Question regarding referral of motion to committee
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned a motion from Vänsterpartiet proposing that socially beneficial properties owned by limited companies should be able to be returned to the public sector to avoid unserious or security-politically harmful owners 1. The motion also proposed an additional directive to expedite a state right of first refusal 1. The Deputy Speaker stated that the issue could be anticipated and considered during the general motion period, which means that the motion cannot be raised with the support of Chapter 9, Section 15 of the Instrument of Government 1. There are therefore obstacles to referring the motion to a committee, and the motion was tabled 1.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
Nooshi Dadgostar and others, Vänsterpartiet, have submitted a motion invoking Chapter 9, Section 15 of the parliamentary procedure. According to this provision, motions on the occasion of an event of greater importance may be submitted jointly by at least ten members if the event could not be foreseen or considered during the general motion period or any other motion period in Chapter 9 of the parliamentary procedure.
The motion concerns that socially beneficial properties owned by a limited company should be able to be returned to the public sector so that they do not end up in the hands of unserious or security-politically harmful owners. The motion proposes an announcement that the Investigation on a new pre-emption law (Fi 2022:07) shall receive an additional directive to quickly investigate a state pre-emption right, which also applies to properties owned by limited companies.
The motion was tabled at the meeting on Wednesday, June 21.
The right to submit motions on the occasion of an event of greater importance was introduced in connection with the constitutional reform of 1974. It was emphasized then that the proposed provision is of an exceptional nature. The Riksdag has also applied the provision restrictively.
The regulatory framework for the purchase and sale of real estate can be considered known from before, as well as the possible effects that could arise upon the sale of socially useful properties. Even the municipalities' sales of such properties have been known from before.
The motion submitted has therefore addressed an issue that could have been anticipated and considered during the general motion period.
The Speaker's assessment is therefore that the motion cannot be raised with the support of Chapter 9, Section 15 of the Instrument of Government. According to Chapter 11, Section 7 of the Instrument of Government, there are therefore obstacles to referring the motion to a committee.
The Speaker therefore proposes that the Chamber refers the motion to the committee.
Does this comply? The answer is yes.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.