Act on fee for area cooperation

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the laws on fees for area cooperation. The Sweden Democrats, together with the coalition parties, have presented proposals for a number of measures to create safe residential areas in Sweden. There are many proposals to discuss here today that show that we are now creating opportunities to once again ensure that we have a good and safe society. This concerns, for example, visitation zones, eviction of criminals, and increased penalties which mean that the crimes committed result in severe consequences. All these measures create good conditions, and one further measure is proposed here today: area cooperation.

It is important that we create conditions for safe residential areas. We have a great need for it today. Due to the consequences of previous governments' policies, there are today areas that are severely neglected when it comes to safety. In those areas, it is important with community cooperation. Together with property owners, civil society, the police and a number of other actors, we need to create conditions to cooperate for safer residential areas.

With the legislation that is on the table today, I hope that we can contribute to meeting the need for community cooperation, especially at a voluntary level. It is about the different actors coming together in residential areas and creating the conditions to regain safety. The legislation that is on the table can also facilitate future voluntary collaborations.

Unfortunately, this cooperation does not always work in all areas, because some property owners do not want to participate fully and contribute. Therefore, we are putting this legislation on the table today. The property owners who are interested in creating good conditions and spending some money on it can receive support from the legislation by having all property owners included in the economic investment.

The conditions that are obtained when working with area cooperation should contribute to securing the area but also create attractiveness and better conditions for the business sector. All these pieces benefit the property owners, the tenants, and society as a whole. Therefore, it is good to have legislation that enables one to carry out area cooperation to the full.

When it comes to area cooperation, this legislation also means that we ensure we have foresight for future needs. We must not be naive. We must see things that could potentially come. Then we need to have legislation in the safety area that enables us to act when there is a need for it. The need may arise in the future, and then we need to have legislation in place, which we will have in the form of this legislation on area cooperation.

The advantages of this cooperation are many. We have also seen that many support this proposal. Those who have the greatest connection to creating safe conditions for our residential areas are also positive towards this bill. It is supported, or is primarily positive, by the Crime Prevention Council, the Swedish Economic Crime Authority, the Swedish Police Authority, the National Board of Health and Welfare, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, and the Tenants' Association.

There is, therefore, a great support for presenting legislation that can enable us to deal with crime and create safe residential areas. It is about coming together to succeed in this project collectively. This legislation, together with a number of other legislations in the area, allows us to take several steps forward to once again ensure that Sweden becomes a safe country to live in.

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

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the government's proposal for a law on fees for area cooperation. This is a proposal that has met extensive criticism from a number of referral bodies. The criticism concerns, on the one hand, that the law risks involving interference in both freedom of association and property protection, since property owners can in practice be forced to pay for activities that they themselves have not chosen to participate in, and on the other hand, that the law can distort competition and hit smaller actors particularly hard. Vänsterpartiet agrees with that criticism.

Madam Speaker! We also take issue with the shift of responsibility that the proposal entails. Work to create safety and prevent crime is and should fundamentally be a public responsibility financed collectively through tax revenue, not through fees directed at individual property owners.

Against this background, I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet takes a critical stance on the new legislation that Sverigedemokraterna, together with the government, is presenting. It is argued that the need for the legislation has not been demonstrated. I think it is a very interesting starting point, given how crime and insecurity have spread in our residential areas for a very long time.

We have finally managed to reduce the number of shootings in society thanks to the efforts of the Sweden Democrats and the coalition parties in the area of crime policy, both through new legislation and through increased resources. But that the Left Party believes there is no need to work further with these issues in the residential areas surprises me.

This legislation clearly shows that it is possible to get all stakeholders, all property owners, on board to finance safety-creating measures within the residential area. What can be worked on within this cooperation model is also, fundamentally, things that almost every property owner already does today to protect their property and its surroundings. It is about reducing crime, such as graffiti and vandalism, and reducing insecurity. All of this constitutes measures from which the property owner ultimately benefits.

It will be difficult to finance these joint projects on large common areas if not all property owners are involved. That is also why the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are presenting such a proposal. Then the Left Party says no. Why?

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Roger Hedlund for the question.

I will try to answer as briefly and concretely as possible. There is a need for safety-creating measures, but the question is how we approach this.

We mean that we do it best by supporting actors who work in these areas, by actively working with civil society and, above all, by transferring resources to the police. We do not do it by financing this type of measure by introducing fees on property owners, but this is something that should be financed with common funds.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

I and the Sweden Democrats believe that everyone in society has a role in contributing to countering crime and to creating safe societies. I also believe that property owners are to a very high degree part of the societal part that should work with these issues.

Today, the municipal housing companies use a portion of the revenues for various projects in the residential areas. I have never heard the Left Party have an opinion on this before, but when we in this case talk about safety-creating measures, common funds apparently are not allowed to be used to carry out such initiatives. I actually do not understand what the difference is in that area.

I would say that the property owners, by participating and jointly contributing to this, play a crucial role in achieving safety in the residential areas. If we exclude the property owners, it becomes very difficult to succeed in achieving this.

The legislation is moving forward because many are working with this voluntary cooperation model, but not all property owners always want to be fully involved. It becomes difficult for the other property owners to work with the issue when certain property owners say no to cooperation.

Here this legislation comes in. That a fee is also charged for the work that is performed is fundamentally, as I mentioned earlier, something that property owners will have a positive effect from. Therefore, I believe that this model is crucial for us to succeed in achieving a safe housing environment again.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! A number of referral bodies have questioned whether this will have any effect at all. They argue that much indicates that the area cooperation that exists today already functions well.

The dividing line is fundamentally whether safety-creating measures should be a societal responsibility financed through public funds or if it should be up to the individual property owner, in this case, to bear the costs.

We mean that social responsibility and public tax funding should form the basis for security in Sweden. This is a dividing line between us and the government.

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

David Josefsson (M)

Madam Speaker! On February 26, 1966, the first subway train on Line 2 ran from Kipling Station, along Bloor Street and Danforth Avenue, to Kennedy Station in Toronto. Today we stand here in the Swedish Parliament and are to make a decision to establish a law on local cooperation.

These two events may be perceived as distant from each other, but the one, although in many respects and 60 years later, is a direct consequence of the other. What happened in 1966 was that residents of Bloor West Village could now take the subway to the central shopping streets in Toronto. Consequently, downtown trade began to compete out the shops in Bloor West Village.

A number of shop owners realized that their declining business districts needed to be renovated to withstand the competition from trade downtown. They attempted to set up a center association with property owners and business operators to uplift the area and increase safety.

The interest was, however, lukewarm from the property owners, who were the ones who had the resources, and it was difficult to voluntarily bring in the necessary funds to make a real difference. The shop owners then lobbied the legislators in the province of Ontario to be able to create an association where it became mandatory for property owners to participate and contribute financially.

The campaign had an effect. In 1970, the Ontario Municipal Act came into force, and the Bloor West Village Business Improvement Association was formed. The world's first BID collaboration, Business Improvement District, was created, although in Canada it is called a Business Improvement Association. The news, Madam Speaker, was that at its core lay a mandate for the property owners to pay.

Today, there are different types of BID cooperation around the world, also in Sweden. In Sweden, it concerns voluntary associations where property owners, businesses, municipalities, police, and civil society cooperate in different constellations and in different ways. The purpose is to increase safety and well-being in an area and in that way reduce crime and vandalism.

I have visited a number of the Swedish organizations and am impressed by the work that is being done. How they are organized and work is unique to the specific conditions of that location.

It is about everything from making joint procurements of security services and reviewing the perimeter protection at every property to cooperating with the police to prevent unauthorized persons from entering stairwells and storage rooms. It is about creating common situational pictures so that the right actor can implement the right measure at different incidents.

One works proactively with everything from creating life and movement on streets and squares to jointly managing cleaning and planting flowers. One also works with creating summer and extra jobs for youth in the area and supporting the local community life. In this way, cohesion and coherence are created.

Unlike in many other countries, there is no form of unified legislation or any legal basis for such cooperation in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! When the Moderate-led government took office in 2022, Sweden was severely affected by gang shootings. People also felt unsafe in their own residential areas, and parallel social structures challenged the police and society over control.

It will take time to reverse the development, and a collective effort is needed. We have now initiated that work. We have increased the number of police in outer service, tightened penalties, and created better conditions to reach violent criminals. The justice system can now issue stay-away orders against persons who commit crimes in an area. In the face of immediate danger of acts of violence, security zones can be established so that persons can be searched more easily and crimes can be prevented.

We have carried out a camera offensive which means that the police can now monitor crime-affected locations via camera in real time. We have tightened the municipalities' responsibility and work with crime prevention – a task that is now mandatory and statutory but which before we took office was voluntary.

We have made it easier to evict criminals from rental apartments and are now moving forward and making it easier to evict them from condominiums. All these things feel self-evident today, but they were not in place and were deeply debated just four years ago.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating another important step, namely the introduction of a law on place cooperation. We are formalizing and providing legal support for what is called BID cooperation in other countries – a cooperation where the public sector, property owners, and civil society can act together.

Even though the basis for this site cooperation shall be voluntary, we also create, based on international experiences, the possibility to introduce an obligation for property owners to participate and provide financing.

It is simply a matter of the property owners receiving direct commercial benefit from this cooperation through higher rental income, lower costs for vandalism and littering, and rising property values. Therefore, it is also reasonable that the majority of the funding comes from the property owners.

At the same time, there is an inherent free-rider problem where, above all, faceless institutional owners are happy to take advantage of place-based cooperation but do not want to participate in the costs themselves.

Madam Speaker! Most who have studied BID cooperation around the world are in general agreement that the best return on the work is achieved if there are pressure mechanisms to address the free rider problem. Either one has a strict obligation, meaning that everyone must participate and pay through a specific tax, or softer solutions, such as the one we have chosen in Sweden – that the possibility of levying a mandatory fee should exist as a last resort if not enough of the large property owners, who benefit from the work, also want to participate in the payment.

The commitment to a neighborhood lies with the local actors, but both residential buildings and shopping centers are sometimes owned by institutional owners without a direct connection to the area. It is ironic, Madam Speaker, that these investment banks and private equity firms that own properties – often from Germany or the USA – have found their closest allies in the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party here in the chamber. There are three parties that today want to vote no to introducing a special law on local cooperation, i.e., a Swedish BID legislation. They explicitly do not want these real estate giants to have to be involved and take their social responsibility.

From the side of the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party, it is not desired that these investment companies and pension funds should have to participate in paying to create more pleasant and safer residential areas for their tenants – this despite the fact that the fees are hardly visible in their income statements or affect their return. This is quite honestly not taking the security issues that many Swedes face seriously.

Madam Speaker! The subway trains still run along line 2 in Toronto, between Kipling Station and Kennedy Station, and the Bloor West Village Business Improvement Association still exists. Among other things, they organize a Ukrainian cultural festival for the Ukrainian diaspora in Toronto every September. The area in Bloor West Village is now considered one of Toronto's most vibrant neighborhoods – this is because 56 years ago, a legal framework for place-based cooperation was introduced in Ontario. It is a framework that now exists in large parts of the world and which we today make decisions about here in Sweden as well.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! Safety is not something that one should have to buy one's way into. Safety is also not a fee on an invoice. Safety is a social responsibility.

Therefore, we Social Democrats move for approval of reservation 1 and reservation 2.

We say no to the government's proposal for a law on a fee for area cooperation. We do not do so because we are against cooperation; on the contrary, cooperation between municipalities, property owners, police, the business community, and civil society is often absolutely crucial for creating safety in residential areas, in the center, and in squares. But it is precisely for that reason that the government's proposal is so problematic.

Today, there are very many functioning examples of voluntary area cooperation, and I too have visited many of them. Cooperation is based on local commitment, trust, and shared responsibility. The government now says: Let us introduce a fee! Let us create an order where property owners can be forced to pay! But we know who will ultimately have to pay, namely the tenants and those who live in the area.

Madam Speaker! This is where the principled question arises. Should safety in our residential areas be financed through fees that can land on people who already have small margins? Should residents in socioeconomically vulnerable areas, where the need for safety is often greatest, risk having to pay extra for something that should be society's responsibility? I do not think so.

Creating safety and preventive work is fundamentally a public responsibility. The state shall prioritize the police presence. The state shall take responsibility for the preventive work. Municipalities shall have the conditions to work long-term with social interventions, lighting, living environments, and safe public places. But the government does what it often does: It talks tough about safety, but when the bill comes, it is sent somewhere else.

Here is the Council on Legislation's criticism, Madam Speaker. The Council on Legislation rejects the proposal, and it is not about some minor detail. The Council on Legislation points out fundamental problems with introducing a public-law-based fee obligation for voluntary cooperation between private individuals. They also point out ambiguities regarding the municipality's role, decision-making, and judicial review. When the Council on Legislation says that the proposal raises questions of such magnitude that it should not be implemented, the government should listen.

Madam Speaker! The Government says that the fee may not be used for things that are already the responsibility of the state or the municipality. That sounds wise, but where is that line in practice? It is not so simple. What is safety-creating work? Is it lighting? Is it security guards? Is it cameras? Is it cleaning? Is it social presence? Is it meeting places? When does it become the responsibility of the municipality or the property owners, and when does it become the state's responsibility? It is precisely such demarcations that risk creating problems.

Even though the fee is formally charged to property owners, we all know how reality works. Costs for properties rarely stay with the property owner forever. In the long run, they will affect rents, fees, and housing costs.

That is why our reservation is important. We say that the government should return with a proposal that clearly strengthens the state's responsibility for crime prevention and safety-creating work and at the same time ensures that the safety work is not financed through surcharges that risk affecting those tenants who already live in socioeconomically vulnerable areas. I think it is a reasonable line. It is also a fair line, and it is a line I support.

Madam Speaker! There is also another risk with the government's proposal, namely that it damages what is already working. During my visits, I have seen many such examples as well. If voluntary cooperation today is based on commitment and shared responsibility, what happens then when the state enters and says that there is a fee model? The risk is that cooperation becomes more about law than local commitment, more administration than action, and more conflict over who should pay and who should not. Is that really what the residential areas need?

What is needed is more adults in the areas. More police were needed and better social preventive work. A functioning school and leisure activities were needed. Living centers and municipalities that have resources were needed. A state that does not abdicate from its task to create a safe society was also needed. Because that is the core here: When the government introduces a model where the safety work is to be financed through fees from property owners, the responsibility is moved step by step away from the public sector, and that development is not good.

Madam Speaker! As I said, we are not against community cooperation. We are for better community cooperation. But it must be built on the right principles. It should not begin with the question of where the invoice should be sent, but it should begin with the question of what people need to be able to feel safe where they live, work, and move. For me, it is not this bill that is the answer. The answer is a society that is stronger and that helps those who are further down in society.

Therefore, I move for approval of reservations 1 and 2.

(Applause)

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Denis Begic, for your speech on the Social Democrats' position on this legislation!

There is currently legislation that makes it possible for municipal housing companies to use profits to take safety-creating measures in residential areas. Profits can also be used for a number of other measures. Is the Social Democrats' position that this legislation should be changed so that the municipal housing companies cannot use their resources to take safety-creating measures? This must surely be the consequence of the Social Democrats' position in this issue?

The Social Democrats do not think that private property owners should use the profit for such things, because it means that economically vulnerable tenants risk being affected by rent increases. The consequence, however, will be exactly the same if municipal housing companies use their profits for safety-creating measures. It must reasonably mean that the Social Democrats consider that the legislation regarding the safety-creating measures that municipal housing companies can take should be changed, because the current legislation could mean higher rent for the tenants. I would like to get an answer from the member on this.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Roger Hedlund, for the question!

I do not know if Roger Hedlund listened to what I said. Voluntary is always good. It is when the state begins to impose compulsory fees on different property owners, or on society as a whole, that the problems arise.

As I said, I have been in many areas where several different property owners work together, conduct rounds and walks, and see what they can do. No one forces them to do it; they do it voluntarily. They pay if necessary, but it is not about any fee, but rather about cooperation between different property owners.

We must not forget a very important thing when we talk about these measures: Where public housing exists in Sweden, one is all too often the only property owner in an area and creates safety together with those who live there. There is no one else. Society should be there – the police, the municipality, social services and so on. Therefore, our proposal is to ensure that the state does not abdicate from areas where there is only a single property owner, most often public housing.

That is exactly what you have done now. You say that the money is not there. You do not invest in the police or the safety work in areas where the public utility company is the sole property owner. It disturbs me terribly. Fees can be imposed on everyone, but when measures need to be taken, the state is not there. It is frightening.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Denis Begic for the answer.

If there is anyone who has put money into the justice system, it is us in the Sverigedemokraterna together with our coalition partners. In that regard, the Socialdemokraterna can never measure up to us. It means that it is we who ensure that safety is created throughout the entire justice chain and in the entire society through the resources that have been allocated there, the increased penalties that have been implemented, and the new tools that the police have received.

We naturally want to ensure that we can achieve the full effect of this through progressive measures and new legislation that allow us to tackle this fully on all levels. Therefore, we involve the property owners, who we believe have a natural responsibility in this role and who, in the end, also benefit from all property owners being involved and helping out in these residential areas. That is why we are introducing this legislation.

Madam Speaker! It was interesting that I did not receive an answer to my question. Do the Social Democrats want to tear up the legislation that gives the municipal housing companies the right to use their profit for safety-creating measures? This legislation ultimately means, according to the Social Democrats, that the cost is placed on the tenant's rent invoice and that the economically vulnerable will have to pay for the safety-creating measures that municipal housing companies take in a number of municipalities around Sweden. The Social Democrats' main criticism of the bill was indeed that the economically vulnerable tenants have to finance safety-creating measures in residential areas.

I think it is very good that the legislation allows the municipal housing companies to use the profit for safety-creating measures; it is a Sverigedemokratisk approach. We think the same when it comes to the private property owners. The Socialdemokraterna do not think so, however. They want to tear up the legislation that makes it possible for municipal housing companies to take safety-creating measures.

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! The Sverigedemokraternas Roger Hedlund listened, once again, not to what I said at the beginning. The property owners who voluntarily do this are welcome to do so; we have nothing against it. They are welcome to spend money on additional safety-creating measures.

What you are doing, Roger Hedlund, is shifting the responsibility away from the police, the state, and others who are supposed to take responsibility for these residential areas. You are not spending masses of money to create safety in these residential areas; instead, you are taking safety away from them. You are making the socioeconomically vulnerable areas even more vulnerable. You are creating greater divides by having people pay even higher rents. You voted to introduce market rents. You pushed the button for that, Roger Hedlund.

You are placing an additional fee on the tenants and treating them as if they were a bank. Everyone else in society, such as Roger Hedlund and I, shall have it well. We shall get a tax cut. We shall have it better, but the tenants in socioeconomically vulnerable areas shall not. It is frightening politics.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a report from the Committee on Civil Affairs on a new law that enables a fee for area cooperation.

For the Christian Democrats, this is a step in the right direction – towards a society where community, responsibility, and security are at the center. Christian Democracy is built on the view that every human being has an inviolable value. With that come both rights and duties.

We do not believe that the state can or should solve all problems from above. The real work of creating security begins in the local community among people who feel their responsibility for one another, for their street, for their neighborhood, and for their and others' children. This is the principle of subsidiarity put into practice – tasks should be handled as close to the person concerned as possible.

Area cooperation is exactly about this. Within a geographically defined area, property owners, residents, businesses, and local actors cooperate to prevent crime, increase safety, and strengthen the area's attractiveness. It can involve better lighting, keeping the area neat and tidy, activities for youth, or initiatives that strengthen local businesses. The government's proposal gives those who conduct such cooperation the right to charge a fee from the affected property owners, proportional to the benefit. The fee may only cover things that fall outside the basic responsibility of the state and the municipality. I think that is both fair and responsible.

In disadvantaged areas, we have seen how exclusion and crime have grown stronger when no one has taken responsibility. Very many property owners take their responsibility and engage to create safety in the area, but some other property owners have been negligent. Some have avoided contributing while neighbors have worked hard.

The new law creates a tool to distribute the burden fairly. Those who benefit from a safer and more pleasant area shall also contribute. It is important that everyone is involved – not just a few. It is sound community and solidarity between responsible citizens that creates safety. Voluntary cooperation is precisely voluntary. We believe that it becomes stronger if there can be frameworks and rules.

We Christian Democrats see the family and civil society as society's most important building blocks. When local initiatives are given the opportunity to grow and be funded fairly, we strengthen exactly these building blocks. We give the power back to those who live and work in the area. What we are doing now is the opposite of what a centrally controlled welfare state does, namely tends to turn people into passive recipients instead of active co-creators.

The law contains clear frameworks. It concerns voluntary cooperation that becomes more effective through fair funding. It complements – it does not replace – public interventions.

For us Christian Democrats, it is central to protect the individual's security while simultaneously enabling collective solutions.

I agree with the Social Democrats that safety is a social responsibility. They also say that they are not against area cooperation. But then I become puzzled, because if some property owners join together and take the safety-creating measures that are needed in the area, the Social Democrats apparently think it is okay that some property owners do not contribute without the others having to pay everything, that is to say, the tenants. If we say that everyone should be involved and contribute, it is suddenly terrible. But the cost becomes less if everyone contributes from the start. I therefore cannot understand why the Social Democrats are against even free riders being involved and paying. It is fair to all tenants that everyone is involved and pays. Otherwise, it is just a few tenants who have to pay. Is that fair? I do not think so.

This gives an opportunity for property owners and tenants to contribute to the safety in their area, and I think that is good. I therefore 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! We are now debating the government's proposal for a law on fees for area cooperation, and let me say directly: There is something deeply telling for the government in this proposal, as once again we see how the state, step by step, is shifting its own core tasks onto private actors. That which was previously the public sector's responsibility shall now be resolved by property owners through new fees, new organizations, and new structures, and the government is trying to sell this as "cooperation." But in practice, it is about something else: It is about the state no longer being able to manage its basic mandate.

Madam Speaker! Safety is not an additional service. It is not something that should be organized block by block depending on which property owners have the means or capacity. Safety is a core task for the state and the municipalities. When people no longer feel safe in their residential areas, the solution is not to pass the invoice on to private actors. This is fundamentally important, because in practice, the government is saying: The public sector is not enough, and therefore you must organize yourselves and finance parts of the development yourselves.

It is actually remarkable that a right-wing government is pushing through legislation that entails new mandatory fees for companies and property owners. Suddenly, the Tidö parties are not particularly concerned about increased costs or new burdens for the business sector.

Madam Speaker! The most ironic thing about this debate is almost that it is the opposition that has to stand up for the companies' perspectives. For many property owners, not least smaller actors, this will mean additional financial commitments at a time when the cost situation is already pressured. Interest rates, construction costs, energy prices, insecurity, and vacancy rates are what the Tidö Government has managed to achieve during its four years in power. On top of this, the state is now to create yet another model where private actors are expected to make up for new political failures. It is the wrong path.

Let me be clear that voluntary local cooperation can be very good. It already exists in many places today and often works well. When people, companies, and property owners choose to cooperate locally themselves, it is positive. But voluntariness and coercion are not the same thing, Larry Söder, and that is exactly where the government's proposal becomes problematic.

Madam Speaker! Sweden does not need more constructions where the state abdicates from its responsibility. David Josefsson can provide examples from other countries, but that does not change the core issue: that the state has de facto abdicated from its responsibility. What we need is a society where the state actually manages its basic tasks: to maintain order, security, safety, and functioning public environments. The public sector should not become a project manager that hopes that private actors will solve the problems for them. The public sector must function. I remember our current Prime Minister saying exactly this sentence before the election: The public sector must function.

Therefore, the Centre Party is critical of the government's proposal, and I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is effective to mention a name, because then that person usually takes the floor.

I believe there is a misunderstanding. There is currently cooperation in various municipalities and different residential areas that works perfectly well. No one is saying that this should be changed. But if, in an area, one sees that there are property owners who receive the "golden edge," that is to say a safer area and a higher market price for their property, but are not participating and paying, the law provides the possibility for area cooperation. Or if the area is so dilapidated that something must be done at the municipal level, one can ultimately do it as area cooperation. But there is nothing in the law that says it is mandatory; rather, this is an opportunity.

In my world, it is better that all property owners in an area are involved in making the area safe. We know that buset do not see any property boundaries, instead, buset move there where it is possible. If not all property owners in an area are involved, buset move in where they can. That is why area cooperation in an entire area is good. If it is done on a voluntary basis or with a fee, each area can decide.

I cannot understand that the Centre Party thinks it is great with area cooperation as long as it is voluntary but terrible if one is forced to pay. The fact is that there are property owners and tenants who are already paying today, unlike those who are free riders. Why is it more important that only a few pay than that everyone pays?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

I genuinely feel sorry for Larry Söder, because I know that deep down he thinks like I do, that safety is the public sector's responsibility.

Larry Söder is a friend of the companies and the entrepreneurs. Still, he must stand here at the rostrum and defend pure idiocy. Larry Söder understands very well what will happen when the property owners in these areas are forced to pay for cooperation. They will take their pick and pack and leave. It will place an even greater dead hand over these areas – when company after company and the public, through the closure of various offices, the Swedish Tax Agency, health centers, the Social Insurance Agency and so on, leave them to their fate or, even worse, to criminal gangs to rule.

Madam Speaker! I know that Larry Söder is a wise person at heart. Larry Söder understands this equation well. It is deeply regrettable that I instead must applaud Vänsterpartiet, which wisely takes the floor and defends our job creators.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I don't think my name has ever been said so many times in the speaker's chair.

Unfortunately, I believe the problem is that we are not communicating with each other, but past each other.

I am concerned about the tenants in a part of the area who have to pay for the creation of safety. It is not something that the property owners have been required to do, but they choose to do it for their area and for those who live there. However, it is only a part of the tenants who have to pay for it. The proposal implies that the cost can be distributed among all property owners who are there, even though in the end it is, of course, not them who pay but the tenants.

I cannot understand how one can think that it is better for a smaller proportion to pay for everything instead of everyone paying. This is not about whether to save a property owner or not, it is about us having safer residential areas.

There are examples in Sweden where cooperation works perfectly. We say: Keep it up, à la bonne heure! But there are free riders who can be brought into the system to make the whole thing work. Then everyone is involved in financing, and that is what we are looking for. The municipality shall not withdraw its part. The state shall not withdraw its part. We are, à la bonne heure, in favor of putting more money into such things in the areas. It is about something that the property owners from the beginning have decided themselves that they shall do, and I think everyone should be involved in financing it.

I unfortunately do not think this is about you in Centerpartiet wanting to save the property owners, but perhaps it is the fee as such that is the problem. I believe you must look beyond that, because this is a good thing.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! The world feels upside down today – everyone is to be involved in financing. It sounded so Left Party-ish that I have to look outside and see if the world has ended.

Madam Speaker! I was in Tensta centrum a week ago. That is where I grew up, Larry Söder. The public sector is hardly left. That is how it looks – not just in Tensta. Take a small town in northern Sweden or in one of the inland municipalities! In every shopping center, the state shines with its absence. The only state presence that exists is Systembolaget – that is how the development has become.

Let me take another example where the state has abdicated from its responsibility: the Stockholm metro. There, it swarms with guards, who are financed through higher ticket fees for the passengers. It is another example where the state has handed over its responsibility for safety to someone else. That is how it always becomes, and in this case, it became to the passengers. That is how it looks in area after area, Madam Speaker.

Somewhere I had hoped that my bourgeois friends would manage this equation.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Madam Speaker! I take the opportunity to vote in favor of the committee's proposal and the government bill.

Madam Speaker! Safety begins in the square, at the gate, on the playground where parents should dare to let their children play, and on the high street where the shop owner should be able to open in the morning without being met by vandalism, threatening environments, or an area that has slowly lost faith in itself. That is where politics is tested. It is not tested in how well we describe the problems, but in how we give people, municipalities, property owners, entrepreneurs, and civil society the tools to do something about them.

The Government now presents the bill Act on Fee for Area Cooperation. The proposal is fundamentally simple: Where there is broad local support for area cooperation, the entity conducting the cooperation shall be entitled to charge a fee from the affected property owners. The fee shall be distributed according to the benefit that the properties can be considered to have from the work and may only cover such things as are not already the public's responsibility. The municipality shall examine the question of principalship. Affected property owners shall be allowed to comment. Disputes regarding the fee shall be able to be adjudicated in court.

Madam Speaker! Area cooperation can be about better lighting, cleaner and safer shared environments, measures against vandalism, coordinated presence, safety wardens, better cooperation with the public sector and other interventions that are considered to strengthen the local center. It can be about such things as make people dare to move outside, that companies dare to invest and that an area is not allowed to decay.

We know what happens when no one takes responsibility. Broken windows are not repaired. Littering becomes normalized. Insecure places become even more insecure. Serious business owners are pushed out. Residents lose faith in the future. And ultimately, it becomes more expensive – humanly, socially and economically – than it would have been if action had been taken in time.

Madam Speaker! There are already many good examples today of areas where property owners, municipalities, entrepreneurs, and civil society cooperate to increase safety. But there is also a concrete problem: the free rider. One property owner invests. Another does too. They contribute money, time, and commitment. They are involved in creating safer environments, more attractive places, and higher values in the area. But next to them, someone else stands and says: "Thank you very much! I am happy to share in the benefits, but I do not intend to participate or contribute." That is not acceptable, we believe. It makes it harder to achieve long-term perspective, it punishes those who do the right thing, and it rewards those who are passive. That is why we are proposing this law.

Madam Speaker! The proposition is designed with clear frameworks. In order to be able to charge a fee, the person conducting the collaborative work must be approved as a principal. The municipality shall, as stated, examine the issue. Affected property owners shall be given the opportunity to comment. There must be an actual need for area cooperation that is not being met. The person conducting the work shall represent a qualified majority. The fee shall be linked to the benefit. It is also important to mention that we are not proceeding with the more intrusive model that was proposed at the beginning.

Madam Speaker! One can take a local center in a district where development has gone in the wrong direction. Some property owners, as it is said, want to reverse the development. They want to cooperate. They want to coordinate. They want to strengthen safety-creating measures to, among other things, increase safety for those who live there but also create more flows and better conditions for businesses to operate in the area. They do it because they know that the alternative is worse: empty premises, fewer people in motion, poorer service, increased insecurity, and diminished faith in the future. But the entire model is, as it is said, undermined if one or more property owners in the same area say no, not because it doesn't do any good in itself, but because they would rather let others pay.

Madam Speaker! There is also a larger principled issue here. For a long time, Sweden has accepted that certain places have been allowed to drift away from the rest of society. People have become accustomed to certain parts becoming unsafe, to certain neighborhoods being neglected, to certain business owners having to spend more time managing vandalism and anxiety in order to develop their business, and to certain children growing up in environments where the public space does not feel like their own.

This is, as has been said, a piece of the puzzle. It does not solve the entire problem. It is complicated. But it is not a reason to refrain from the tools that can actually make a difference.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Members and listeners! Everyone has the right to live in a safe home and a safe residential area. The environment where one lives shall be safe.

We in Miljöpartiet think that community cooperation is important, and there are many good examples that have yielded results. We have seen cooperation that has led to neighbors starting to greet each other. We have seen children participating in safety walks to describe how they experience the area and what they think needs to be done. And we have seen young people on the slide who have been caught and given the conditions to build a better life.

But we say: If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Support and confirm this functioning model instead of breaking it down.

There is significant criticism of the government's proposal for a mandatory fee for area cooperation. The bill contains, as we have heard earlier in the chamber debate here today, a fundamental shift of responsibility for safety in society from the public sector to private actors. We believe this is fundamentally the wrong way to go. Safety-creating and crime-preventing work should fundamentally be a public responsibility.

The risk is also great that a mandatory fee for area cooperation ends up on the tenants' bill. It is the tenants who are often already economically vulnerable. But this aligns with the rest of the Tidöregering's policy on market rents, poverty reforms, and increased economic inequalities.

The Council on Legislation argues that a statutory fee obligation for voluntary cooperation is of such weight and dignity that they advise against this proposal. Also, a very large number of referral bodies advise against the proposal or are primarily negative. These include, among others, Boverket, a whole range of county administrative boards, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, Fastighetsägarna, the Foundation Tryggare Sverige – there is a long list; I do not need to read them all out here.

Many referral bodies also argue that the bill worsens the conditions for the voluntary cooperation that exists. It risks pushing out new projects because people simply do not want to take on this. It makes it more difficult for new area cooperation to be established.

Many municipalities experience that most property owners already want to participate in the cooperation. When it concerns property owners who do not want to participate, it is often about much larger problems that cannot be solved with a mandatory fee. It often concerns those property owners who are usually called the worst hosts, who have major deficiencies in their maintenance, mismanage themselves financially and may have criminal connections.

There have been a number of opportunities to present various legislative proposals here. The Tidö government has, however, chosen not to present them, but we would have liked to see them and have motioned for them previously. There was, for example, an investigation into a law on property acquisition, which would mean that there was a system to monitor property owners who want to rent out apartments, so that they are fair landlords. But that investigation proposal was never taken further.

We also want there to be more supervision of such rental properties, so that irregularities come to light. If it turns out to be one of these worst landlords, whom Hem & Hyra usually inspects, one must ensure that it becomes easier to compulsorily manage properties and that it happens quickly.

In the investigation on area cooperation, there was also an interesting proposal. It concerned that both new and existing landlords should have a permit to conduct their business. And if one does not behave, that permit could be revoked, so that one receives a business ban. But the Tidö government chose not to proceed with that.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to regulations to protect tenants against unscrupulous property owners, the Tidö Government chooses to remain passive. If the government had been serious, we would have seen such legislative proposals as the rental property acquisition act and proposals regarding permits for landlords, as well as a focus on strengthened supervision and making it easier to be able to impose compulsory management. The Tidö Government has opted out of these.

We in Miljöpartiet think it is time for a government that takes the tenants' security seriously.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 1 and 3.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Amanda Palmstierna, for your account of the Green Party's position regarding the legal issue that is on the table!

I note that Miljöpartiet, in the specific statement and in the reservation they have submitted in the matter, emphasize that it is important how the public areas are designed and how these areas are used.

The question is how much Miljöpartiet puts into the word important in this context. They mean, at the same time, that it should be voluntary to waive maintenance and the possibility to jointly, in a collaborative model, take responsibility for the entire residential area. It should be voluntary to waive that part, to waive ensuring that the area is maintained with various plantings, renovations, maintenance, and other safety-creating measures that it entails.

The question is: How important are the public areas actually? It concerns the design and how these areas are used, as the Miljöpartiet says in its reservation. It is obviously not so important that we actually should demand that one enters into a collaboration where one jointly takes responsibility and spends money on maintaining it.

We should not have property owners who do not want to participate and do not want to put money into those parts, but instead want to let others bear those costs. It is a question I ask myself when I read the documents in this matter today. Perhaps we can get an answer.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Roger Hedlund, for the question!

How the external environment is designed is extremely important. It is a policy that we have pursued for a long time. But the principled question in this case is that we believe it is the public sector that has the fundamental responsibility. It is the municipality that does the detailed planning, and the municipality has its park and street unit which works with maintenance in the area and then in cooperation with actors in the area.

The fundamental dividing line here, which several other parties have also raised, is that safety and area management is a public responsibility at its core. That is how one can achieve continuity and ensure that there is a sense of coherence across large areas.

A concern that has also been raised by referral bodies, and which I agree with, is that this fee could lead to new voluntary cooperation not being realized, or even to people refraining from opening up for new area cooperation. We do not believe that this will benefit these areas.

I want to ask Member Roger Hedlund why the truly heavy legislative proposals, which I mentioned in my speech, have not been addressed. Why is there no desire to take a crack down on unserious landlords? There is a really big problem there, which also significantly affects the outdoor environment.

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

Roger Hedlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your answer, Amanda Palmstierna!

When it comes to taking action against property owners who do not manage their properties properly, that was on the Green Party's table during the time when you governed during the previous mandate period. The legislation that is on the table today is legislation that the Green Party's government stood behind. I hope you were satisfied with the work that the Green Party did in that area.

Furthermore, Miljöpartiet argues that there is a concern that tenants will be affected by an extra burden on the rent when one forces, as you express it, property owners to enter into cooperation agreements. I previously asked the Socialdemokraterna how they reason in that matter.

It is possible today for municipal housing companies to use the tenants' costs to make the housing environments safer. The question is whether Miljöpartiet wants to change that legislation so that municipal housing companies are not allowed to work with safety-creating measures in the housing environment. It must be a consequence if the same attitude applies here: One should not use the tenants' profits in the housing companies to undertake safety-creating measures, because that ultimately implies a rent increase.

Good heavens, Madam Speaker, for a residential area where Miljöpartiet is allowed to rule for real with the measures they propose in their motions and special statements. The housing companies shall thus be deprived of the possibility of using their money to create safety in the residential areas in order to avoid a potential rent increase in the end.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Roger Hedlund, for the answer and the follow-up question!

When it comes to the worst landlords and permits for property owners, there is an investigation from this parliamentary term. There was nothing that existed when we sat in government. We also made many interventions in the area during the previous government. There are proposals that are on the table now and also an investigation that has come to the table during this parliamentary term.

I think one should be careful about always shifting the blame backward in time. The investigation into a law on mandatory area cooperation occurred during this mandate period, and in that, there was a proposal regarding permits for property owners. I am speaking about this legislation. Here, the government could have chosen to highlight that. It is here and now that matters.

Regarding the member's second question about voluntariness, it is the compulsion that we are opposing. If a general housing company wants to invest in this, it can of course do so. What we are opposing is a mandatory fee.

The basis of it all, what we consider important, is that it is the public sector that should be responsible for crime prevention and crime fighting. Then, there can be different types of cooperation that ensure the work is taken even further, but one must not shift the responsibility onto the private sector in this way. We believe that is an unfortunate path to take.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 10.)

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