhaps it is Malcolm Momodou Jallow who is the intended Minister for Housing. The Social Democrats usually give the post of Minister for Housing to a smaller party in the coalition.
It is quite frightening for me to hear submissions about wanting not only the possibility of pre-emption but also, as appears from the reservations, a ban for large landowners to buy more land, and that one wants forced sales of leased land. A combination of everything that the opposition proposes today, I would see as a direct death blow to the right of ownership.
What I particularly want to ask Malcolm Momodou Jallow about, and which is the reason I requested a reply, is his view on leasehold fees. He advocates for leaseholds to be used to a greater extent. But we have, during recent years, and even much earlier, seen major problems with leasehold fees. They are valued every ten years, which means that those who hold leaseholds receive enormous increases in leasehold fees. How does one want to solve this if one does not want to support the Sweden Democrats' reservation? In the reservation, a review of the system and the introduction of a right of first refusal is proposed. We also want a more modest system that can place a cap on how high the increases can be with a more normal development, so that it does not become a doubling of the value every ten years – and sometimes more than that.
Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.
I do not know if Mikael Eskilandersson listened to my speech. The main part of the speech was about the pre-emption act. We know that land is an important part of societal development. To be able to build, land is needed.
I have sat in the municipal council for Malmö, and at every meeting we sold land to private landowners. Despite the fact that the population increased and there was a great need to build housing and schools, we sold land at every meeting in the municipal council to private owners. They promised to build, but they did not build.
Why don't they build? Well, because the more the housing shortage increases, the higher the price of land becomes. Then people want land as a speculative object, in order to make money. I believe it is more important to discuss that question.
Mikael Eskilandersson supports private ownership to such an extent that the public good will not play any role. You are involved in governing this country. We have a housing shortage, yet we sell land to private owners who hold onto the land to drive up prices, to make money instead of building. I am happy to discuss that question. The main part of my speech was about exactly that.
Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I do not know if Malcolm Momodou Jallow misunderstood my question, but I did not hear any actual answer on how Vänsterpartiet views the leasehold system as it stands today. I also wonder why one does not support the Sverigedemokraternas reservation. Why do you not support a review of how the leasehold fees function, so that we can get a new calculation model and a ceiling for how high the fees or the increases can be?
This also affects public utilities, to the extent that they have built on leasehold land. If one now wants to develop the system of building on leasehold land, one should be interested in making the leasehold system function more smoothly and less problematically. As it is now, we see examples of housing cooperatives that get an increase in value from 5 million to perhaps 10-12 million in one stroke, from one year to the next. Suddenly they get a completely different basis for calculation and doubled rent or more than so.
People are worried that people have difficulty paying the rent. But it is those who live on leasehold land who are very vulnerable to sudden, large increases. The limitation that exists in the legislation, which says that the value shall be set every tenth year and apply for ten years forward, gives the negative effect that every tenth year becomes a doubling of the base value and suddenly a doubling of the rent for the coming ten years. It is practically impossible to prepare for that as a leaseholder. No one can predict how the development will look over time. In that case, few would have agreed to sign these leasehold agreements from the beginning.
Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)
Mr. Speaker! I believe that Mikael Eskilandersson knows why Vänsterpartiet does not support the Sverigedemokraterna proposal. We are not part of the Tidö group. Sverigedemokraterna's policy is based on an ideology that is the complete opposite of what I and Vänsterpartiet stand for.
Regarding the specific question that Mikael Eskilandersson is talking about, he wants to know what policy we have and where we stand. We have motions. Mikael Eskilandersson can read them to find out where we stand on the issue.
But why we do not support SD's policy I believe is generally known. An anti-racist party cannot support a racist party's proposals. It is not possible. We pursue our issues and the proposals that we put forward and support. But we can never be on the same side as the Sweden Democrats. It is not possible. If the Sweden Democrats and Mikael Eskilandersson want to know where we stand on the issue, they can simply read about our policy.
What I think is important in this debate is that housing construction in municipalities that become dependent on the goodwill of individual landowners to plan risks becoming uneven, unpredictable and insufficient, as I said in my speech. The availability of land, the price of land and the conditions for land allocations are therefore important factors for municipal development and for the possibility of meeting the need for housing. But they are also prerequisites for carrying out other important community construction measures.
According to us, the starting point for the municipalities' land policy should be to refrain from selling land as is done today. Instead, one should choose to lease the land with ground lease (tomträtt) to a greater extent than today. It is our policy and something that we are driving.
Larry Söder (KD)
Mr. Speaker! We are now debating a question that affects very many in Sweden: the right to our property and the importance of property rights in society.
Property rights are a fundamental pillar in a secure and well-functioning society. For us Christian Democrats, it is clear that this right must be protected and respected. We see ownership rights as a central part of the freedom and security in our country. When people own their land or their home, stability, long-term perspective, and responsibility are created. Therefore, we oppose proposals that weaken or threaten the individual's right to own and use their property.
When property rights are weakened, it can lead to reduced investments in real estate, agriculture, and business, or for that matter, in citizens' properties. Companies and private individuals hesitate to develop their property if they cannot be certain of retaining the fruits of their investment. This hampers both growth and innovation and creates anxiety among citizens.
At the same time, we believe that property rights must be balanced with a responsibility towards society. Land use shall take place in a sustainable manner, and the state shall not unnecessarily interfere in how private individuals or companies manage their property.
We want to strengthen the opportunities for more people to own their home. Seven out of ten want to own their own home and create a freedom and stability in their everyday lives that other forms of housing cannot create. By simplifying building regulations, lowering costs for construction, and creating more small house areas, we can give more people the chance to build their future on a secure foundation.
An important part of this is Lantmäteriets activities regarding the subdivision of plots and the like. This must function in an efficient manner and at costs that do not deter people from using Lantmäteriets services. As we all know, it is perhaps not quite as we wish today. The processing times are long, the costs are expensive, and the breakdown of the costs is large. Obviously, none of us are happy about that.
I still believe that digitalization is part of the solution to this. The Government is working on digitalization. But one also needs to streamline and reform the operations so that it becomes as efficient and good as possible.
The Christian Democrats stand for a policy where property rights are respected, where freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, and where those who own their home also get to retain power over the home. That is how we build a secure, stable and sustainable society.
The Christian Democrats are critical of the leasehold system and believe that it creates uncertainty for private individuals. Since leasehold fees are increased at regular intervals, often significantly, an economic uncertainty is created for households. This can lead to sudden increases in housing costs.
We Christian Democrats can sympathize with SD's motion for a review of the leasehold system, with the aim that it should become more predictable regarding cost increases but also the right to buy out the leasehold itself. We believe that the leasehold can be a good instrument in the future if it is reformed, but not as it is today.
The Christian Democrats want to facilitate in every way to promote ownership and consider it economically, ecologically, and socially best for the individual. But land lease (tomträtten) can be a good complement if the conditions are modernized, so that it becomes more predictable and so that buyouts are regulated.
It is always exciting to enter the debate a bit later, especially after the Left Party. I perceived it as the Left Party saying from the rostrum that property owners are allowed to raise rents to unreasonable prices for the tenants.
As far as I know, we have a system in Sweden where Hyresgästföreningen is essentially the one that negotiates with the property owners regarding the rents. However, I can agree with Vänsterpartiet on one thing; the rents are such that we are not getting new rental apartments in Sweden. There are no property owners who can build new rental apartments today, because they cannot finance the operations with the rents that are actually set.
Then I perceived that Vänsterpartiet said in this way: In the long term, it is best that the municipalities own as much land as possible and refrain from selling land. Actually, one becomes quite confounded - why would that be best? Are the property owners and the construction industry not best at building properties? The municipalities should ensure that there are homes, shouldn't they?
But a little later in the speech, I understood that it was land lease rights the member was after; one should be able to make money from the tenants. Between 2018 and 2022, the land lease revenues for Malmö municipality increased by 40 million - 30 percent. I do not think it is possible to find so many private property owners who managed to scrape together a 30 percent increase on those four years when it comes to rental income.
I am not so sure that the municipalities are always the best landlords. I believe that the private market can also handle this. I also believe that one should let the market be the market. The municipality is best at managing school, healthcare and elderly care, not housing.
Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)
Mr. Speaker! We shall let the market be the market, says Larry Söder. But we know where market fundamentalism has led this country. We have no housing for the people. There is overcrowding. Pensioners cannot even pay their rents. It is chaos because of the market, which Larry Söder stands here and talks about as if it were the best thing. The market does not solve this. It is often said that madness is to continue doing the same thing and expect a different result. It will not be different. The market does not solve the problem. Sweden is significantly worse on all fronts today than it has been in a long time. Poverty is increasing, Larry. Household finances are at rock bottom. Last week, the Enforcement Authority released its report and said that we have never had so many people in debt in this country as today. The people in debt in Sweden are more than the inhabitants of my municipality, Malmö. Still, Larry Söder says that the market is what we should focus on.
Larry Söder also mentioned that work is being done to promote property rights and for more people to own homes - when people are evicted because they cannot even afford to pay a bill of 60 kronor. In 2024, 3,042 evictions occurred. How are those people who cannot even afford to buy food supposed to be able to buy an apartment or villa that costs several million? I just want to understand it.
Larry Söder (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Malcolm Momodou Jallow did not listen to what I said in my speech at all. I spoke about the land lease fees in Malmö stad, where Malcolm Momodou Jallow has sat in the municipal council. Between 2018 and 2022, these revenues to the municipality were increased by 40 million kronor - 30 percent. We know who pays this. It is the citizens in Malmö stad. They may have to sell their condominium because they cannot afford Malmö stad's increase.
I can see that we need to build more housing. But I am not sure that Malmö stad is the best at managing people's money. I believe that the individual is. If you raise the ground lease fees by 30 percent, you have done them a disservice, because those people will not be able to do anything else. They cannot afford anything else. Those people must find a rental apartment instead – which does not exist, because you do not raise the rents enough to be able to finance a new property.
Answer this, Malcolm Momodou Jallow! Why is Malmö city raising the leasehold fees by 30 percent over four years? Then they expect someone else to want to build any property there. I do not think Malmö city should own any land at all. It might be better if the market does it.
(TALMANNEN: I would like to remind that this debate is not taking place in Malmö municipal council.)
Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)
Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that we are talking about Malmö. It is not often that we focus on cities other than Stockholm, so that is good.
Mr. Speaker! I asked a very simple question, but I have not heard any answer. Larry Söder and his party talk all the time about people owning their homes. He began his speech by saying that seven out of ten want to own. Then I say to Larry Söder: People are poorer today than they have been in a long time. Families with children are evicted from their homes because they have a debt of 60 kronor that they cannot pay. They cannot keep up. When it is winter, people cannot buy clothes for their children. Food prices have gone up. They cannot afford to buy food.
Then Larry Söder stands and says to those very families: You shall buy a home! You shall buy a villa! They do not even have the means to pay their rent as it is today, but Larry Söder thinks they should buy a home. It is the market that Larry Söder stands for. I can speak about what the market has done. You stand for a market fundamentalism that only benefits the rich, Larry Söder. You implement tax cuts for the richest in this country. The richest shall get more money. At the same time as you give more money to the rich through tax cuts, you remove subsidies. You remove housing subsidies that go to families with children. How can you think that is reasonable? You give 700 spänn to families with children so that they can manage to pay their rent. But then you remove it. You phase it out, but you give several thousand to rich people who can afford it, to billionaires. It doesn't work, but that is such market thinking. You have a policy that is capitalist and benefits the rich, often at the expense of the poor.
Again: How are these poor people supposed to afford to buy a home?
Larry Söder (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Even if the debate is not taking place in Malmö municipal council, Malmö is a part of Sweden.
(MALCOLM MOMODOU JALLOW (V): Thank you!)
I expect that Malmö can also be discussed in the speaker's chairs.
Yes, we want more people to own their own home, including residents of Malmö. That is why we fight for people to have housing savings. That is also why we fight for people to have starter loans. Why do we want this? Well, we believe that in the long term you actually benefit from it financially as a person. It is then you yourself who get to share in the value development, not another property owner. When you succeed in paying off a part of your loan, you get lower costs – not higher costs that a property owner imposes on you. You get a more secure life. You have your own home. You decide for yourself how you manage it.
We believe that this is good for the individual Swede who has the opportunity for it. We want to make it so that more can take that step - through housing cooperatives, through start loans and in other ways. If this is implemented, we believe that there will actually be rental apartments that become available for people who want to live in such. It may not be that we should only build rental apartments. If we build small houses and condominiums, rental apartments will become available for those who want to live there and who do not want to own their own home. Yes, there are people who do not want that. They want service. They want someone to come and clean their stairs and mow their lawn. They want that opportunity, and then they should be able to have it in Sweden. It is a free choice. But we cannot exclude people from an opportunity to live most economically, ecologically and socially by saying: No, you have no money in the bank, so you can do nothing. We must instead facilitate for them. That is our policy.
The municipality is not best at managing your housing. You are the one who is. That is Christian Democratic policy.
Jennie Nilsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Denis Begic should actually have participated in this debate on behalf of the Social Democrats. Denis Begic, who is from Örebro, has however chosen instead to attend a funeral due to the terrible events that occurred in Örebro last week. This is obviously completely right and reasonable. Therefore, I am replacing him in the debate.
I want to start by reminding what the debate is about. A great deal of what has been said by previous speakers has absolutely been interesting and stimulating, but it has been about quite little of the actual matter.
We Social Democrats consider that a reasonable basic principle is that society should own and have control over socially important buildings and areas. This can include prisons, town halls, hospitals, and so on.
Furthermore, there is a need for public ownership with regard to security and defense policy interests. It is therefore necessary to have a modern pre-emption law that gives municipalities, regions and the state opportunities to act for our common good.
The previous pre-emption law expired in 2010. There were flaws in that law. We Social Democrats therefore wanted to make necessary changes to the law in accordance with the proposals that Boverket and several referral bodies had submitted. But the Moderate-led Alliance government chose instead to completely abolish the law.
Since then, there have been many situations where a pre-emption law has been needed. In 2022, the then Social Democratic government therefore appointed an inquiry with a mandate to submit proposals for a new and modern pre-emption law. The current Tidö government chose to intervene and make changes. New directives were given where the municipal pre-emption grounds that existed in the original directive were completely removed. The investigation period was also extended. The result of this is that we have lost both the municipal perspective and valuable time in an issue that many have testified is urgent to resolve in order to get a new law in place.
The investigation submitted the report Digital property purchases & Pre-emptive rights in property transactions (SOU 2024:38) in May 2024. In the report, the investigation proposes a state and a municipal pre-emptive right law.
The proposed laws shall give the state a right of first refusal for the acquisition of properties for defense, and the municipalities shall have a right of first refusal for the acquisition of properties to counter organized crime.
In order for socially important properties to be secured, we Social Democrats believe that a modern regulation of pre-emption in property transactions needs to be designed so that both the municipalities and regions as well as the state are given the opportunity to acquire key properties and thereby secure strategically important social and defense interests.
In our opinion, the government should promptly submit proposals for a new legislative regulation on the right of first refusal with such an orientation. I therefore move for approval of reservation 8.
This report also includes a number of motions and proposals linked to Lantmäteriet and its operations. Here too, several speakers before me have spoken about how important it is to have a functioning Lantmäteriet. It is necessary to reduce processing times and to digitalize and streamline this authority.
I note, however, that none of the previous speakers have raised the problems that Lantmäteriet has right now, i.e., the most acute concerns for Lantmäteriet and for everyone who is dependent on Lantmäteriet's services.
In March last year, the current government received information that there were security flaws in Lantmäteriet's services which meant that unauthorized persons could extract security-classified information directly from the digital registers. This resulted in the digital registers being emergency-closed in May. But the government's response to this was initially absolutely nothing.
Only after a fairly extensive media review of this during the autumn did they choose, late in the autumn, to dismiss the gd:n for Lantmäteriet. This is, to this point, practically the only measure the government has taken, despite the fact that the closed digital registers entail major consequences for construction and social development. If one goes to Lantmäteriet's website, one can observe that there are over 10,000 requests in the queue today – and the government and the responsible minister are doing practically nothing.
It is clear that it is easy to agree that much needs to be done regarding Lantmäteriet and its efficiency. But one will not be able to do anything of what has been spoken about here in the speaker's chair earlier today if one does not first resolve the acute situation.
I hope and believe that we will soon receive word on whether Lantmäteriet receives the money that has been demanded to be able to employ a large number of additional employees to manually handle the services that were previously handled digitally, and that we see that we have a government and a minister who takes their responsibility in this very important issue.
Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report 8 Property Law, a so-called collective report where motion proposals concerning property law are handled.
I want to assert that one can see a very clear division in the report between the proposals coming from the Sweden Democrats and the proposals coming from the opposition. While the Sweden Democrats' reservations primarily concern strengthening ownership rights, improving for property owners and increasing private ownership, the opposition shows why it is so difficult for the parties in the Riksdag to find common ground on the housing area, as they in their reservations want to go in the exact opposite direction.
Vänsterpartiet wants to counter high concentration of land ownership and force private landowners to sell parts of their land to tenants. They also speak of a direct ban for larger actors to acquire agricultural properties so that the properties shall be "small and medium-sized".
A medium-sized property in Sweden covers between 40 and 50 hectares. It is not easy to be a farmer if one is to follow the Left Party's policy. I recommend that everyone read their reservations in this report to see what they actually want with their policy.
Miljöpartiet wants to release properties with abandoned residential buildings for sale, and the Socialdemokrater want the municipalities to have back the previously heavily criticized pre-emption law, where properties could be purchased arbitrarily by the municipalities during a change of ownership.
It was something that really complicated generational successions—that an intended transfer of the property to the next generation was suddenly exploited as a way for the municipality to acquire cheap land or cheap properties. This is what they want to do from the Social Democrats' side in a situation where more than one in three farmers is over 65 years old and the need for rejuvenation is enormous. In that case, they want to make it difficult to pass on the property within the family.
I find it very difficult to see that any of the proposals that the opposition is highlighting today are something that we actually want to agree on or discuss further. What David Josefsson from Moderaterna and Larry Söder from Kristdemokraterna highlighted was rather the path for property rights that I desire.
To the proposals raised earlier today, I would like to bring forward SD's proposals from our committee motions, which are also being handled today. Even though we Sweden Democrats, unlike the Social Democrats, have many proposals for changes within the field of property law and several reservations to discuss, I will highlight one issue in particular.
Sweden has a system for what is called ground lease fees (tomträttsavgälder). The system of ground leases has for many years created conditions for people to live and reside in a place without having to buy and own the land. It is fundamentally a system that makes it easier to make the calculations work, especially where the land is expensive. Instead of buying the plot, the homeowner receives a right to the plot, a so-called ground lease (tomträtt). Through this, the cost is lowered initially. Instead, a kind of rent for the land is charged over time, a lease fee (avgäld).
Chapter 13, Section 10 of the Land Code states: "The payments shall be made at an unchanged amount." It also states that it shall do so over a period of at least ten years. This, however, complicates things. Even though the intent of the legislation has been to prevent sudden increases, it has turned out that the law does not provide any particularly good protection for the homeowner when the land price has risen and become much higher than anyone could have predicted.
We face a reality where land assessment values are rising and have risen very sharply. Consequently, ground lease fees have been able to be raised very sharply, which has affected homeowners regardless of whether it concerns a condominium or a private villa.
The examples of unreasonable changes where the value has more than doubled from one valuation to another are unfortunately many. As an example, the housing cooperative in the Stockholm area can be mentioned, which saw its land value change from 5.6 million to 12.2 million kronor in 2019. It is thus more than a doubling that is suddenly to be introduced, and suddenly one is to pay rent according to it.
The development of the value of plots in attractive locations is impossible to predict for someone who purchases a condominium or a villa. For the individual homeowner, this leads to an anxiety that counteracts the entire idea behind the ground lease.
When the possibility of a buyout is also limited and the unpredictability is great, an insecurity is created that makes the leasehold more of a white elephant that one does not want to be stuck with.
At the same time, there are positive aspects to leasehold (tomträtt). The system of leaseholds has contributed to significantly more households having the economic opportunity to buy their own home, even if on someone else's land. Leasehold has reduced costs initially and made owned housing possible for more people. It has sometimes even been a prerequisite for housing to be able to be built and sold on expensive plots.
To completely abolish the leasehold system is, according to us Sverigedemokrater, to go a bit too far. The key instead is to modernize the regulatory framework and make it more transparent and predictable for both municipalities and individual residents.
The land lease and leasehold inquiry presented its proposal in 2012, and it is still being prepared within the Government Offices. However, the proposal does not provide the conditions and changes that we Sverigedemokrater demand. We believe that instead, a new review of the land lease system is needed, which aims at today's challenges and housing needs. The previous inquiry also completely lacked a proposal for a clear right of purchase for the land lease holder, something that should be a matter of course where the municipality and the public are the owners.
The Sweden Democrats want a new regulatory framework, and that is why we want a new investigation and review of the area. In such a review, we primarily want to see three things.
We want to see a new calculation model for ground rent fees that better reflects today's economic reality and which ensures that these excessively sudden fee increases every ten years are avoided.
We want to see a cap on either the entire fees or on the increases that occur to ensure that no unreasonable costs suddenly arise for households.
We want a clear right of purchase with a reasonable pricing, so that those who want to own their land are given a real opportunity to do so. There shall also be a functioning lease-to-purchase model for a more reasonable transfer of value over time.
These measures will create increased security for the country's homeowners and contribute to a housing system that inspires long-term investments and stability in the housing market.
We Sweden Democrats would like the municipalities to be helpful already now in developing and implementing lease-purchase models, where it is possible to have such for leaseholds. In this way, the ownership of houses and land can be linked. At the same time, we preserve a system that for many is a prerequisite for being able to live and build in areas with high land prices.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: We Sweden Democrats stand by all our reservations, but in order to shorten the time during the voting, I move for approval of only reservation 1 – the reservation that addresses the important issue of leasehold rights.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.