Response to interpellation 2025/26:445 on municipal right of first refusal for key properties
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the introduction of municipal right of first refusal for key properties. KD argues that the government focuses on creating accurate and proportionate tools to counter organized crime and protect civil and military defense 1 2 3 4. KD emphasizes that a broader right of first refusal would entail uncertainty, delayed transfers, and administrative burden 3 4. S wants a broader municipal right of first refusal to counter segregation, enable business expansion, and facilitate climate adaptation measures 5 6. S considers the current tools to be blunt and slow for handling declining central facilities 7. S argues that the government has a positive attitude toward introducing a municipal right of first refusal 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.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Markus Kallifatides has asked me what considerations have led to the fact that I and the government have not moved forward with the proposals on municipal right of first refusal and whether I and the government still see no reason to introduce a broader municipal right of first refusal in accordance with the original investigation directives.
In May 2023, the government changed the direction of the Inquiry into a new pre-emption law to concern the specific situations where it may be justified for the municipality or the state to intervene and take over a real estate purchase (dir. 2023:67). The inquiry was therefore tasked, among other things, with submitting proposals on grounds for pre-emption to counter organized crime and to facilitate the protection of civil and military defense. The previous municipal grounds for pre-emption in the original directive were thus discarded. The government's focus in this matter is to ensure accurate and proportionate tools.
The investigation submitted the report Digital property purchases & Right of first refusal in property transactions (SOU 2024:38) in May 2024. The report has been on consultation, and the proposals are being prepared within the Government Offices.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Infrastructure and Housing Andreas Carlson, for the rather concise answer to my interpellation!
I am here as a Member of Parliament from the city of Stockholm. I have taken my starting point in a number of high-profile debates and developments concerning detention centers in my city specifically. But I believe that the issues are of relevance for our entire country.
So, there has been a major debate regarding neglected community facilities – they affect people in many ways. One has both concrete examples and perhaps slightly vaguer suspicions about different types of irregularities and, in the extreme case, criminal activity in and around the facilities.
Mr. Speaker! Leading representatives for the city of Stockholm, my fellow party members, have clearly requested greater opportunities for municipalities to intervene when properties, such as central facilities, are put up for sale: a municipal right of first refusal for so-called key properties.
It was against that background, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democratic-led government in 2022 tasked a special investigator with producing proposals for a new – reintroduced, if you will – municipal right of first refusal. Such a right has, therefore, existed in Sweden and exists, for example, in our neighboring country Finland. This investigation had a mandate to look at a number of grounds for first refusal, objective reasons, for a municipality to intervene and exercise a right of first refusal. It concerned business establishments and business expansions. It was about enabling socially important climate adaptation measures and also about effectively reducing and counteracting segregation.
After this government's amendment through supplementary directives to the investigation, only – and it is not unimportant – the purpose of countering organized crime remains.
I have asked two questions to Andreas Carlson. The first question was: What considerations have led to the fact that the government has not yet moved the proposal that has actually been ready since the second half of 2024 forward to a government bill – a proposal for new legislation? The second question was: What considerations is the government making, and what thoughts does the government have regarding perhaps proposing a somewhat broadened municipal right of first refusal?
I want to plead a bit for that idea. Based on the experiences in Stockholm, we envision that it is a sliding scale of problems that follow from a key property, such as a central facility. There are, as we see it, very good reasons to give municipalities a fairly powerful instrument, an opportunity to step in and take their municipal responsibility in relation to the citizens in order to establish a good social development.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Markus Kallifatides, for the questions!
The first question is based on the premise that we would not have taken these proposals further, as it is formulated. We have referred them. We are preparing them. Preparation of these proposals is therefore ongoing. Several referral responses have been received that need to be analyzed thoroughly. It is therefore not correct that the government has not taken the proposals further. This is still ongoing.
New legislation in this area requires careful balancing. It is a complicated area of law. It is important that it is accurate regarding the new direction we gave the investigator concerning the protection of civil and military defense and that which concerns countering organized crime.
New legislation must be legally secure, proportionate and, as I just said, accurate when it comes to the interests it is intended to protect. It must also take into account opposing interests and not contribute to excessively large and negative consequences and disruptions for the functioning of the real estate market. There are a number of referral points in that part.
The government's focus in the matter is, as before, to ensure accurate and proportionate tools to strengthen security, counter organized crime, and facilitate the protection of civil and military defense.
The deteriorating security situation has reinforced the need to protect the interests of the military defense. Kallifatides mentioned Finland. Since 2020, Finland has had a right of first refusal, among other things, to ensure national security. It is desirable that Sweden develops corresponding tools with a state right of first refusal for the protection of the military defense. That was the background to the directive that we gave, and we now have a basis that is being further prepared.
Regarding the second question, we have no proposals to broaden this. The investigation proposals that we received have been out for consultation, and it is these proposals we are working with.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
I believe I clearly expressed that the government has not taken this further to a proposition and a proposal for new legislation. I am therefore not denying what the Minister correctly stated, namely that the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices. This is also evident from my interpellation.
I appreciate the somewhat developed reasoning and note that the government and the Social Democrats, as I can see, do not have opposing views on a state right of first refusal aimed at the buildup of military and civil defense as well as military and civil preparedness. We look forward to a bill or possibly to being able to submit such a bill as promptly as possible.
My question targeted the municipal right of first refusal. Primarily, it would not be about civil and military preparedness and defense capability, but about broader issues of societal development. That is how we Social Democrats, not least in Stockholm City Hall, have viewed it. These are important key properties, Mr. Speaker, such as central facilities that exist in the everyday environment of tens of thousands of people and which are in decline. They have neglected property maintenance and details are peeling off. This affects the insecure environments that exist and the unclear activities that are ongoing – one more clandestine than the other.
We have sought a tool, among many conceivable ones, so that a municipality can take its responsibility and step in to, among other things, effectively reduce and counteract segregation, to enable business establishments and business expansion, and to take responsibility for climate adaptation measures. This applies in addition to the explicit purpose that we do stand behind: to counteract organized crime.
It is also important for us that measures are accurate, Mr. Speaker. I think that this will be tested when the pre-emption right is tested – but if there is no legal basis for a municipal pre-emption right, there will be no assessment regarding whether the actual measure becomes accurate or not.
When it comes to proportionate measures and disturbances, I would very much like to give Housing Minister Andreas Carlson the opportunity to elaborate on how serious disturbances one actually envisions arising so that, for example, a reporting obligation regarding property sales and acquisitions should be introduced so that the municipality de facto gets the opportunity to intervene within a certain timeframe – with a right of first refusal, nothing else.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the questions and the commitment, Markus Kallifatides!
These are pressing issues. It is about safety and how it can be reclaimed, about how crime can be combated, and about people being able to feel both safety and well-being in their own residential area and in the vicinity of their area.
There are already several tools today. We have also introduced legislation that strengthens property owners' responsibility when it comes to cooperating for increased safety and well-being.
When it comes to the question itself, we can observe from the previous and broader right of first refusal that existed between 1968 and 2010 that pre-emption brought with it uncertainty, delayed property transfers, costs, and an administrative burden. Regarding the disruptions I referred to and which Kallifatides asked a follow-up question about, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the referral bodies, and it is of course important to handle these in good order.
This was the reason why the government submitted a proposal for a more precise application in order to be able to have a right of first refusal in cases where we considered it to be justified, namely regarding protection for civil and military defense and to counter organized crime.
When it comes to the toolbox, there are already today several other legal tools for the municipalities to use to intervene against property owners who do not manage their properties in an acceptable manner. One does not, therefore, need to wait for a property to come onto the market in order to be able to, as Kallifatides said, step in and acquire the property.
Through the Rent Act, which is found in Chapter 12 of the Land Code, as well as the Housing Management Act, there is protective legislation that makes it possible to intervene against rental property owners who neglect their properties. This can involve an order to take action, an order of management, or, in the extreme, compulsory management.
In some cases, other measures may also become relevant, such as requiring an owner to demolish a dilapidated building at their own expense with the support of PBL, or expropriating a grossly neglected property with the support of the Expropriation Act. The Expropriation Act can also be used even when a neglected property is not offered for sale.
I want to bring this up to broaden the discussion and point out that there are other tools as well. Together with the administrative measures that have been facilitated and strengthened during the government's time in power, where cooperation with the police is facilitated and where the forfeiture of properties and other assets is also part of the fight against organized crime, the toolbox has thus been broadened.
We are, as said, still preparing a right of first refusal justified by precisely the fight against organized crime and in order to facilitate the protection of civil and military defense.
Markus Kallifatides (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for Housing for the debate.
For me, it still sounds like the government – to the extent that it is given the opportunity to continue after September 13 – has a positive attitude towards actually introducing a municipal right of first refusal. In that case, all the objections that, for example, Fastighetsägarna had in their referral response regarding an additional administrative burden and possible delay of real estate transactions – fall reasonably, because a municipal right of first refusal is then being introduced.
It is there that the administrative processes occur and not on what grounds municipal right of first refusal can be exercised, but rather it is about whether such a right exists at all or not. It does not exist today, but if it were to be introduced, new administrative and potentially legal processes would arise involving all involved actors, including municipalities and courts in the extreme case.
When it comes to the broadened discussion, I want to remind that it is not quite the same legislation. The Housing Management Act does not apply to a central facility with premises and shops; in that case, other legislation applies. PBL obviously applies, and supervision according to the Planning and Building Act applies, but municipal representatives argue that that legislation is entirely aimed at achieving corrections of various kinds. We would probably like to assert that it is a blunt and slow tool for this area.
The Expropriation Act presupposes gross neglect of the property. I would say that it is something completely different from preventing organized crime or, for all we know, facilitating climate adaptation measures or promoting good social development. I therefore think those were somewhat weak arguments, but I welcome that we have a measure of consensus.
Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I also thank you for the debate.
As I have pointed out, this is an area that is important but where careful considerations are required. The fact is that a broader municipal right of first refusal would increase the risk of administrative hurdles and the impact that would be negative – that was what I referred to – and create uncertainty as well as lead to delayed property transfers, costs and an administrative burden.
Just when it comes to countering organized crime and protecting properties for civil or military defense, we did, however, see reason to continue investigating a right of first refusal, and that is what we continue to prepare.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.