Property Law

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating property law today. This is an area that affects the conditions for housing construction in Sweden.

Owning one's own home is sometimes difficult given the thresholds that exist in the form of high down payments. It is also about the possibility of paying off loans and so on. It is expensive today to enter the Swedish housing market, regardless of whether one buys a house or whether one buys a condominium.

But the opportunity for more people to own their home is a positive thing, because one takes greater care of one's home when one owns it. Such a home also provides very many opportunities. It provides freedoms that one cannot get in other forms of housing. So that is perhaps especially the case when it comes to villa ownership. It is also a pleasant form of housing. We naturally want to create conditions for more people to have the opportunity to own their home.

There has long been a system that has made it possible for people to own their house but not the plot. That possibility would need to be developed to create better conditions for the system to be maintained.

It is called a leasehold system today, where one has a specific right of use to a real property, i.e., land. This right of use has the consequence that one pays a fee – a leasehold fee – to the property owner who owns the plot. You can, in simplified terms, call the leasehold fees a rent. The fees remain unchanged for between three and ten years, depending on which form of housing it is.

Those who defend the current arrangement in the leasehold system argue that a change and improvement for those who have a leasehold would create worse conditions for the municipality to receive income. But it has been shown that land prices have increased sharply. This has caused the ground rents to increase. The effect has thus been higher rents, if one puts it that way. With the current system and increased land prices, the entire purpose of the system is therefore being counteracted. One also departs from the original idea – to enable more people to own their home without having to provide a down payment or pay for the land.

This is something that needs to be reviewed. For condominiums, fees have multiplied many times over. Likewise, many with villas have been exposed to the downsides of the system.

It is impossible today to predict what costs the system entails because one does not know what the development for land prices looks like. This creates an anxiety and an unpredictability in the entire system. Furthermore, it turns out that the municipalities calculate differently regarding the leasehold system. A leasehold thus becomes unattractive. Many are reluctant to hold a leasehold under these conditions. One does not want to hold a leasehold given that one cannot oversee the consequences.

The solution is to modernize the regulatory framework and make it more predictable. A new investigation in the area would be needed, where a review is conducted based on today's needs. It is about a new calculation model for these ground lease fees to avoid sudden fee increases and about starting from today's economic reality.

Possibly a cap could be introduced for the entire fees or for the increase of the fees. It could involve a right of purchase with reasonable pricing and a hire-purchase model. Hire-purchase is admittedly possible today, but it could be linked in a good way to a future right of purchase.

A positive consequence of reviewing the system again with a new investigation is that we can secure long-term investments and create stability in the housing market. We need to maintain a fundamentally good system so that more people can build and live even in areas with high prices. More people should be able to acquire a house or a condominium even under tougher economic conditions.

The land lease and leasehold inquiry from 2012 is still being prepared in the Government Offices. We need to accelerate this work.

With this, I support the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Malcolm Momodou Jallow (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are to debate property law. Let me be crystal clear, however: It is not possible to speak of property law in Sweden without describing how the very foundation of society is beginning to crack. How are we to talk about land, housing, and security when the security of thousands of families has already been snatched away? How are we to speak of law and order when the government itself creates chaos? How are we to discuss nation-building when the government instead devotes itself to demolishing it?

Sweden is in the midst of an acute, politically created crisis. It is not a natural disaster or a matter of chance, but a politically created crisis with the Tidö and SD government as architects. It is a crisis where people who have done everything right are cast out and deported, a crisis where families are torn apart, a crisis where hatred, racism, and Islamophobia are normalized from the highest levels. It is a crisis where poverty has doubled since 2021, with a historically high unemployment rate and the lowest growth in the entire EU, a crisis where the government points fingers at everyone else to hide that their own policy is a monumental failure.

Madam Speaker! We have a crisis where an SD-driven youth organization openly wants to create a militia similar to ICE in the USA, a masked death squad on Swedish soil that is to hunt immigrants. It is an idea directly taken from Trump's humiliation and brutality. We have proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years and put small children in prison. We have a paralyzed climate transition and a level of polarization that we have not seen in modern times.

In the midst of all this, a case from my hometown Malmö came along that shook me to the core: Raif, four years old, a small child with autism who still uses diapers, who cannot speak, who needs closeness, support, structure, and security, is now, according to the Tidö government's policy, to be deported from Sweden without his family.

This is not leadership. This is a breakdown.

This, Madam Speaker, is the result of a government that would rather point out immigrants, Muslims and the working class as enemies than solve problems. It is a government that replaces responsibility with scapegoats, a government that does not build but tears down.

Madam Speaker! In this context, in this Sweden, we shall today speak about property law. But how is anyone to believe in the government's property policy when their social policy has already collapsed? That is precisely why property law is not a technical side issue today, but a symbol of the same catastrophic political course where the market is allowed to run wild and people pay the price.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in the middle of a housing crisis – not a future or theoretical crisis, but an ongoing crisis that hits ordinary people here and now. The housing shortage persists. Housing construction remains far too low, and the consequences are brutal.

More and more people are being pushed out of the housing market. More and more households are unable to cover their housing costs. For low-income earners, the situation is directly unsustainable. This is neither a coincidence nor a law of nature, but the result of political decisions and political negligence.

Madam Speaker! Those hit hardest are those who live in rented apartments – those who already have the smallest margins and who are brought to their knees by the entire crisis when rents spiral out of control. Year after year, rents are raised. Year after year, households are squeezed harder. Eventually, it is no longer possible.

We now see the results in black and white: During 2024, over 3,000 people were evicted. It is a sharp increase, and it is no coincidence. 711 children lost their homes. In just the first half of 2025, an additional 422 children were evicted.

We are talking about children who have been torn from their everyday lives, from their rooms, from their security. These are not figures – these are shattered childhoods, lost security and political failures – with names, faces and life stories.

When the Enforcement Authority says that the most common reason is that people cannot afford to pay the rent, we are not talking about negligence, Madam Speaker, but rather we are talking about poverty – in one of the world's richest countries.

The questions we must ask are: Why does the government let this continue? Why is nothing being done? Why is it accepted that children are evicted, while the number of billionaires increases? The only answer that remains is that they prioritize the market's values over people's dignity.

Madam Speaker! Let us talk about land policy, one of the tools that can most concretely change housing policy. Today, municipalities are enticed to sell land to the highest bidder because it provides quick money. My home municipality, Malmö, does exactly this and has done so for some time. In the long term, however, it is devastating, because when municipalities lose control over the land, they also lose control over the housing supply. Construction becomes erratic, unplanned, and insufficient. Speculation takes over, and the children pay the price.

Vänsterpartiet is crystal clear, Madam Speaker: Municipalities shall not sell off land. They shall own it and lease it out with ground lease. That is how you create stability, long-term perspective, and social sustainability.

Madam Speaker! The situation worsened significantly when the bourgeois government abolished the right of first refusal in 2010. It was not perfect, but it gave the municipalities tools to purchase land when it was needed for community development.

Since then, at least two government inquiries have recommended a new pre-emption law, and in 2022 it was included in the directives for a new inquiry. How did this government respond? Yes, by changing the focus and erasing everything that concerned the housing shortage. They responded by giving the inquiry a new focus, and today they refer us motioners here in the Riksdag to an inquiry that has deliberately been cleared of everything concerning the housing shortage.

The directives were changed. The ambitions were scrapped. The housing issue was sacrificed. It is difficult to interpret this as anything other than the government not wanting to solve the housing crisis.

One must ask oneself what the government is afraid of. Is one afraid that housing prices will fall? Or is it simply that the value of properties is more important to this government than people's right to a secure home?

Madam Speaker! The housing shortage is driving up land prices and creating room for speculation. Developers who have been granted planned land let it sit for years to maximize their profits. In the meantime, the housing queues grow. In the meantime, children are evicted. In the meantime, people lose their security.

This is completely unacceptable. It is a politically permitted speculation economy at the expense of people.

Already in 2018, the investigation "A faster housing construction" proposed that Boverket should be commissioned to develop a modern municipal pre-emption law. That proposal is still on the table. The need is still acute. If the government really wants to contribute to reducing the housing shortage, it is high time to commission Boverket to develop a modern municipal pre-emption law with a focus on housing construction.

Madam Speaker! The government faces a choice: the market or the people. Vänsterpartiet has already made its choice. We choose people. We choose dignity. We choose security. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 5.

The government can continue to talk while children are evicted. The government can continue to blame everyone else while families are torn apart. The government can continue to normalize hate, racism, Islamophobia and polarization. But we will never accept a Sweden where the market rules and people fall. Never! In September, it is time to change the government.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! When the Moderate-led government took office in 2022, it did not come to a set table. Sweden was poorly prepared in a serious security policy situation. Insecurity was spreading, and inflation was approaching double digits. Food prices had become a topic around the kitchen tables. It was not strange that the Tidö parties received a clear mandate from the voters to get Sweden in order.

Madam Speaker! Lantmäteriet plays a crucial role for functional urban planning. Lantmäteriet was, however, one of the agencies that the previous decade had struggled with major problems and a lack of political governance. Processing times had skyrocketed while fees increased. This was noted, among other things, by the Swedish National Audit Office in a report in 2022. Two years ago, a major security breach was also revealed at Lantmäteriet. Documents had been handed out without security clearance. This was first noted in 2018, but the government at that time was unable to act.

Within the scope of this committee, property law, one can calmly state that the task this mandate period has been to get Lantmäteriet in order, Madam Speaker. The Moderate-led government is therefore now undertaking extensive work to reform both the land consolidation process and Lantmäteriet in Sweden, all with the aim of making it safer, more secure, and more efficient. We are also beginning to see results. In recent years, processing times have decreased for Lantmäteriet in most categories of cases. Much remains to be done, however. It is also why we from the Tidö parties have allocated an additional 62 million kronor to Lantmäteriet just this year. In total, it is 963 million kronor.

Madam Speaker! In order to continue streamlining and strengthening the work of Lantmäteriet, the government has announced that three propositions will be submitted shortly, providing the agency with new tools and tasks.

The first bill concerns stricter requirements for identity in land registration and tightenings of the housing cooperation act. The requirements for providing identity information in land registration applications are proposed to be tightened. The person who acquires a property shall in the future always provide a personal identity number, coordination number, or organization number. The purpose is to obtain better control over who owns a property. Increased requirements for identity information will, among other things, contribute to the police and other authorities' possibilities to prevent and combat crime. Measures are also proposed that shall prevent the law from being bypassed when rental apartments are converted into housing cooperation apartments. To ensure that only those who actually live in the property vote at a conversion, only those who have been registered as residents there for at least six months before the association's meeting shall be allowed to participate.

Madam Speaker! The second bill concerns strengthened security protection in the transfer of real property. To strengthen Sweden's security, the government proposes that transfers of real property shall be covered by the Security Protection Act's rules on transfer. This means that those who conduct a security-sensitive activity and who wish to transfer real property of importance for Sweden's security must conduct a specific security assessment and suitability test, as well as consult with the supervisory authority. It also means that the supervisory authority can prohibit unsuitable transfers. It is also proposed that the transfer of ownership of real property that occurs through land consolidation be covered by the rules. In this way, we reduce the risk that real property is acquired with the intent to harm Sweden's security.

Madam Speaker! The third bill concerns the establishment of a central housing cooperative register where all housing cooperatives shall be registered. The register shall be maintained by Lantmäteriet. In the new housing cooperative register, there shall, among other things, be information on housing cooperative owners, housing cooperative associations, and mortgages. A central housing cooperative register will make the handling of mortgages more modern and legally secure and simplify things for both housing cooperative associations and housing cooperative owners as well as, for example, real estate agents and banks. But it will also facilitate the Enforcement Authority's asset investigations and contribute to increased opportunities to prevent and investigate crimes, for example, money laundering crimes.

Madam Speaker! Step by step, we are now getting the area of property law in order. We give Lantmäteriet the tools to become a more efficient authority. We tighten the legislation to increase both certainty and security. We also make it easier for ordinary people by reducing bureaucracy and complications. Step by step, we are getting Sweden in order – that is what we received the voters' mandate for.

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

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

Leif Nysmed (S)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to move for approval of reservations 4 and 7 in CU13.

Lantmäteriet is not a technical side issue, but it is the very hub of society building. We have discussed Lantmäteriet for many years. There are problems that persist and new problems that have arisen. For more building to occur, Lantmäteriet must function and processing times must decrease – that is a fundamental fact. Now, processing times have decreased; building has also done that, which naturally has reduced the pressure on Lantmäteriet. When the queues previously increased, it has often been due to increased building – then it is clear that they have had more to do. It has also been difficult to recruit to the agency.

Without a functioning Lantmäteriet, nothing works. There will be no housing construction, no charging infrastructure, no wind power, no new roads, no water and sewage, and no detailed development plans. Right now, Madam Speaker, this is not working very well.

Processing times are also a societal issue and not an administrative detail. The processing times are too long, in some cases years long. This means that projects are stopped, investments are frozen, and jobs disappear. Therefore, we Social Democrats have demanded state support measures for, among other things, the municipal land survey authorities. We have also demanded strengthened capacity, clearer supervision, and a clearer regulatory framework. All of this is well-motivated and responsible.

We have proposed that the extra measures now presented should be followed up based on the security failure that occurred at Lantmäteriet. Only late did they make those measures, but there was a clear standstill in the entire processing. Many interpellation debates were needed here in the chamber to get any momentum on this.

Madam Speaker! Digitalization is necessary, but it must be secure. That geodata has been shared without functioning security controls is something we must take most seriously. Property boundaries, cable routes, information on critical infrastructure, and so on are security-sensitive information.

In the time we live in, Sweden must not build a land registry that loses control over data. Therefore, I want to address David Josefsson from Moderaterna: The propositions that are partially raised are good, but more needs to be done.

The government's sluggish handling of the security flaws at Lantmäteriet not only harms the agency but also risks making Sweden more vulnerable in a serious time with clear threats against our nation. At the same time, much planning and construction across the country has been delayed due to the handling. It has been stopped because of the situation that has arisen. Here, one would have wished for more from the responsible minister. He should have taken the issue more seriously earlier and acted faster than what now occurred.

Madam Speaker! The investigation "A better organization of the real estate formation activities" points to a fee system that is unclear and difficult to assess. We have heard this before. When we travel around and meet citizens, they tell us that they did not know what it would cost, that it became more expensive than they thought, and that proceedings have dragged on. This is not sustainable.

Rule of law requires transparency. Predictability requires clear rules. Many municipalities, especially those with their own land survey offices, have serious views on the inquiry's proposals. We Social Democrats listen to both citizens and municipalities as we now look at the inquiry. The consultation period expires in March this year. We are following the consultations that have already come in, and we are waiting for many more to come in to look at. We hope that the government is also quick with the handling of this. We Social Democrats will closely follow the questions on how Lantmäteriet can be developed.

Madam Speaker! Let me also say something about the pre-emption law. The municipalities need tools to take control of strategic land. They need to be able to counter speculation, protect long-term societal development, and act when criminal actors enter the real estate market.

I want to be clear. This is not an ideological exercise, but it is about order and tidiness. It is about safety and municipal control and about being able to act against unserious real estate actors. It is about housing supply and about countering criminal actors in the real estate market. But the government apparently says no to a modern right of first refusal by deleting large and important parts in the investigation that we commissioned during the previous mandate period. The government says yes to speculation and that short-sightedness shall continue to govern the availability of our most central resource, that is to say, the land.

Sweden belongs to the countries in Europe that have the weakest municipal tools in this area. The government has had an investigation on its desk since May 2024. The consultation period expired in October 2024. About a hundred consultation bodies have responded and raised a significant amount of the issues that we tried to address in the first investigation, in which a large part is erased. But unfortunately, the government has not put any bill on the table in this important issue. It is unfortunate that one is so slow in producing a proposal.

Madam Speaker! The construction crisis requires political backbone. We are still in a serious construction crisis. Construction unemployment is still at high levels. It is higher than during the pandemic. At the same time, thousands of Swedish construction workers are leaving the industry. Housing construction is still dramatically low. Even though Boverket predicts that housing construction may increase somewhat, many actors in the market doubt this.

In Boverket's previous forecasts during the mandate period, it has been predicted that an increase will come in a few years, but year after year it has been pushed forward. We do not know where this lands, and we see no very clear effects.

In this situation, we are presenting proposals to strengthen institutions, shorten processing times, and facilitate things for municipalities and citizens. Unfortunately, these proposals are being rejected here in the Riksdag today.

Madam Speaker! Property law is the foundation for all social construction. Lantmäteriet is the engine that makes the wheels turn. Perhaps there is a political will, but it took four years before we got anything on the table. It took a very long time before a concrete decision was made regarding the crises that have arisen. The social construction process in our country has almost four lost years behind it.

I wish to again move for approval of reservation 7 regarding Lantmäteriet and reservation 4 regarding a modern right of first refusal.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats consider property rights to be a fundamental right. We safeguard the right to decide over and receive a return on one's idea, land, or property. It is also one of the reasons why we oppose that politics should be allowed to decide how the owner of a company shall shape its board. Ownership promotes stewardship and a greater personal responsibility but also provides a personal freedom. It is therefore important that personal ownership is encouraged over public and institutional ownership.

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 the investment they make. It hampers both growth and innovation, and it creates anxiety among citizens.

We simultaneously consider that property rights must be balanced against 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 freedom and stability in their everyday lives, something 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.

Municipalities must plan for more garden cities. They have such an opportunity, and they have the tools. They must ensure that people have the opportunity to create their own lives and own their own homes.

Lantmäteriet can always be discussed, as Leif Nysmed did. I note, however, that the processing times have actually decreased radically. The processing times for land consolidation activities in private residential construction decreased during 2024 and 2025 from 41 weeks to 24 weeks. That is a radical difference. We cannot say that we are satisfied and happy about everything, but it is moving in the right direction. Work is being done on the whole.

How can one do to achieve an improvement? Well, it happens through the digitalization that the government is working on now. Both the processing itself and the surveying are being digitized. Now, one does not need to go out and manually place a stake in the ground, but it can be done with coordinates. It is such things that cause the processing time and costs to decrease for those who, for example, want to subdivide land.

I also want to say something about Leif Nysmed's discussion on the pre-emption law. I was a municipal politician when we once had a pre-emption law, that is, in the early 2000s. Many probably did not think it was expedient but rather rather blunt. It took completely unnecessarily longer for those who wanted to build housing. The municipalities, in fact, did not use the pre-emption law particularly many times.

That is why I believe that a new pre-emption law of a modern cut, as Leif Nysmed says, is perhaps not the most important and prioritized. On the other hand, the municipalities must have an opportunity to pre-empt if it concerns a criminal activity or an unsafe area. But otherwise, the municipalities should not interfere. If I sell my property to someone else, why should the municipality have a right of pre-emption? I cannot see why it should be so.

The municipalities have the opportunity to plan housing construction. That is the instrument and the opportunity they have when it comes to controlling what is built in the municipality. This is used far too little in the municipalities; one should plan significantly more than what is being done. But a right of first refusal that implies that the municipalities could arbitrarily choose which land they can use, I oppose. It must be market forces that determine who it is that buys and at what price.

I believe that a modern pre-emption law, as Leif Nysmed talks about, would only be restrictive. It is when it concerns crime and safety that the municipalities should have a right of first refusal.

In other respects, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by agreeing somewhat with what Larry Söder just said regarding the pre-emption law. I can think that the only reason to have such legislation is to prevent crime and situations where foreign powers might be thought to do things that we do not want them to do.

I do not want to conduct a massive housing policy debate in this speech, but rather focus quite a bit on what de facto exists in the committee report, that is to say the property law itself and the various parts where there are motions in the committee report.

Why is property law important? Well, it determines whether people dare to build, live, invest, and plan their lives throughout the entire country. That is why it is extremely problematic that the majority in the Civil Affairs Committee today proposes that all motions should be rejected, even when the problems are well-known, well-documented, and highly relevant.

Let us begin with the most obvious, that is, the land lease system – a system that everyone knows is broken, which has also become clear with all clarity even in this debate.

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, bostadspolitik.se published a new article about exactly this. The headline is quite exciting and descriptive of the problem: The Committee on Civil Affairs says no to all leasehold motions – "the government knows about the problem". It is a fantastic summary of the situation.

What complicates matters is that all parties, from right to left, have submitted motions this year pointing to the same thing: that the land lease system today is unpredictable, lacks legal certainty, and is in practice unreasonable for many households and housing cooperatives. Nevertheless, the answer is no, not because the proposals are bad and not because the problem does not exist, but because "work is ongoing."

Madam Speaker! This work has been ongoing for over a decade; the last major government review of the leasehold system is from 2012. During that time, the fees have skyrocketed, conflicts have increased, and the legal proceedings have become more numerous. I wonder what it is that takes 14 years to investigate.

In the Center Party's motion, which I naturally stand behind, we write very much about the most fundamental thing, that is, predictability. We propose that ground rent fees should be able to be indexed so that changes occur gradually and understandably instead of through sharp jumps every fifth, tenth, or twentieth year. It is not a revolution – it is common sense.

Today, a housing cooperative can manage its finances exemplarily and still face ground rent increases that in practice shatter the calculations overnight. It creates uncertainty for residents, complicates loans, and undermines trust in the entire form of tenure. And – lo and behold! – this is not a big city problem. There are ground leases throughout the country. Just as bostadspolitik.se notes in the article from yesterday, the ground lease is today in many cases used as a municipal revenue machine rather than as a housing policy tool. That was never the intention.

Madam Speaker! We must also remember that the Supreme Court has recently dealt with the leasehold issue and clearly signaled that leasehold fees shall be reasonable and take into account the residents' actual costs. The legal situation is evolving, the problems are known, and the criticism is broad. Nevertheless, the committee says: Work is underway.

It is here that the Center Party distinguishes itself. We believe that, when everyone knows that a system is not functioning, it is the responsibility of politics to act, not to refer to further preparation without a timetable. So it is today. We do not know where this work is. We do not know when it is estimated to be finished, and we do not know what will happen next.

Madam Speaker! We see the same problems, the same patterns, when it comes to Lantmäteriet. The Centre Party has, as is well known, motioned for shorter processing times, more reasonable fees and better accessibility throughout the country hundreds of times, I would say. Today, land consolidation, subdivisions and proceedings can take years, with high and often unpredictable costs as a result. It was nice to hear from Larry Söder that the waiting time has decreased somewhat, but we can also agree that it is not enough.

This hinders housing construction, entrepreneurship, and generational transitions, especially in rural areas. It is an issue that the Christian Democrats have recently decided is important. The answer from the committee is also here: Work is ongoing. But for the person who has waited for a decision for three years, that answer is simply not sufficient.

Now comes a difficult word, I believe: expropriation. What does it mean? When the state or municipalities take land into claim, the compensation given must be perceived as fair. Otherwise, trust in the entire system is eroded. The Center Party has therefore, for a number of years now, pushed for strengthened expropriation compensation. It is not a no to social development – it is a yes to legitimacy.

Even these motions are rejected without alternatives, which reinforces the image of a committee report that manages something – what a good question.

Madam Speaker! The problem with this report is not that the committee says no. The problem is that one says no without showing the way forward. The land lease system (tomträtten) has been investigated, criticized, debated, and legally questioned. Still, nothing happens. The Center Party stands for another line: predictability over shock increases, reforms over eternal investigations, and functioning property rights for the whole country, not just on paper. That is why we have a lot of reservations in the report. We will continue to push these issues until the system actually works for those who live with the consequences.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations in the report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 2 – not because the other issues are not important, but that is how the order of business looks in this chamber.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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