Response to interpellation 2024/25:211 on the responsibility of housing cooperative members for safety
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government is working for increased safety and that legislative changes for rental apartments were prioritized due to higher insecurity there 1 2 3. M analyzes the possibility of equating the responsibility for condominiums and rental apartments 1 2 and wants to correct previous assessments through a condominium register 2 3. M is prepared to investigate equalization in a constructive spirit 3 and argues that S should take responsibility for the stigmatization of rental apartments 4. S considers that condominium owners should be aware of their obligations 5 and that the difference in responsibility is unjustified 6. S wants condominium-related changes to also occur 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Markus Kallifatides has asked me what it is that prevents me and the government from taking the initiative to measures to equalize the legal regulation of the housing cooperative member's and the tenant's responsibility regarding safety in the housing and the immediate environment.
I want to begin by stating that the government is working on a very broad front against organized crime and to increase safety in society. One part of that work is also the legislative changes that Markus Kallifatides raises in his interpellation, that is to say, the legislative changes that give property owners expanded opportunities to evict tenants who commit crimes and which aim to create better conditions for safe residential areas. These legislative changes have entered into force during the year.
We know that the proportion who feel insecure in their residential area is larger among those who live in rented apartments than in other forms of housing. Therefore, the government has also considered it particularly urgent to take measures regarding rented apartments. In order to achieve these safety-creating legislative changes, the work has been carried out expeditiously and focused on where it can do the most good.
It is obviously important that measures are also taken to strengthen safety and counter crime in or near residences, regardless of the form of housing. It is at the same time worth noting that the new rules also apply in the case where there are one or more rental apartments in a housing cooperative's building.
Even though there are similarities between condominiums and rental apartments, there are also differences that need to be considered when considering whether the same rules on forfeiture should apply. For example, the condominium owner is a member of the condominium association, which in turn owns the property. A condominium is valid without time limitation and has an economic value. The condominium owner can also mortgage their condominium. Forfeiting a right of use to a condominium thus raises several other issues and interests compared to when it is a question of forfeiture of a rental apartment.
With that said, it is also evident that the problem with crime that can be linked to housing also occurs in the case of condominiums. That is also why the government is taking measures in that area as well, for example, the creation of a condominium register, something that has long been requested by law enforcement agencies.
It is also not given that the differences that exist between condominiums and rental apartments regarding forfeiture shall remain, even though several other issues and interests are, therefore, relevant. Therefore, we also analyze this issue more closely within the Ministry of Justice.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
Allow me to read from Chapter 7, Section 9 of the Housing Cooperative Act: "When the tenant-owner uses the apartment, he or she shall ensure that those living in the vicinity are not subjected to disturbances that to such an extent can be harmful to health or otherwise deteriorate their residential environment that they should not reasonably be tolerated. The tenant-owner shall also, in other respects, in his or her use of the apartment, observe everything required to maintain health, order, and good condition within or outside the house. He or she shall comply with the specific rules that the association, in accordance with local custom, issues. The tenant-owner shall maintain careful supervision over that these obligations are also fulfilled by those for whom he or she is responsible according to Section 12, third paragraph, 2."
If such disturbances in the housing as referred to in the first sentence of the first paragraph occur, the association shall
order the tenant-owner to ensure that the disturbances cease immediately, and
if it is a question of a residential apartment, notify the social welfare committee in the municipality where the apartment is located about the disturbances.
The second paragraph does not apply if the association terminates the tenant-owner's right on the grounds that the disturbances are particularly serious with regard to their nature or extent.
I think, Madam Speaker, that it is important for the country's millions of condominium owners and all board members in condominium associations to know this.
Chapter 12, Section 25 of the Rent Act then states the legislative changes that were implemented this summer: "The tenant shall also, in their use of the apartment, ensure that those living in the vicinity are not subjected to disturbances that can to such an extent be harmful to health or otherwise deteriorate their residential environment that they should not reasonably be tolerated."
It is called "disturbances in the housing", and it was that legislative change that was implemented.
Even in the Rent Act, as in the Housing Cooperative Act, it already appears that in particularly serious cases of disturbances in the housing, the agreement can be considered forfeited and immediate termination can occur without a requirement that a request for rectification has been made. This appears in Section 25 a.
A number of referral bodies have also urged the government and Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer to equate condominium ownership and rental housing even further, for example by appointing an inquiry to be able to implement changes also in the Condominium Act so that the condominium owner's obligations towards the condominium association become symmetrical with the obligations that rental housing tenants have towards the property owner. This has, however, not occurred.
Madam Speaker! I have now in various ways posed this question to the Minister for Justice. Even after the Minister for Justice's answer to my interpellation here today, my question remains: What is it that prevents the government and the Council of State from acting in this matter?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Markus Kallifatides, not only for the opportunity to discuss this pressing issue here in the Riksdag today but also for the nuanced and informative start to the discussion, which was simply to read aloud from the text of the Housing Cooperative Act. It is difficult to imagine a better start to a work week than that.
I am also pleased that Markus Kallifatides has made an analysis of these issues that largely aligns with both mine and the Ministry of Justice's. That is to say, in this area, there is a need to shift the positions in a corresponding manner to what we have done regarding the rental law regulation.
The background, just to say it, is that the purpose is to create safer residential areas. I will return to the reason why we focused on the rental apartments initially. As I said, the reason is that we know that the insecurity, both perceived and actual, is significantly higher among people living in rental apartments.
Another important reason was, of course, that the previous government had initiated work concerning exactly the rental apartments. It was then natural to build upon the work that had been done and proceed with the issues in that area. It was not entirely uncomplicated to do, it should be said, that is to say, it required a considerable amount of work. We did everything we could to be able to move these issues forward as quickly as possible, and it also proceeded more expeditiously than the initial basis provided at hand.
With that said, I am of course open to making other additional adjustments to the legislation concerning housing cooperatives.
We have started with something that has been highly requested by the law enforcement authorities - to establish a functioning register of condominiums. It has been a huge disadvantage for crime fighting that there is not compiled in a simple way which condominium associations exist and who holds condominiums. It has made it very complicated, not least for the Enforcement Authority and other authorities working with money laundering and other issues, to counter crime that occurs with condominiums as a base or as a tool. That work is not only underway but has come very far.
As I also said, we are now analyzing more closely within the Ministry of Justice the possibility of conducting the type of exercises that Markus Kallifatides highlights. There is possibly an inherent value in that this type of issue is treated as equally as possible in different types of housing. At the same time, there is no doubt that there are circumstances regarding condominiums that differ significantly from those concerning rental apartments, which also makes forfeiture more complicated or, in any case, not as obvious as when it concerns rental apartments.
But that said, I land where I started. This question is being analyzed more closely within the Ministry of Justice, largely according to the lines that Markus Kallifatides adheres to in his interpellation.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! It is nice to be able to contribute to the joy of work at the beginning of the work week by reading aloud from the law book!
I take the liberty of also reading out what the Minister for Justice said initially here: "Even though there are similarities between condominiums and rental apartments, there are also differences that need to be considered when considering whether the same rules on forfeiture should apply. A condominium is valid without time limitation and has an economic value. The condominium owner can also mortgage their condominium. Forfeiture of the right of use to a condominium thus actualizes several other issues and interests compared to when it is a question of forfeiture of a rental right."
This seems to be both the Minister of Justice's and my opinion – even though at least one Stockholmer whom I know that even rental apartments in the real world can constitute highly tangible economic values, why we have been forced to introduce a number of legal tightenings to combat the black market for rental contracts.
Back to the matter! The differences between a housing cooperative apartment (bostadsrätt) and a rental apartment (hyresrätt) have most likely been known to the legislator long before this interpellation debate. The legislator has therefore, despite these differences between bostadsrätt and hyresrätt, decided that a bostadsrätt can also be forfeited, furthermore without requirements for rectification, in cases of particularly serious breaches of public order. I read out the legal text here, Madam Speaker.
The problem that the Minister for Justice paints in his first answer regarding the difference between a housing cooperative apartment and a rental apartment is, therefore, already solved. It will be sold through an executive auction, and the bank will receive its money to the extent that the housing cooperative apartment is mortgaged.
I want to emphasize what the Minister for Justice reminded us of here – that there was a great deal of urgency from the government's side to introduce the changes in the Rent Act, i.e., chapter 12 of the Land Code. They went against the Council on Legislation and moved forward the entry into force – a rather unusual measure. So, there was a sense of urgency.
I also want to emphasize that for some people living in rented apartments today, there is an experience of being singled out – that just living in a rented apartment implies that one is in some way more connected to the very serious, system-threatening crime that our two parties are in complete agreement should be combated with many means and powerful investments.
Madam Speaker! I intend for my follow-up question to be whether the government is prepared to act expeditiously to rectify this, as I see it, unjustified difference between the responsibility of condominium owners and tenants for the safety in the surrounding area. A yes or no answer would be appreciated.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! As I have said several times, we are reviewing these issues at the Ministry of Justice, and we are doing so in light of the fact that problems with crime naturally are not limited to rental apartments.
Let me nevertheless say why there was a hurry. It was because we start from the societal problems, and it is a reality that both the actual and perceived insecurity in society is significantly greater among people who have rental housing than among people who have other forms of housing.
I assume that perhaps it was also part of the background as to why the Social Democrats in government chose to appoint an inquiry aimed at precisely the rental apartments. Then we had views on how the directives for that inquiry had been formulated, for example that it had been limited when it came to the responsibility that already existed for crimes committed in the apartment, in the stairwell, or in the entrance, and which also covers children living in the apartment. That responsibility, the government at the time did not want, according to the directives given to that inquiry, to be extended to also apply to the surrounding area.
I think that was an incorrect assessment. If we were now to toy with rental law or, for that matter, housing cooperative law, it would have created an asymmetry in the legislation that would have been very unfortunate. But above all, it is about the fact that it did not reflect the size and nature of societal problems. It was very important that the responsibility that existed in the apartment, also for one's own children, extended to a larger geographical area. There is no logic in having a large rental law responsibility for a 17-year-old who is a lodger but not having the corresponding responsibility for one's own son or daughter who is 17 years old. We corrected that, but on a basis that for its part had its background in an investigation commissioned by the Social Democrats.
In the month anyone feels singled out, I believe we should share that burden, because it was, as mentioned, the Social Democrats in government who initiated the legislative process which we then completed expeditiously in light of the great societal needs that exist to increase safety and freedom and protect the privacy of people who live in rented apartments.
With that said, I emphasize again that there is, of course, also insecurity linked to condominiums – perhaps to an even greater extent, which law enforcement authorities in particular have pointed out, as condominiums are used as a tool for crime, for example for money laundering. The law enforcement authorities have, among other things, said that this is difficult to follow up and control because there are no registers that provide an overview of housing associations and who owns condominiums here in the country. This we have therefore corrected or are in the process of correcting.
I am also prepared to look more closely at the issue that has been raised today, in a constructive spirit and in line with what Markus Kallifatides has stated in his interpellation.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Madam Speaker! This was an investigation that was initiated by an S-led government – that is correct. After that, a change of government occurred, and then there were referral responses regarding the investigation's proposals. In these referral responses, I and we Social Democrats have been able to read that several heavy referral bodies, for example the Faculty of Law Committee at Stockholm University, clearly pointed out that it was very strange that the responsibility for only the tenant was to be expanded while the housing cooperative issue had not been investigated. So, things happened during the course of the investigation, but the government chose to proceed with only rental housing changes. We Social Democrats have submitted a motion that housing cooperative changes should also occur.
Madam Speaker! In areas with socioeconomic challenges, approximately 35 percent of those who own their home stated that they feel very or quite insecure in their own residential area. The corresponding figure for residents in rented apartments was approximately 45 percent, and the proportion of residents in condominiums who experience insecurity amounted to approximately 39 percent. These are figures from the investigation report Measures for safer residential areas. Against the background of these figures, Madam Speaker, I find it very difficult to see that there is a stable basis for the idea that the form of tenure should be the central issue here.
I am pleased that the Minister for Justice announces that the Ministry of Justice is prepared to proceed with the issue of equating the responsibility of housing cooperative owners and tenant-occupiers regarding safety in the local area. I would like to thank you for the debate and hope that the Ministry of Justice may have received some help along the way from this conversation.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Once again, thanks to Markus Kallifatides for the opportunity to discuss these issues and also for some help on the fly in moving the issues forward!
I do not want to dwell on the past, but since it is said between the lines that the government might even have some kind of interest in pointing out rental apartments over condominiums, I just want to underline once more that it was the Social Democratic government that commissioned an investigation that solely focused on rental apartments. Much can be blamed on the Moderaterna, but not that, because it was not we who sat in government. To the extent that it should have been an expression of some kind of stigmatization or signal from the state authorities, the Socialdemokraterna must take full responsibility for this.
However, I gladly take responsibility for the fact that when we stepped in, we took on this basis, which nevertheless contained a great deal of promise, and as expeditiously as possible have tried to bring it to completion.
Furthermore, we – if I am to dwell on the history a bit more – do what the Social Democrats did not do during eight years: We look at how we can broaden the perspective to also include other forms of housing, including housing cooperatives (bostadsrätter). I have mentioned, which I consider to be a completely hair-raising insight, that there is no register – from the authorities' side, one therefore cannot even oversee Bostadsrättssverige. We have urged the authorities to deliver this.
I think that many of the questions that Markus Kallifatides has raised in his interpellation are pressing and important to continue working on, and I am happy to do so. I also gladly tell Markus Kallifatides that I believe the pace in that process may possibly be increased somewhat through our recurring exchanges on this issue. I think this is a nice conclusion to an interpellation debate that began very joyfully with quotes from legislation. In this fine spirit, we say thank you for today and see you again on this pressing issue.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.