Response to interpellation 2024/25:645 on municipal right of first refusal for strategic properties
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the government prioritizes strengthening safety and countering organized crime by providing municipalities with tools for an active land policy 1. KD emphasizes that the investigation on the right of first refusal aims to get property owners to contribute to safety-creating work 2 3. KD argues that the government has launched several safety-creating measures on the property side, including improvements in supervision and requirements for permits for rental 3. KD underlines that they take information about criminals very seriously and are working to push back serious organized crime 4. S argues that a broader right of first refusal was needed to counter both crime and segregation 5 6. S believes that the government prioritizes private profit interests over the public's safety 6. S argues that a broader approach is important to counter criminal organizations that use properties for money laundering 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)
Madam Speaker! Mattias Vepsä has asked me what I and the government intend to do to strengthen the public's opportunities to take back strategic properties in cases of sale and mismanagement.
I want to begin by emphasizing that the restoration of safety in Sweden is our time's great freedom issue and a high-priority issue for the government. All people shall have the opportunity to live and reside in a society that is safe and attractive.
On 2 June 2022, the then government gave a special investigator a mandate to submit proposals for a new pre-emption law (dir. 2022:48). The overall purpose was then to provide the municipalities with tools to conduct an active land policy.
In May 2023, the Government changed the focus of the investigation's mandate to submit proposals for measures to counter organized crime and facilitate the protection of the civil defense and the military defense (dir. 2023:67). Strengthening the municipalities' ability to counter organized crime requires several tools. The possibility of pre-emption in the transfer of real estate can be one of these.
The investigation into a new pre-emption law submitted in May 2024 the report Digitala fastighetsköp & Förköpsrätt vid fastighetstransaktioner (SOU 2024:38) where the investigation, among other things, proposes that municipalities should be granted a right of pre-emption to counter organized crime. The report has been on consultation, and the preparation of the proposals is now ongoing within the Government Offices.
The Government, in addition to the amended directive for the investigation into a new pre-emption law, has implemented several initiatives to strengthen the municipalities' safety-creating work. Through the Act (2023:196) on municipalities' responsibility for crime prevention work, the municipalities have been given a statutory responsibility to map crime within their geographical area and produce a situational picture. Based on the situational picture, they shall then assess the need for measures and decide on an action plan to prevent crime. The municipalities shall also take some responsibility for the coordination of the local crime prevention work.
On 12 March 2025, the Riksdag adopted the government's bill on expanded possibilities and a simpler procedure for camera surveillance in public activities. The proposal implies, among other things, that the requirement for a permit for camera surveillance is removed and that municipalities may conduct camera surveillance for the purpose of working to ensure that places in the municipality to which the public has access are safe and secure. The law change entered into force on 1 April 2025.
The investigation on measures for strengthened safety in the built environment has, on the government's assignment, analyzed and proposed forms of cooperation between the public sector and property owners in order to strengthen safety in the built environment. The investigation's report Fee for area cooperation – and other measures for safety in the built environment (SOU 2025:5) has been out for consultation and is now being prepared within the Government Offices.
The Government has also given Boverket a continued mandate to develop and disseminate knowledge support and guidance for crime-preventive and safety-creating measures within the community construction process, aimed at, among others, municipal and private actors in the housing market.
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister Andreas Carlson for the answer.
This debate and this question were raised a few weeks ago. Here in Stockholm, Sätra centrum has just been the subject of an executive auction. The city wanted to buy back Sätra centrum and did what the city could to win within the framework of the auction but unfortunately lost. After that, a new owner has had to take over, and one can only hope that the municipality – the city, in this respect – will be able to cooperate with the new manager. We shall see. We will evaluate that later. The signals are positive so far.
Madam Speaker! These are the effects of the Moderaterna selling off Sätra Centrum in 1999. Today we see what can happen with an unprofessional manager. Years of neglected maintenance of an environment where insecurity is allowed to grow and crime can take root demonstrates the importance of us managing – in this case a center property – in a good way.
Part of the question here was: whether the government sees a need to take a broader approach when it comes to the right of first refusal. I am aware that the previous government appointed an inquiry to look at a new right of first refusal act. As we heard in the answer, the previous right of first refusal act was abolished during the Alliance government.
Previous debaters in this chamber have, of course, also had discussions with the Minister. One might think that a clarification of the directives was required. That is very possible. But it is also the case that many referral bodies point out that the directives underlying this investigation were perhaps in the narrowest range.
When it comes to the municipal responsibility for crime prevention, we know that crime prevention is more than just looking at who owns or manages a property. It can be the case that crime prevention locally, that is, very locally, can be about maintaining a safe place. In that case, the management of a place, or in this case a center property, becomes decisive if one is to be able to push back crime, criminal groups, and unscrupulous actors who make the residential area or the center property unsafe.
The City of Stockholm writes in its referral response to the investigation pointed out in the interpellation response: "A stronger municipal right of first refusal would have been an important instrument to strengthen the municipality's ability to conduct an active and long-term land policy that addresses the segregation problems that have long been built into the cityscape."
Some of the problems we see concern serious organized crime, but another part – which interacts with the insecurity that has emerged – is segregation, that is, the inequality we see in our cities. The first question that is in its place is therefore whether the minister, despite everything, does not see a need for a broader approach when it comes to the possibility for the municipalities to have a clearer right of first refusal to strategic properties.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! First, I would like to thank Mattias Vepsä for the interpellation. I believe the member points out a circumstance that is important when it comes to combating serious crime and building away insecurity and building in safety in society.
The government is making many different reinforcements of the penal code and of the Swedish police. We are taking several measures in the preventive work, not least on the social side of crime prevention work in the form of parental support programs, and when it comes to confidentiality between different authorities so that they can contribute to crime prevention measures worthy of the name. All of that is important, and it is of course something that needs to be put in place at high speed.
When it comes to several of the areas that are, for example, on the police's list of vulnerable areas or where we know that measures are needed to reverse the development, it is not enough. The whole idea with several of the measures that I raised in my interpellation answer is about, as I said, building in safety and building away insecurity – that which is sometimes described as situational crime prevention.
In that context, it is of course important to keep an eye on what Mattias Vepsä describes as unserious administrators. It is important to see how different property owners are involved and contribute to a positive development in areas. I will come to the answer to the concrete question, but I still want to highlight measures for strengthened safety in the built environment in this context.
There are many good examples of voluntary cooperation where property owners join forces with other actors – such as civil society, the police, and other authorities – to work on specifically safety-creating measures. But in many parts of the country where I have visited those types of positive examples – even during the time when I sat in the Riksdag's Justice Committee, Madam Speaker – one has been able to point to a number of properties where the owners do not participate in the positive work. That is what the mandate in this investigation aims for: to get more, if not all, property owners involved in the work of building in safety.
When it comes to the specific question of the right of first refusal, it is quite true that the government, in order to achieve a strong focus on organized crime – and also for the protection of the civil and military defense – delimited the assignment in a supplementary directive. It was about having more precision in those parts and achieving effect in the work of countering organized crime.
Many referral bodies have responded to the referral and given their views on the proposals that the investigator has submitted, and I do not want to anticipate the preparation of them. I state instead that we view the engagement very positively and, of course, will prepare the proposal from the investigation together with the views that have come in from the referral bodies. It is clear that we are looking through and reading these referral responses with the starting point that we are to achieve as good measures as possible in order to be able to build in safety and counteract organized crime.
I would like to conclude by saying that it is still positive to hear the positive signals that Mattias Vepsä has perceived in the concrete case. It is, of course, something we are following.
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Madam Speaker! When it comes to the investigation on increased cooperation, we can all agree that it is positive if we can increase cooperation, voluntariness, and everyone's responsibility to work on crime prevention and creating safety. We also stood behind and were involved in preparing the legislation to give the municipalities a clearer responsibility for the crime prevention work, which is also included. It is about situational pictures and interventions to increase safety and combat crime.
What I am requesting here, and what the City of Stockholm has requested regarding both the sale and the purchase of Sätra centrum, are clearer tools, that is to say, clearer opportunities for the municipality to act proactively. One does not want to merely be referred to collaborations or analyses. When there is a risk of unserious property managers or increased crime and collaboration agreements are not enough – when it is required that the public sector steps in with muscles – clearer legislation is required.
It feels a bit like the Sweden Democrats and the government are having difficulty tackling private interests. This is a major blind spot for the government. In recent months, it has become crystal clear to all of us who work with crime fighting that the private interests – the profit interests in various sectors – time and again are allowed to take precedence over the public interest of order and safety or security. We see HVB homes run by gang criminals and care companies run by MC club representatives. Not least, we remember how a large property management company left the district court in Södertälje a year ago and instead, an ownership group was moved in that was reported to have connections to the Södertälje network.
It is against that background that we Social Democrats say that it is absolutely important that we get legislation in place that provides concrete tools when it comes to crime fighting, but that sometimes it is also a bit more vague. Sometimes it is important to have broader legislation that makes it possible for the municipalities to take the responsibility required to not only maintain safety but also build entire cities. It is about building away the segregation and increasing equality. We know that it creates safety. It creates entire cities, and it creates an opportunity for the residents to feel: "This is a district that I want to live in and that I feel for." Then the resilience against both crime and other evils grows.
In Dagens Samhälle a year ago, just when the government received the investigation, the minister spoke. The opening of the article was: ”Regeringen stoppar utredningen om en ny kommunal förköpsrätt vid fastighetsaffärer.” The background to the government having given the narrower directive was that it gave an all too broad possibility for municipal pre-emption.
It must also be weighed, which I began my speech by saying, that those who were most critical were precisely private property owners and perhaps one or another center owner. Then the question is who one should listen to. Shall we listen to all those municipalities and all those authorities – the Economic Crime Authority, the Police Authority and others – who have highlighted the need for sharper tools, or shall we listen to individual profit interests? That is the first question: Whom is the government listening to when it comes to this important issue?
The second question is: Is there a timetable for when a municipal right of first refusal will be introduced? It has, after all, been a year since the investigation landed on the Minister's desk.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Several of the points that Mattias Vepsä raises in the debate are such as are found in the referral responses, and they are being processed in the Government Offices together with the commission's proposals. The report was out for referral, and I believe we had received all the referral responses in October, i.e., in the autumn. Since then, we have been processing them. It is a fairly extensive amount of material, and to answer the member's question, I have no timetable that I can communicate here in the chamber.
It is important to listen to the various referral bodies that have given their views, and new legislation in the area naturally requires careful considerations. One must be aware that this is a complicated area of law. New legislation must be legally certain and proportionate and take into account conflicting interests. It must not contribute to excessively large negative consequences and disruptions for the functioning of the real estate market and must be accurate for the interests it is intended to protect.
It is important, Madam Speaker, to also see the other parts of the safety-creating measures that the government has launched, not least on the property side. The report Fee for area cooperation – and other measures for safety in the built environment is about not only building on voluntariness but also on an obligation; that was indeed the assignment given to the investigator. When it comes to the other safety measures mentioned in the heading, it appears in the investigation that it also concerns investigating improvements in the supervision of the built environment and a requirement for a permit to charge rent, as well as establishing a national knowledge center. It is therefore more proposals than just those concerning area cooperation, Madam Speaker, that are relevant in this case.
I hope I have answered the questions. Who should we listen to? It is important to listen to those who have submitted comments on the proposal. As of today, I do not have a timetable that I can communicate in the chamber, but the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices.
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Andreas Carlson, for the answer!
It is clear that I understand the importance of listening to the referral bodies and incorporating all the comments that exist, but there were reasons why a delimitation was made of the broader mandate that the Social Democratic government had given. A clarifying directive was added to the first investigation mandate that did not include the crime-fighting aspect as clearly, but there was a security part and writings about being able to remove unserious property owners as well as about the risk of criminal organizations using BRFs, center formations, and other things to launder money. There was – and probably still is – a preparatory basis that is important to analyze. It is also important to understand that a broader approach is important.
In other parts of the government's crime-fighting policy, we usually hear that there are both fast-tracks and opportunities to accelerate heavy investigations and processes. Organized crime in this country has eaten its way into more and more parts of various operations. Today, I point out that it can be a matter of, through different crime setups, obtaining central locations or properties to be able to conduct their criminal activities, but sometimes it can also be the case that poor ownership indirectly leads to municipalities all over the country having problems increasing safety in residential areas.
It is remarkable that we cannot get a timeline for just this investigation or a way forward from the government when it concerns such an urgent issue. From the City of Stockholm, it was only a few weeks ago that it was pointed out that they see a very great value in this legislation being put in place.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! The purpose of the fast-track investigation that the member referred to was to produce a preparatory basis. Now we have an investigation that has submitted proposals. These have been referred, and we are preparing them in the Government Offices.
Regarding the other parts that the member has raised during the debate, Madam Speaker, it is not the case that the government is turning a blind eye in any way. We are not sticking our fingers in either; one can choose whichever expression one prefers. We take very seriously all tasks regarding criminals having entered the social system in various ways. Regarding HVB homes, as the member mentioned, the government has tasked Ivo with tightening the supervision. My colleague the Minister for Social Services has stated that all HVB homes shall be audited. Even regarding ownership of socially important infrastructure, measures have been taken.
It is important to see that organized crime is a threat to the system. It infiltrates a long series of different areas in society. That was the basis for why we saw a need to clarify this regarding pre-emption rights and pre-emption legislation, which we also did in the supplementary directive for which we subsequently received a basis for investigation. It has been referred, and this will form the basis for the continued work.
My message is that this is being prepared in the Government Offices. My message during this debate is that we are moving forward with many other measures on a broad front to push back the gross organized crime, build in safety and build away insecurity.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.