2022 report on state-owned enterprises

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are to debate state-owned companies. I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

The question is: Why should the state run companies? Shouldn't the business sector do it instead? That is, of course, my basic view as a Moderate. But there may be reasons. It could be that the state wants to achieve that there is an activity that the private business sector cannot manage or cope with.

My hope is nevertheless that the government will return with a proposal on the sorting or prioritization of which companies the state should own in the long term.

2022 report on companies with state ownership

It could be Vattenfall, who should receive directives to start the process of expanding nuclear power. It is prepared in Forsmark and in Ringhals if one wants to build large reactors. It could also be smaller modular reactors that can be built. South Korea has far-reaching technology and is expanding abroad. They can be completed in three years if environmental permits and everything else is in place.

However, it is highly questionable whether the state should operate pharmacies. Since the Reinfeldt government abolished the pharmacy monopoly, one can wonder: Should the state have a company that sells medicines? It is highly questionable, when it is nevertheless controlled by the Medical Products Agency and other authorities.

Should the state run a bank like SBAB and lend for mortgages and the like and to housing cooperatives? That is also something one can consider. We have a financial market in Sweden that functions perfectly. It is also under supervision by the Finansinspektionen, among others.

Should the state run education companies like Lernia? It is a hot potato in my party whether it should do so. I can really wonder if it is right in the long term. Now it has won a larger procurement from Arbetsförmedlingen, I heard recently. Now it has something to bite into for the time being. But one can still wonder if it is the state's main task to run an education company.

There is something that I consider to be even worse. Should the state run contracting companies like Svevia, which build roads and maintain streets and squares in the municipalities? It has the state's capital behind it when it competes with private companies. Furthermore, there is a rental company called Arento, which rents out machines, lawnmowers and the like in the municipalities.

It is primarily the municipalities in southern Norrland that are severely affected by this. There, private companies are forced to close due to underpricing of the operations. Competing with tax money as venture capital is unhealthy.

Should the state run a venture capital company like Almi? Often, when one has been rejected on a case for a bank loan from the banks, one turns to Almi and asks if it is possible to finance the arrangement. These are often questionable business ideas. Therefore, I find it remarkable. The banks still make an assessment of what is reasonable to lend out based on the risk they take. The risk normally costs in the form of the interest one receives. The answer is not obvious. My opinion is that these activities are better managed by banks and the private business sector.

The big sorrowful child we have among the state-owned companies is SAS. It has been running with large deficits for many years. I believe that even the opposition shares the assessment that it is not simple how we should proceed with SAS in the long term. It concerns whether we should remain with an ownership or not.

It has been a strong tradition in Sweden to own SAS together with the Nordic countries, except for Finland. Unfortunately, the operations have run with large deficits for practically the last 20 years.

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the state should instead prioritize its core activities, such as defense, the judiciary, education, and healthcare. Furthermore, I believe that the state needs to strengthen its governance over its companies, for I want to assert that it is a bit shaky in some respects. When CEOs in state-owned companies go out and demand certain types of energy to supply their companies with electricity, one can wonder whether it is the CEOs' or the owners' task to decide which type of energy the companies should be powered by. I think that the arguments put forward in that matter are highly murky.

It is also important that the boards of these companies have the right CEO so that they can function. We also have today a Tidö Agreement which affects the energy industry very clearly, and in that case, one should follow these directives and not have own agendas.

Many CEOs argue that one should have owner supplements for various investments here and there. I won't go into details, but I can say that it concerns many billions. One should probably consider that, and therefore I think the government should tighten the ownership directives for the state-owned companies.

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

Marianne Fundahn (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement states that Vattenfall shall immediately commence new nuclear power at Ringhals and other suitable locations. Do the Tidö parties mean that a certain type of power shall be prioritized? And how does one intend to make decisions in a practical sense?

There is also talk about a new governance of Vattenfall, including through a new council of state with the participation of civil servants. The group shall be tasked with steering Vattenfall in a direction towards becoming a leader in the expansion of planned fossil-free electricity production, including directives for new nuclear power.

Should one force Vattenfall, which exists in a competitive market, to not be business-oriented? And what will the board's mandate be in this?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is a clear point in the Tidö Agreement, and it is also a quite important point considering that we soon have an energy shortage waiting for us. We do not have it yet, except occasionally, when it is cold and when there is no wind.

We must prepare for robust electricity supply in Sweden. That requires us to expand nuclear power, and it is one of the reasons why we have a state-owned company that we can task with doing this. It is more difficult to give those directives to other energy companies that the state does not own. I think it is a very good point in the Tidö Agreement.

This is fully necessary, because we expect a double electricity consumption already by 2035. We have large industrial investments in Norrland. One of them, Hybrit, is proposed to draw as much electricity as Finland consumes annually today. Then we must have nuclear power. Unfortunately, hydropower is not enough, even though it is a very good energy source.

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

Marianne Fundahn (S)

Mr. Speaker! Does Kjell Jansson then mean that the board is not fulfilling its mandate? Do they not handle this in a business sense and ensure that the energy that is seen is also produced?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot comment on the board's work here in the chamber. I can, of course, have views, but I do not intend to comment on this. It is a matter for the owners and for the Ministry of Finance.

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

Marianne Fundahn (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are considering the Committee on Industry's report NU4 2022 regarding the report on companies with state ownership. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 15.

Companies with state ownership are ultimately owned by the Swedish people and constitute a significant part of Swedish business. The Government has the mandate from the Riksdag to actively manage companies with state ownership so that the long-term value increase becomes the best possible and that, in cases where they occur, companies with specifically decided social mandates perform these well.

Today, most of the companies appear to be in a fully competitive market. Increased globalization, technological development, and expanded competition have changed the conditions for a number of companies with state ownership.

For the state as an active and professional owner, it involves examining the reasons for continued ownership as well as considering the companies' activities and direction. The state-owned companies are subject to the same laws as the privately owned ones. These include, for example, the Companies Act and the Accounting Act when it comes to annual reports and competition. The companies are also covered by EU regulations.

Mr. Speaker! The state corporate portfolio consists of companies within the sectors of basic industries, energy, telecommunications, real estate, finance, consumer, infrastructure, and transport. Basic industries and energy are the dominant sector with around 54 percent of the portfolio's value, followed by the three sectors real estate, finance, and services.

At the end of 2021, the state's corporate portfolio is estimated to amount to 820 billion. At the turn of the year 2021/22, it consisted of 38 wholly-owned and 7 partially-owned companies. Together, the wholly-owned companies with subsidiaries employ approximately 134,000 people. Of the state-owned companies, 22 have been given a specific social mandate by a decision of the Riksdag. State-owned companies represent strong brands and play an important role in Swedish society.

For the state as an active owner, it is important to be at the forefront of major societal trends, whether it concerns green transition, digitalization, or other trends that can challenge the companies' current business models.

Companies with state ownership continue to be leaders in the green transition, which promotes long-term sustainable value creation. For example, Vattenfall has decided to tighten its emission reduction targets for 2030 and beyond in order to reach net-zero emissions by 2040.

During 2021, the state could also present a world first in its portfolio: the world's first fossil-free steel through the HYBRIT project. This will accelerate the green transition of the iron and steel industry.

Companies with state ownership contribute a lot of money to the state treasury. For the 2021 financial year, the dividends amount to a total of 49.7 billion kronor. The largest dividends come from Vattenfall with 23.4 billion and LKAB with 12.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker! Visit Sweden plays an important role in marketing Sweden as a destination. Through its activities, Visit Sweden contributes to increased international knowledge of and demand for Sweden as a travel destination. The tourism industry is also an important and growing labor market in Sweden, and the company's activities contribute to the positive image of our country.

In 2021, Sweden ranked first in a global survey on which countries are the most sustainable tourist destinations. The result is based on a survey where the sustainability of 99 countries is compared regarding environmental, social and economic conditions, transport, accommodation, risks and demand for sustainable tourism. The tourism industry has a socio-economic and growth policy significance and is the subject of state commitment in most countries.

We also have Sveaskog AB, which is Sweden's largest forest owner and manages 4 million hectares of land. The company's forest holdings are spread across all of Sweden. The core business is to manage and cultivate forest as well as deliver timber, pulpwood and chips, biofuel, forest seedlings and forestry services. Additionally, Sveaskog conducts land and wind power deals and develops the forest as a place for fishing, hunting and nature experiences.

We also have Almi's venture capital company, Almi Invest. Investments were increased and reached the highest level ever in 2021, 437 million kronor. Among other things, investments have been made in several innovative life science and tech companies. Almi Invest's opportunities to assist the market with venture capital have increased thanks to capital injections that Almi received during the pandemic, and together with private actors, the company has taken an active role in the Swedish venture capital market.

I could stand here and rattle off company after company, but I will settle for this.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by stating that for the Christian Democrats, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motion proposals.

The government has the task of managing the state's assets in the form of shares in companies with state ownership so that their value development and return are the best possible, given a balanced risk-taking, as well as ensuring that the specifically decided social missions are performed well. It is important to point out that the state's corporate portfolio operates on business grounds in fully competitive markets. The companies that have a so-called social mission shall also achieve other goals than solely economic return.

For us Christian Democrats, it is important to ensure the companies' conditions and opportunities to develop and continue to compete and be competed against in their markets.

Mr. Speaker! The state-owned portfolio of companies needs to change over time because increased globalization, technological development, and exposure to competition are changing the conditions for a number of the state-owned companies.

We Christian Democrats have on several occasions conveyed to previous governments that state-owned companies that do not have a clear social mission in the long term should be sold off, but that all state-owned companies until then must have good governance of the operations. We can now with pleasure state that previous governments have implemented a number of measures, including taking over shares and investigating risks and conducting consequence analyses of possible sales. Furthermore, investigations are ongoing, for example for Postnord regarding a review of financing models and how more people can use digital mail, which are expected to provide answers on what measures the government should now take.

We Christian Democrats, however, want to emphasize the importance of the state being an active and professional owner with a focus on long-term value creation, as well as that the reasons for continued state ownership must be constantly tested and the different missions and directions of the 25 companies must be considered. It is also important to promote long-term sustainable value creation in the companies. This means that the companies shall act exemplarily within the area of sustainable business and otherwise act in such a way that they enjoy public trust.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats consider it of particular importance that companies with state ownership work towards environmentally sustainable development with reduced climate and environmental impact. The companies shall be role models within their industry in the field of environment and climate and work towards the national environmental and climate goals that the Riksdag has decided upon and which the Paris Agreement says we shall reach. For the sake of our climate and environmental goals, the state as an owner has worked to future-proof the corporate portfolio through the companies' climate goals.

Finally, we Christian Democrats state that the direction of many of the companies' activities and social missions justify the state being a significant shareholder. Here, we Christian Democrats constantly follow the government's responsibility to obtain a good overview of the state-owned company portfolio.

With that, I would again, Mr. Speaker, urge approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all motions.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Enterprise's report regarding the 2022 report on companies with state ownership.

There are several important Swedish societal functions that are conducted in corporate form with the state as a whole or partial owner, and where the companies generally operate in a competitive market. It is an important and responsible task to manage the Swedish people's trust and assets, and the Sverigedemokraterna are for continued state involvement in corporate form in cases where it benefits the interests of Swedish citizens. This can, for example, involve managing natural resources or cases where ownership constitutes a guarantee that specific important and central societal functions are maintained.

With that said, there are state holdings that under certain circumstances could be reduced or abolished entirely in cases where one cannot justify that the ownership itself is of actual benefit to the citizens. Our basic assumption is that the state should, in the long run, consider divesting its ownership in companies that do not have specific social mandates or are of strategic or security policy importance.

This concerns, for example, Telia, which should be split into two parts so that socially important infrastructure is separated from commercial telecommunications activities, and where the government should be given an authorization to divest the ownership in the telecommunications part.

Mr. Speaker! State ownership at the turn of the year 2021/22 amounted to 45 mostly profit-oriented companies with a focus on basic industry and energy. Seven of the companies accounted for over 80 percent of the net turnover. At the top of the list, we find the state-owned Vattenfall, which accounted for 40 percent of the turnover, corresponding to 180 billion kronor - a company whose operations have an enormous influence on the Swedish energy system and thus on everything from the country's security policy situation to competitiveness and household economies.

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, it has probably escaped no one what enormous significance a country's energy supply and access to secure and affordable electricity actually has - for everything from the security policy situation to the companies' opportunities to operate, as well as the households' economy.

Yes, in just a few years, electricity prices have soared to levels few thought were possible. The situation is complex, but one of the most contributing causes to this is the premature closure of well-functioning nuclear reactors in southern Sweden, where an already strained power balance has now become completely unsustainable and where it is now the weather and fossil power sources that set the electricity price. This is a development that we have long feared and that my predecessors have repeatedly raised in this chamber.

And on the subject of the chamber, Mr. Speaker: Three years ago, the Sverigedemokraternas proposal to give Vattenfall in the ownership directive to continue operating Ringhals 1 and 2 was debated here, something that the current Tidö parties supported. With only a one-mandate majority, the proposal unfortunately fell in the vote.

During the usual debate, my predecessor Mattias Bäckström Johansson asked the Social Democrats' representative why they did not want to take advantage of the opportunity to extend the lifespan of Ringhals 1 and 2, and received the answer: "We think it is more important to invest money in welfare or the police, instead of clinging to old dirty technology."

The Social Democrats therefore considered that the dependence on weather and fossil power sources such as natural gas and coal power was better than investing in fossil-free nuclear power. Plannable electricity production, which for decades had formed the basis for Swedish export success and welfare, was dismissed as "old dirty technology."

Nor neither did one foresee what economic death blow this would ultimately mean for the whole of Sweden. From having had, for large parts, an optimal energy mix, we now have a system that one day is characterized by an electricity surplus and the next day by a power shortage. Dumped export prices alternate with price records. Fossil-based reserve power plants run at full throttle, and economic support packages keep electricity consumers afloat. There is now no doubt that the previous government's energy policy trade-offs were a total failure.

Mr. Speaker! In the government's referral 2021/22:140, it is emphasized, among other things, the importance of the state being an active, professional owner with a focus on long-term value creation. What we need is predictable, large-scale electricity production. A year ago, my predecessor stood here and urged the then government to give a clear message to Vattenfall that they are not prevented from either looking at replacement reactors or developing new nuclear power technology in Sweden. This never happened.

No, the political will to shut down nuclear power and invest in weather-dependent types of energy has, until the change of power in the autumn, permeated the management of Vattenfall. The annual report for 2021 is as if taken from an advertising brochure for wind power, and environmentalist types have openly declared their successes in appointing board members with an ideological and not socially useful compass. And while the Swedish power balance is now among the worst in the entire EU, Vattenfall's CEO has committed to, as part of the global initiative First Movers Coalition, with the help of Swedish tax money, create a demand for untested products and services that promise reduced emissions. In addition to this, the new ownership directives to pave the way for new nuclear power seem to be extremely low priority.

With the Tidö Agreement, Swedish energy policy has now finally received a new and responsible direction. Plannable and large-scale electricity production has once again come into focus, and Vattenfall has received a clear mandate to pave the way for expanded nuclear power-based electricity production.

Mr. Speaker! All state-owned companies need a competent management that understands what mandate they have and under what circumstances they operate. In times like these, competence, accountability, and leadership have become more important than ever, not least for significant companies such as Vattenfall. We therefore look forward to being a constructive party in the discussions with the government on everything from ownership dialogue to board composition.

Mr. Speaker! On the subject of competence – there was a time when opportunities and rights were largely dependent on gender, and then not to the advantage of women. The pursuit of equality, that is, equal opportunities and rights regardless of gender, has been immensely important. This applies to both private and professional life. Equal opportunities must, however, never be confused with equal outcomes. In that case, we have replaced one skewed system with another, totalitarian system.

After my 25 years in the private sector, I can state that there are now no particular obstacles to working, developing, and, if desired, making a career, simply because one is a woman. Successful companies are built on competence and determination - not on state-enforced gender distribution. After long education and many, long days spent at work, I want to be in demand for my competence and my acquired experiences and not because someone wants to fill a statutory quota or reach an equality goal.

Against this background, Mr. Speaker, I support all the motions in the Sweden Democrats' committee motion 2022/23:932 by Tobias Andersson and others, but I particularly want to mention motion 2, that the government's sustainability goal for the state-owned companies that at least 40 percent of each gender shall be in every board shall be removed.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We tend to have energy debates as soon as the Committee on Industry's matters come up here in the chamber. It is interesting!

I note that Jessica Stegrud stayed quite a bit on the history when it comes to the energy policy. There have been many clarifications in the media recently, from researchers and in accounts of political decisions that have been made under the Alliance government and the S-MP government. I ask the listeners to look at these if they are interested in the history.

What I think is relevant is what problems and challenges Sweden faces now and what we in different parties, and not least this government, are doing to meet these challenges. Now, a powerful expansion of electricity production is needed to meet the industry's needs. Powerful energy efficiencies, expansion of electricity and flex services are needed to bring down electricity prices.

New nuclear power meets none of these needs. The exaggerated focus on this means that we instead risk locking in the problems and cannot meet the industry's needs for electricity or tackle the high electricity prices.

Furthermore, the government has pointed out that it wants to change the long-term goal of 100 percent renewable electricity production in Sweden by 2040 to a goal of fossil-free electricity by 2040. Sweden has for decades had a virtually entirely fossil-free electricity production. To set a goal for this by 2040 is utterly remarkable and visionless.

At the same time, the government is implementing several measures, such as lowering the carbon tax on combined heat and power, which increase fossil emissions from electricity production and thus take us further away from the goal that the government says it stands behind.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not quite know what the question was; it was a long reasoning. But I can still comment.

What Sweden and the industry need is predictable energy. Weather-dependent types of energy are not predictable. The mantra that the industry requires wind power is not correct. The industry as a whole requires predictable energy.

It takes a long time to build up a well-functioning energy system. We spent decades doing just that. It has gone even faster under the previous government, with the Green Party's great influence, to dismantle this. That it would go so fast to expand, for example, offshore wind power does not hold up. Infrastructure is lacking. We have projects that have lain for decades because one has not moved past regarding legislation and various environmental considerations. It is you who, during your time in government, have done nothing about that matter.

The reason why we are now starting up combined heat and power plants and are forced to run on fossil fuels is that we are facing situations with power shortages, where we can even get blackouts in southern Sweden. It is an extremely serious situation. This is also driving prices upwards to an enormous extent and breaking both households and companies.

Energy policy is something long-term. This is no quick fix. You have seen to the dismantling of a well-functioning system. Now we are trying to restore it and take responsibility.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! What is needed in the long term is a robust, well-functioning electricity system that delivers electricity to us when we need it, where we need it. I hope we all here in the chamber agree on this.

There are all the prerequisites to solve this through a system with 100 percent renewable electricity production or a system with a high share of nuclear power. What is however crucial here and now is how we meet the challenges here and now. Here, offshore wind power, a rapid expansion of wind and solar power, energy efficiencies, and increased flex services can meet the problems that Jessica Stegrud mentions, with high energy prices and power shortages in certain places. There, the grid expansion is very important.

From the Green Party's side, we have had a goal of 100 terawatt-hours of offshore wind power. We have invested heavily in actually addressing these problems. In our budget motion, we allocated large sums to support households and companies with energy efficiency measures, which could free up electricity in the near term. But that type of investment is not supported by either the Sweden Democrats or the government. Instead, they lock themselves into the long-term investment in nuclear power, which complicates the challenges we face here and now and furthermore increases fossil emissions and thus the climate-related risks.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member says himself that electricity is something we need. It is something we need to produce and use at the same time. How is that going to work with weather-dependent wind power? There is no solution to that.

Furthermore, you have had government influence for many years now and have not solved any of this. On the contrary, you have decommissioned well-functioning, predictable, and fossil-free electricity production. It is fascinating how the reasoning does not add up here.

Again: The future is predictable. The member also mentioned the change which means that a fossil-free goal has been set for 2040 instead of renewable. But that is, therefore, in order not to penalize fossil-free nuclear power. The member must be extremely aware of this.

The situation we are in now – I am talking about the crisis and the natural gas dependency that all of Europe is now stuck in, especially with natural gas from Russia – is due to the shutdown of nuclear power and the transition to weather-dependent types of energy. We cannot continue on that path. It is completely unreasonable. It is not taking responsibility for Sweden's energy supply and future competitiveness.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Jessica Stegrud believes that the state as an owner should remove the requirement of 40 percent women on boards in the state-owned companies.

The state is to be a responsible owner and a role model. I am very proud that from 2006-2010, together with Maud Olofsson, I worked to introduce the Global Reporting Initiative, so that sustainability reporting could be carried out for the state-owned companies. We also introduced the requirement that 40 percent of the board members should be women and that more chairpersons should be women.

I am completely against state-mandated quotas, i.e., that one should quota through legislation. But in this case, the state is the owner, and the state as an owner should be a role model. The state as an owner should also, just like the listed companies, follow the Swedish Code of Corporate Governance. It states in point 4.1 that an equal gender distribution should be sought.

I am completely against quotas - I have even started a network called På egna meriter, and I completely agree that a great deal is already equal in today's business world. But we have still reached where we are because women and men have done amounts of norm-breaking things before us, so that we can stand there today. Therefore, the state must continue to work with boards with at least 40 percent women.

It is also an important recruitment ground for many other companies, while at the same time it creates a value for the companies that they have a good composition.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not quite know what the question is here, but to say on one hand that one is against a statutory quota and at the same time say that one should have a certain gender distribution in boards is very contradictory.

After 25 years in the business world, I do not know what prevents me from devoting all my time to making a career and, thanks to competence and acquired experience, eventually ending up on a corporate board. There are actually no obstacles to that today.

I think that only merits should decide, not even gender, skin color or ethnicity. What is the next step in this? What is the next characteristic that we are going to quota? There is a lot of talk about diversity. What kind of diversity is it, and what is the next step in the quota frenzy?

The state can be an example in many ways, but to set such an explicit goal and steer by it is still like putting quotas at the top of the list. What state-owned companies need more than ever is competence based on acquired experience.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! That is precisely where the difference lies. For me, there is a big difference between saying one thing in the legislation—that is, that we as members of Parliament should influence how owners all over Sweden manage their companies—and how we act as owners in state-owned companies. As owners, we must, of course, follow the code of corporate governance that all other owners have voluntarily adopted. That is to say that an equal gender distribution should be pursued.

One can talk about one's own career, but one can also see that one must create opportunities for others. Networks are where one recruits to boards and management, and the networks are in many cases heavily male. There is nothing wrong with that, but as a state owner, we have an opportunity to choose to ensure that we get in more women and to always ask for female competence.

Routine is always easiest. It is to do as one has done before. If one does not break norms, one will also not achieve greater diversity. For me, it is easy to say that I myself have been able to pursue the career I have wanted, but I would not have been able to pursue that career without the help of the women who went before me.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Madam Speaker! Equality should be about equal rights and opportunities. My mother and many other women like her have paved the way for what the member mentions now, namely the equality that we have in society overall, as well as in the business sector. It is fantastic!

But to move from a system that was very skewed to another, totalitarian, system is not worth striving for. To force outcomes through legislative quotas or through the ambition that state-owned companies should have an even gender distribution is not the right way to go. We have strived for a long time to be able to make free choices when it comes to professional and private life. We shall not take steps backward.

The question hangs in the air: What will be the next quota basis? Shall we quota in people based on ethnicity or identity? Where is the limit for when competence and experience are sidelined for something else? The member speaks of norm-breaking decisions. What is the next norm to be broken?

A successful business life and state ownership are based on competence and on equal opportunities and conditions regardless of where you come from and who you are, nothing else.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! In the Committee on Economic Affairs' Report 4, a communication regarding state-owned companies is being addressed. Just as it sounds, it is a communication where the government provides an account of the management of the state's shareholdings and for the operations of the companies that the Government Offices managed at the turn of the year 2021/22. In the communication, the government states that it shall actively manage the state's assets in the form of shares in companies with state ownership so that their value development and return are the best possible given a balanced risk-taking and ensure that the specifically decided social missions are well performed.

The state's corporate portfolio consists of 43 companies, of which 2 are listed on the stock exchange. They operate in the sectors of basic industry, energy, telecommunications, services, real estate, finance, infrastructure, and transport. Several of these companies started as business entities - business activities within agencies or state monopolies. Today, approximately half of the companies operate on commercial grounds in fully competitive markets. The other companies have a so-called social mandate that the Riksdag has specifically decided upon. This means that they are to achieve goals other than financial return.

In 2021, the value of the corporate portfolio increased by 120 billion kronor. The 2021 dividend provided 21.5 billion to the state treasury - which, of course, applies to 2020's operations. Just as mentioned previously, seven companies account for over 80 percent of the net turnover. These are five wholly-owned - the flagship Vattenfall, Systembolaget, LKAB, Apoteket, and Samhall. And there are two partially-owned - Postnord and Telia. These seven account for over 80 percent of the net turnover.

The Left Party's view on state ownership is that the state should be active in its stewardship, that is, carefully ensuring that the assignments are managed according to the owner directives that are set. But one must also be able to change directives so that social benefit can be prioritized. Perhaps that can be done during limited periods, so that environmental and climate benefits become the winners. As an example, I will take SJ's return requirements. That causes profit maximization to push out the passengers and low-traffic routes, which in turn forces the passengers to other alternatives that increase emissions and so on.

Madam Speaker! It is appropriate here for me to move for approval of reservation 9 in the report. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for reasons of time, as it is so nicely said, we are only raising this one.

There is actually much to say about state ownership. Conservative parties—so it is actually, without exception, even today—have, as I interpret it, for ideological reasons always thought that private ownership can do everything better and that the state should not compete in industries where free competition prevails. I can agree with the reasoning if it were that simple. But one can look at some of the deregulations that have occurred. I will take two examples just to have something to compare with.

The pharmacy was mentioned here earlier. Did the service in the countryside become generally better? No, the countryside has not received a bit of better service. On the other hand, one finds a pharmacy around every other corner in this city.

What about Bilprovningen? Now they are closing stations in rural areas or have very limited opening hours at the stations where the occupancy has decreased, as some have the opportunity to drive 25 miles to a private station. But not everyone has the means or the possibility for such priorities.

The forest then? Why are money-hungry actors buying forest as an investment now? Well, they do it simply because they realize that the value of something as fantastic as forest will be maintained, and the forest will increase in value in the future. The forest will be crucial in many ways for us to overcome all the challenges we face in today's society. The bourgeois parties want to sell off state-owned forest. Instead, the state should actually be an active buyer.

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but remind the members of another matter, how it sounded in the beginning of the 80s when LKAB was having a really tough time. The state provided capital injections. I remember that many conservative politicians complained about the state giving injections to northern Sweden's mining company. How would it have gone if the company had been privately owned? I am not as convinced about the final product that we have today.

Now that Swedish citizens are being hit by extortionate electricity prices, I cannot help but think of Vattenfall. Naturally, the board of the company follows ownership directives. In other words, it is to be the best possible return on invested capital.

We now see how the market model for electricity pricing works. Does it benefit the citizens in Sweden? Are there any concerns at all regarding the pricing?

When we have foreign investors lining up because they want to invest in electricity production in Sweden, it surely cannot be a bad deal - or can it? When they invest in production here, they sign long-term contracts for the production with price hedges at under 50 öre per kilowatt-hour, and these are to go abroad. At the same time, customers who see the production from their kitchen window - Swedish customers in the countryside - are forced to pay 3 kronor per kilowatt-hour, and they now have to seek repayment on their electricity bill. Still, the market enthusiasts think everything is fine with our focus on socially important functions, such as electricity supply. As long as we get more nuclear power, everything will be solved.

Here we should obviously make much more use of our state-owned company and give a concrete social mandate to invest in production and distribution for the benefit of society and its citizens. What the industry, for example, is talking about is not nuclear power. We need cheap electricity so that hydrogen can be produced during surpluses and at low prices. Only then can the transition become commercially viable. That is what the industry, which has the transition in mind, says.

We can, for example, compare with LKAB, which takes social responsibility in the ore fields. When their operations affect other areas, they fund a community relocation in two locations - if anyone has missed that. I am thinking out loud a bit: Why shouldn't other actors who earn good money today and who contribute to society, but who have an operation that affects others, be able to contribute something beyond the amount that remains after the last line in the annual accounts?

Madam Speaker! I am convinced that the electrification that society now faces will require extraordinary methods if we are to succeed with the transition while simultaneously developing our industry, maintaining our competitiveness, and showing the way for how tomorrow's heavy industry can make the journey to fossil-free production. But then we need to realize what has gone wrong and what needs to be done and what we use our joint companies and resources for.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! There is one Left Party member whom I have great respect for, and that is you, Birger Lahti. You are well-read and knowledgeable. I must say that, even if we do not always agree.

When it comes to pharmacies, I mean that when I, over many years as the chairman of the municipal executive board in Norrtälje, tried to get a pharmacy to Väddö. It was because the average age was quite high there, and many were in need of medicines. We tried with the state pharmacy. They were ice-cold and did not want to come. We tried to get Systembolaget there. They were ice-cold, and they still have not come. But when the market was deregulated, a pharmacy immediately appeared that established itself there and which has good turnover there.

From the state-owned, there was no interest in providing the public service. It is a problem.

When it comes to Bilprovningen, I also do not agree with Birger Lahti, because I believe there have been many more workshops to go to. Previously, Opus was the only one, and it is not good when one actor is alone and there is no competition. Now you have more to go to. There are shorter queues and faster service. Sometimes you have to inspect the car very quickly; things can happen.

When it comes to energy policy, I believe we must have more energy, absolutely. But the fossil-free energy that is most efficient is nuclear power. It takes up hardly any land and can fit in very small spaces. Lahti spoke about state-owned companies that are in need of energy. With all due respect: It is an excellent opportunity to establish small, modular nuclear reactors. Then you get fossil-free electricity quickly, perhaps in three or four years.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell Jansson, for the praise I received at the beginning!

I can understand that there are examples where we have had poor governance regarding the pharmacies. But in the half of Sweden that I am familiar with, I do not see that we would have received more pharmacies in the countryside, but rather the service has become worse. In this city, however, I see that there are infinitely many pharmacies that have many creams and ointments for sale on every street corner.

When it comes to Bilprovningen, I see how people are forced to drive 30 miles to have their car inspected. There was a mobile car inspection, but it was discontinued. I also have good experience with Opus, but one cannot believe that everything must be a business and that it is what makes the service. There are obviously good examples where competition provides what Kjell Jansson strives for, but in the countryside where customers are few and not so wealthy, no more actors will come. The market will not bring any extra resources there. That is how it is. We see that, even if there may be a few examples.

When it comes to energy, I have personally tried to look at what it means with SMR, that is, small modular reactors. Are we going to place one in Kiruna, one in Piteå and one in Luleå? Every such modular reactor needs just as many safety measures as a large one, and then it unfortunately does not become cheaper. If one places six or seven where we today have a large one, it could work. But to believe that this would be the solution for LKAB's part is unfortunately dreams, Jansson.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! Dreams was a strong word. In that case, it is more of a dream to expand wind power with the same capacity as all of Finland uses today and which at the same time only provides energy for approximately 60 percent of the year's hours. What shall one fill the remaining 40 percent with? Well, if you do not want nuclear power, you must then expand Luleälven and streamline or increase the capacity of the hydropower. Those are the alternatives.

When it comes to the pharmacies, I still want to assert that the total is good. Not everything is perfect – far from it. There are, after all, Icabutiker that close sometimes even if one doesn't believe it. That is how it is. Unfortunately, the market works that way with supply and demand.

Bilprovningen is working well, I want to assert. Then I know that there are concerns, above all in Norrland where Birger Lahti lives, but the total is good. It is not good when one actor is alone. Some proactive municipal councilor should perhaps push and get some smaller companies up that inspect cars. I will not name anyone, but perhaps someone who has such mobile units with them.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell Jansson, for the exchange of remarks!

I will not go into more detail regarding Apoteket and Bilprovningen, but regarding the energy supply, I want to conclude by saying that if you listen to those who are making the major transition in northern Sweden, they say that we have not listened to them. They say that they want volatile prices, because when there is a surplus of wind energy and low prices, they produce a lot of hydrogen. They say themselves that it is that which makes their case commercially viable. It does not become viable if it costs 1 krona per kilowatt-hour, which is what nuclear power will cost - if not more. And Olkiluoto 3 is still not operational.

It is not simple, but we know in any case what wind power costs today, and we know how it is produced. I agree that it is volatile, but the industry says that they need low prices and that they produce hydrogen during overproduction and low prices. I rely on that, and then we will succeed.

When it comes to nuclear power, commercial actors can show whether they build or not. I am not getting involved in that today. But the industry says that is not what they are striving for.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! Let me first just say that the state-owned companies that operate in a competitive market and have a sales mandate should obviously be sold as soon as possible. I am also pleased to hear Kjell Jansson's offensive stance on which companies should be sold. I also urge the government to analyze which companies should actually be sold when the transaction market looks a bit brighter, perhaps not in the near future but eventually.

I intended to devote the remaining part of my speech to the state's role, which is a very central part of Sweden's growth enterprise.

Through the companies Industrifonden, Almi and Saminvest, capital can be matched with private capital for companies that generally have a somewhat longer runway until they turn a profit. Let me explain: An app aimed at consumers and small businesses is quite easy to monitor in terms of development and usage. It is easy to produce key figures that investors can look at, and it is then quite easy to understand whether this will be a good investment or not.

The time until it is understood whether this will be a profitable company or not is significantly shorter. If one is to conduct so-called beta tests, that is, testing something that does not quite work yet, there are quite a few who raise their hands and say that we can test that, even if the solution is not completely finished.

But if, instead, one were to work with a product that is to be released into healthcare or, for example, cooperate with some of our large multinational corporations, then one does not want any beta testers who just test it out; instead, an incredible amount of cooperation, pilot studies, and other things are required. Everyone obviously understands that the heavier the technology is, the longer it takes before one understands if this is something that will actually be usable.

How does this relate to state capital? Well, it is precisely here, especially in these tough times, where this capital, when channeled together with private investors, business angels, and venture capital, is needed and does good. For those who have great uncertainty, it takes longer to reach a breakthrough, but it is actually that type of company and startup companies that also have an incredibly important effect for Sweden and the jobs of the future.

In Centerpartiet's motions, we particularly highlight how important it is that the state risk capital is distributed a bit more evenly across the country and that one must also ensure the mission to see that the capital reaches both men and women as founders.

I will be completely transparent: I am a business angel. I have invested in companies over the last seven years. I have co-invested with, for example, Almi. We invest in the very, very earliest phases, and most of it actually never becomes anything. For the most part, it goes south, because that is how that type of investment works.

We work from Åre and make investments throughout northern Sweden. It is tough to find companies and other investors to invest with, simply because there are fewer entrepreneurs living in northern Sweden. One could also say that there are fewer entrepreneurs living outside of Stockholm who have sold large companies and are investing in new startup companies.

Investments are very much about contacts and networks, and it is completely human. When you cannot really calculate or understand if a deal is going to work, how can you trust someone? Then you think, okay, but I know this person, or someone you know has recommended someone. That is how so many of the early investments work.

Then it is easy to see that much of the risk capital ends up in already existing circles in Stockholm. Therefore, it is important that the state helps to be a professional evaluator with the help of Industrifonden, Almi and Norrlandsfonden by working together with private actors but going beyond having played poker together.

In 2021, 6.3 percent of venture capital went to teams with only female founders - if one includes the Nordics, the UK, France, and Germany. If one looks only at the Nordics, it was 1.1 percent. If one looks only at Sweden, it was half a percent. Half a percent of all venture capital went to companies with only female founders.

In my work as an investor, I have seen an incredible development with more female teams working with scalable business models that have global potential. Therefore, it is gloomy to see that the development is moving backwards, and therefore the state-owned companies that work with investments have also had a mandate – and I hope they will continue to have that mandate – to evaluate how they can ensure that venture capital reaches more. This must absolutely happen without quotas. The work shall be carried out solely on business grounds, but one can open up for dialogue with more. According to my experience, the business plans that come from women are more well-thought-out, but they have a little less air in their figures.

I never thought that I, as a liberal, would defend the companies that work to complement private risk capital. But when it is a question of something market-complementary, not least in a time when other countries are pouring money into the area, it is crucial for innovations to become companies that then become jobs.

I stand by my reservations, and I move for the approval of reservation 2. And I note with pleasure that Marianne Fundahn has moved for the approval of reservation 15.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! The State today owns about forty companies that constitute a significant part of the Swedish business sector. The focus of the activities these companies conduct is within the energy and basic industries. Through its ownership, the State thus has a great opportunity to contribute to the climate transition through an active management of its corporate portfolio.

I consider it a self-evident matter that the government, in its role as a corporate manager, takes this responsibility and steers the state-owned companies in a climate and environmentally sustainable direction. Here, I particularly want to highlight that Vattenfall, LKAB, SAS, Postnord, and Sveaskog account for 99 percent of the emissions in the state corporate portfolio. The government has, through the ownership policy, decided that the companies shall be role models within their industry and work towards achieving the environmental quality goals and the Paris Agreement.

To ensure this, the government should also develop and intensify ownership governance so that the provisions on sustainability actually take effect. All state-owned companies should have scientifically based climate goals and climate plans so that we can manage the climate transition, avoid the most serious risks in the climate transition, and also seize the fantastic opportunities for a sustainable societal development and strengthened competitiveness for Sweden.

Yesterday, Sveaskog announced that they will protect 100,000 hectares of forest. This is a very welcome announcement that will be of great benefit. Miljöpartiet has worked hard to ensure that this comes to fruition. It is therefore pleasing to hear that so much forest receives a permanent protection.

It is, however, clear that more needs to be done moving forward. The forest investigation proposed that 525,000 hectares of forest near the mountains should be protected in Sweden, and that also requires resources. These are resources that this government does not provide. This means that private forest owners who want to protect their forest, and receive income from the forest, do not receive money today.

The EU has recently presented proposals for increased carbon sequestration in the forest. Sweden has targets in this area. Work for biodiversity is also being strengthened within the EU. Here, we from Miljöpartiet believe that through national policy, we should truly give the forestry industry the conditions to create business benefits in the transition for increased biodiversity, increased climate benefit, and a sustainable use of the forest. Unfortunately, we do not see that prioritization at all from the government today.

Sveaskog can be a pioneer and truly combine business utility, biodiversity and climate. We believe this should be prioritized.

I naturally stand behind all the reservations from Miljöpartiet in the report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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