Response to interpellation 2024/25:286 on new pre-emption law
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD argues that organized crime is a threat to the system and that a new pre-emption law is an important tool to counter crime and strengthen the total defense 1. 2 3 KD argues that the government tightened the investigation's directives to include crime prevention perspectives and that the proposal is being prepared at a high pace 2 3 4. 5 S argues that municipalities need pre-emption rights to act against criminal actors in the housing market 5. 5 6 7 S argues that the government's response is vague and expresses concern that the government is being influenced by private property owners 5 6 7. 7 S argues that it is good that the perspective on pre-emption was added to the investigation 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.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Ingela Nylund Watz has asked me when I and the government intend to submit a government bill to the Riksdag that enables the introduction of a new right of first refusal. I thank Ingela Nylund Watz for the interpellation on this important issue.
Organized crime is a threat to the system. The violence, the threats, the recruitment of children and the criminal economy have both a direct and indirect impact on people's safety and security as well as on essential societal functions. I want to begin by establishing that the task of pushing back organized crime is one of the government's most important.
On 2 June 2022, the then government gave a special investigator a mandate to submit proposals for new pre-emption legislation. The current government changed the direction of the investigation's mandate in May 2023 to submit proposals for measures to counter organized crime and facilitate the protection of the civil defense and the military defense.
There are signs that actors within organized crime have entered the housing market and, among other things, use real estate transactions for money laundering. Society's resilience against this crime must be strengthened fundamentally. Strengthening the municipalities' ability to counter organized crime requires several tools. The possibility of pre-emption rights in the transfer of real estate can be one of them.
The deteriorating security situation has also reinforced the need to promote Sweden's security and assert Sweden's territorial integrity. The investigation has therefore submitted proposals for a state right of first refusal for properties for civil and military defense.
The investigation's report has been out for consultation during the autumn, and many consultation responses have been received. Preparation of the report's proposals is ongoing within the Government Offices. At the current stage, it is too early to say when the government can submit a proposition to the Riksdag.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Mr. Speaker! Södertälje Municipality noted early on that properties have increasingly become interesting objects for criminal actors. The municipality has therefore progressively tightened the land allocation and supervision processes and is actively working to scan all processes that are relevant in connection with property transactions where the municipality has strategic interests. But those tools are not enough. Therefore, a new pre-emption law was needed.
In January last year, DN revealed that Södertälje District Court, which is located in the middle of the city center, is owned by a corporate group that has a direct connection to the so-called Södertälje network. The District Court in Södertälje handles – just like other district courts – very serious, aggravated crime such as murder, human trafficking and extortion as well as welfare crime and money laundering. Many times, unfortunately, it is rowdy in the premises in connection with cases linked to gang criminals. It creates anxiety and insecurity.
The district court was previously owned by a large listed real estate company. But when they chose to leave Södertälje, the property was sold to a small local company, which quite quickly bought its way into a larger corporate group. This caused the police and prosecutors to react forcefully, as the main owner was investigated for serious crime. Much can be said about this, but I only want to use it as an illustration of how important it is that the municipalities are given the opportunity to act. They have the best knowledge of the local real estate market.
The Minister states that the government intends to act forcefully and that it is important to combat organized crime. It is even a priority issue. It is good that the government has high ambitions. We agree on very much in this. But when it comes to the municipalities' possibilities to live up to the legislation on crime prevention work, which we decided on here in the Riksdag last year, the tools are a bit meager. There is also no common definition of what crime prevention work is, which is a problem in itself. But there is an opportunity to open the door so that municipalities can really be able to act forcefully, since they have good knowledge of what is happening in the local market.
Reintroducing the pre-emption law - which was abolished in 2010 - is perhaps right now the only effective tool to stop criminal actors' activities in the real estate and housing market. Therefore, I am somewhat confounded when I hear the Minister's answer. I think the Minister's formulations are vague. The Minister said that a pre-emption law could be a tool but also that there is no timetable for when a bill could be submitted to the Riksdag. I am therefore questioning the high ambitions when it comes to combating serious organized crime. Do they not apply when it comes to giving the municipalities tools to act against this type of crime? Are they just beautiful words?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I perceive it as the member having a strong commitment to this. Those stories, snapshots, and descriptions of reality that the member brings up are precisely the reason why we need sharpened legislation in this area. The purpose is to tackle organized crime but also to enable pre-emption regarding the total defense's needs.
Mr. Speaker! It is possible that I could have emphasized the answer in a different way: A right of first refusal can be a tool. Many tools are needed to combat organized crime, and this can be one of them.
Mr. Speaker! It is somewhat surprising that the tone is relatively high. It was our government that sharpened the directive to the investigation whose proposals we are now discussing. The Social Democratic government appointed the investigation with the overriding purpose of giving the municipalities tools to conduct an active land policy - not to counter organized crime. That is, therefore, the background to our additional directive.
Our addition meant a sharpened focus on just organized crime. Had it been included from the beginning, Mr. Speaker, we would have had a preparatory basis in place earlier. Instead, we had to sharpen the investigation's directives and now have a basis on the table. The investigation is complete and has been referred, and we are preparing this.
There is, therefore, possibly some room for self-reflection. If one thinks that it should have been in place a long time ago, there were opportunities already when the investigation was commissioned to direct it towards organized crime specifically. The previous government did not do that. Therefore, our government did so through a supplementary directive that provided a significantly sharper basis for getting a new pre-emption law in place. The focus is on combating crime and facilitating the total defense.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to be drawn into a ping-pong match over who bears the blame for what. We are facing a real problem here. Now is now, and then was then.
I am the first to admit that I would have gladly seen such legislation significantly earlier. It was not possible. On the other hand, it has now been three years since the Social Democratic government began working on a new pre-emption law, and I am completely certain that we have had nothing against the additional directives that this government came up with. They were good. I have nothing against them.
What we must do together now is to decide whether the municipalities should be given this opportunity - perhaps a bit late, but still. Should they be given the opportunity, or should they not? That question belongs to the government, and that is why I am asking questions.
That is also why I become a bit confused when I hear the answer. The Minister must excuse me, but that this can be an opportunity or an instrument is still a very vague formulation.
Why do I sense unease? Well, I have received the referral responses. Many municipalities, SKR (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner), and the Economic Crime Authority are very clear that this is legislation that must be put in place. Not least the Economic Crime Authority has very clear statements in its response regarding how the development of crime in the markets for housing and real estate has looked in recent years.
I have also read other referral responses, not least from the large private property owners, who with all desirable clarity tell the government that this would be to commit violence against private enterprise.
It is not so strange that I, as a Social Democratic representative with good knowledge of what relations this government has, not least with private companies, allow myself to wonder what it could be that makes the government so hesitant and why the government is so vague in its answer to my questions.
I am, in fact, afraid that the statements which Justice Minister Strömmer made, in connection with the publication of the DN article about the district court in Södertälje, regarding it being reasonable to introduce a new pre-emption law were a bit of a momentary impulse. I shall, of course, ask him about that when I get the opportunity, but I have the minister who is responsible for the issue here now.
That is why I think it is reasonable to demand that the government speak here in today's debate as to whether the government at all intends to come to the Riksdag with a proposition that would provide opportunities for the municipalities to exercise a right of first refusal when there is a risk that otherwise one would put important strategic properties into the hands of criminal actors - or if it is the case that the government has gotten cold feet because many of the large private real estate companies think that this is a terrible idea. It would be interesting to get a concrete and clear answer to that question.
It is also the case that the crime that we now see eating its way into the markets for housing and real estate all around our country is not an isolated phenomenon. It is just one of various criminal schemes that contain many other types of crime within the same sphere and area. It could be about crime in the working life, fraud with waste management, or whatever it may be. But it concerns a much broader problem than just the real estate.
My direct question is: Will the government come forward with a proposition at all?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! There are many issues that the member touches upon here.
The member claims that my answer is vague, Mr. Speaker. The member, of course, has every right to think exactly what she wants about a minister's answer here in the chamber. But if there was anything that was vague, it was the investigation directives that the previous government gave. It is not about a ping-pong match in any way, but it is about engaging in some form of self-reflection when one directs very tough criticism at the government in an issue where one actually bears responsibility for the work having been delayed in the sense that the member is referring to.
It was the case that the investigation directives given to this investigation from the beginning did not at all include the crime prevention perspective. You did not even mention the crime prevention perspective in the investigation directives. That was why our government did this, given precisely the problematic issue that I share the member's view on. We see that this is an important area. We see that it is an area where it is reasonable and would be appropriate to have pre-emptive legislation aimed at precisely organized crime and also for the needs of the total defense.
It was the direction that we gave the investigation. We received a basis. Now it is out for consultation. We of course have no ambitions to let this sit on the shelf, but we will process it at as high a tempo as possible. But the reason why we do not have this in place already today, I dare say, is that the crime-preventive perspective towards organized crime was missed from the beginning. We had to clean that up, and we have now done so.
I hope I can reassure the member that we will continue to prepare this with the aim that it shall become a government bill and new legislation that will become an important tool to combat serious organized crime and provide support to the total defense and the total defense's needs.
I have spent many years working in the Committee on Justice of the Riksdag, so I am very well aware that the investments that need to be made to combat crime are not only about the historically large investments we make in the Swedish police and not only about very effective measures regarding social preventive interventions with family support programs, improved measures for social services and changes in the secrecy legislation that allow for better cooperation to prevent young people from being recruited and drawn into crime. A great deal also involves getting the whole society involved, not least the real estate side and property owners.
That is what this legislation will aim to achieve. But now we are in a situation where we are preparing the proposal from an investigation. It has been referred. It is following its course. I can, however, reassure the members that this is not something that is sitting on the shelf. It is one of the government's important, prioritized areas for combating crime.
Then I think the member is making a bit too much of a point of my answer that this can be one of the tools. It is an entire toolbox that needs to be in place for us to succeed in pushing back crime, and the statistics show that this government has so far been successful in that work. We are not finished in any way.
I appreciate that the member underlines that this is something we fundamentally agree on. I also hope for support in the continued work.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Mr. Speaker! I allow myself to be concerned that the government expresses itself vaguely in its response.
When I scratch the surface and read the referral responses from the heavy private property owners in Sweden, I think the government has some trouble convincing them as well that legislation to in certain cases give the municipalities the opportunity to step in and exercise a right of first refusal is a reasonable path to take when we overall need to introduce new tools to tackle organized crime. It is not strange that a right-wing government listens to private special interests, so I allow myself to be concerned.
As I said in my previous post, I am the first to say that I think it would have been much better if the investigation commissioned by the Social Democratic government had also had this perspective. That it was subsequently added is welcomed, not least from Södertälje's perspective. I think it is good. But then was then, and now is now. Now it is Minister Carlson who has the responsibility to bring this to a decision in the Swedish Riksdag, and from what can be discerned from the interpellation answer, one is not convinced that a government bill will even reach the Riksdag at all. When the Minister tries to answer here and says that there is good hope that it can reach the Riksdag, which the Minister just said, I become no less insecure.
I am now giving the Minister one last chance. Will the government, during this mandate period, deliver a proposition to the Riksdag with a proposal that makes it possible for municipalities to exercise a right of first refusal in a situation where there are risks that organized crime would otherwise establish itself in the local real estate market – yes or no?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! There are all the opportunities for the member to go back and look at the minutes and see in writing what I said orally: that work is now underway to prepare the proposal. The ambition and direction is that a bill shall be produced that enables us to establish a new pre-emption legislation aimed precisely at organized crime and the needs of the total defense. That is the work that is underway.
The member knows very well how the work functions. We commission inquiries and gather views so that we can obtain the best possible basis. I have no information today regarding the timeline for when the member can expect a government bill on the Riksdag's table. But the direction of the work is, of course, that we are to change the legislation so that this becomes one of the tools that can be used in the fight against organized crime. I hope that will reassure the member. Everyone else who has listened to this debate has probably already been reassured.
With this, I thank you for the commitment and for the discussion.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.