2023 report on state-owned enterprises

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

State-owned companies are fundamentally wrong in a society with a market economy. The reason why Sweden has 43 state-owned companies is a history of politics having an over-belief that the state is better than entrepreneurs at running companies. There are also other historical reasons, which I intended to touch upon.

It should be said that several state-owned companies are doing very well, for example LKAB and Vattenfall. Right now, they are allocating large parts of their profits to Hybrit instead of giving the state as owner a dividend, and this is happening with the state's good pleasure. Vattenfall will have a very strategic role now that we are going to expand nuclear power in both Ringhals and Forsmark.

It is of the utmost importance that we now manage to carry out an expansion of nuclear power. The absolutely most important issue is that we have robust energy systems for our industrial companies, especially for the export industry, which consumes a lot of electricity. Last night, some of us were here visiting the forest industry, which consumes an enormous amount of energy.

Sweden's prosperity is built on innovations and hard work and, not least, on our fantastic export industry, which today accounts for approximately 52 percent of Sweden's GDP. This is unique for Sweden; I do not know if there is any other country in the world that has such skilled export companies as we do. We shall be proud of them and ensure that they have good conditions and robust energy supply so that they can continue to deliver new jobs and develop technical expertise.

Things are going worse for SAS. The company has made large losses during the last 25 years. One year or another it has turned a profit, but the majority have been losses. A well-functioning air traffic is important for both travelers and the company's competitiveness. It is a priority issue for the government, and SAS has an important task in connecting the entire country.

The work with the reconstruction of the company continues. We are following this closely. The State is a responsible, but not long-term, owner in SAS. The Government is considering – as far as I know in consultation with the Riksdag – to terminate or reduce the ownership of SAS after the reconstruction. The Government is therefore pursuing the same line as the previous government when it comes to SAS, and I perceive that there is broad support here in the Riksdag for this.

Farm sales is an important matter that needs to get started. This has been investigated for quite a few years now, but despite that, it has not gotten started. It is because several parties, or parts of parties, have wavered. Not everyone has been in agreement.

The fear that Systembolaget's monopoly will be undermined is an issue that has been raised in connection with this. I believe that fear is greatly exaggerated. Systembolaget's assortment is difficult for a small farm shop out in the countryside to surpass.

One thing is completely clear: Without competition, neither quality, selection nor service increases. It is a fantastic thing if one can get farm sales started in the countryside so that many small food producers and breweries get an opportunity to grow and new jobs can be created. And I do not believe that Systembolaget will go bankrupt for that reason.

Sveaskog is a state-owned company that has large areas. There is a mandate from the government to divest 60,000 hectares of productive forest land within the mountain-adjacent area.

Samhäll's operations have received a lot of criticism. Several actors argue that they have underpricing in tenders for, for example, cleaning services. It remains to be seen what will become of this, but currently, the government has commissioned an investigation of Samhäll's operations led by Malin Danielsson from Liberalerna.

Madam Speaker! Postnord is, like SAS, a company co-owned by the Danish state. Denmark has implemented significant changes in the operations during the past year. This can, in the long term, affect the operations even in Sweden.

The most important thing is that the postal service functions throughout the country. The Swedish people must be able to trust that the mail and letters arrive on time, which has not always been the case. Some mail has simply disappeared, and that is unfortunate. The company has had major problems with delivery quality, which is concerning. It is therefore a priority for the state as the owner to monitor the development progressively and ensure that the goal of a delivery quality of 95 percent is met.

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

Marianne Fundahn (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are considering the Committee on Industry's report 2023/24:NU4 on the government's report on companies with state ownership.

The Social Democrats have a number of reservations, which we of course stand behind, but I move for approval only to reservations 11 and 21.

The State is a significant corporate owner in Sweden. In the state's corporate portfolio, there are 43 wholly or partially owned companies, two of which are listed on the stock exchange. Together, companies with state ownership employ approximately 134,000 people. The value of the state's corporate portfolio is estimated at 850 billion kronor. This is an increase of approximately 30 billion during the fiscal year 2022.

The government shall actively manage the state's companies so that their value development and divestment are as good as possible and ensure that specifically mandated social missions are well executed. It is important that the state is an active, professional owner with long-term value creation. For the state as an owner, it involves evaluating the reasons for continued ownership.

Madam Speaker! The annual report contains information about the companies within areas that the government prioritizes. This year, for example, it includes detailed information on whether the companies have established goals for biodiversity as well as whether the companies provide a so-called taxonomy reporting. The management report also includes the process for nominating board members. One of the owners' most important tasks is to appoint competent and committed board members who contribute to a diversity of mindsets and perspectives.

In the state's ownership policy, it is established that international guidelines, Agenda 2030, and the global goals for sustainable development shall be guiding for the state-owned companies' work with sustainable business. The Government views sustainable business as an important strategic issue. Companies with state ownership shall be leading in the green transition. Therefore, it is our view that the Government should be urged to ensure that board members in the state-owned companies have relevant knowledge about the challenges that accompany the climate transition so that each company has the knowledge required to make necessary decisions.

Madam Speaker! To achieve the green transition, the right competence is required in a number of different areas. The Swedish Energy Agency has conducted a mapping that identifies 35 shortage occupations. By 2030, there will be a shortage of 100,000 people trained in technology, according to SCB. Welfare services will need to employ 410,000 people due to demographic developments and retirements until 2031 if nothing changes, according to SKR's personnel forecast for 2021-2031. Half of all companies in Skåne also state that they have a great need for employees with upper secondary school competence. The question is who is going to train these people.

Part of the solution could be Lernia. Lernia has its background in the state AMU group. The seed was sown about a hundred years ago, and at that time the objective was that people who stood outside the labor market should be given the opportunity to develop their skills and thereby enter the labor market. Somewhat later, they began to organize retraining courses for the unemployed.

Lernia has operations in about a hundred locations across all of Sweden. They have a broad range of services and work to meet competence needs across the entire labor market. They organize, among other things, labor market training for job seekers across the country who are registered with Arbetsförmedlingen. They also organize adult education for individuals with a focus on professions on behalf of municipalities. The question is how many companies can match this.

In 2012, the Riksdag authorized the government to divest the state's shares in Lernia. We believe that these should not be divested because the company can become an important actor in the green transition. We consider that the question of a public service mandate for the company linked to this should instead be raised. The focus of such a public service mandate should be skills shortages where vocational training is required. Such a mandate could have particularly positive effects in the regions where it is difficult to find competence as a result of the industry's transition and large investments. We therefore believe that the government should not act on the authorization and thus not sell Lernia. If the industry fails to find the right competence, the investments will not materialize or will end up elsewhere.

Madam Speaker! The whole country shall live, we often say. We also often point out that the car is an important means of transport in order to be able to live and work in the whole country, especially in those places where there is no functioning public transport. Citizens who own a car are obliged to have the car inspected. It should also be possible to do this within reasonable distances. One should not have to drive nearly 20 mil to have the car inspected.

AB Svensk Bilprovning has since 2013 conducted a commercial business in a deregulated market. During 2021, Bilprovningen discontinued the mobile vehicle inspection, which has served rural areas for 15 years. We believe that such an important service for citizens, which also stems from societal requirements for safety and constitutes a government task, must be available throughout the country. We therefore believe that the government should consider whether the company should be given a public mandate or whether the inspection activity should be re-regulated. Regardless, we believe that the company should not be sold and that the government should therefore not act in accordance with the authorization.

(Applause)

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! The state's corporate portfolio consists of 43 companies, of which 2 are listed, which operate in the sectors of basic industry and energy, real estate, finance, infrastructure, services, telecommunications, consumers and transport.

Several of the companies have been started as business activities within agencies or state monopolies. Several of the companies operate on commercial grounds in fully competitive markets, and 22 of the companies have a so-called social mission.

The Christian Democrats are based on the principle of stewardship and subsidiarity. This means, among other things, that the state should be supportive and take care of what no one else can take care of but which we need as citizens. It is a wide difference from the political ideas that believe the state should do everything. I believe that the state should focus on the core activities of the welfare system and that companies should do the rest.

The state's task should normally be to set the frameworks and rules that shall apply to the business sector and companies, not to own and operate companies. The state is, however, a large corporate owner and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, but there is no law of nature that says the companies owned today must remain in state ownership. Our needs as a society change, and development is moving at a frantic pace. But when it comes to companies and corporate structures, it is a sluggish mass within the state's care.

The Christian Democrats want to reduce state ownership of companies operating in a competitive market. Public ownership means that the state sits in two chairs by being both judge and player in the business world. Therefore, companies operating in a competitive market should be run in private hands. When it is possible to achieve a good price, state-owned companies operating in competitive markets should be sold at a pace that is good for the companies, for their employees, and for us as a state. The process, which is complicated and extensive, shall take place in a way that creates the greatest value for the taxpayers and be conducted at a pace that takes complexity into account. We shall, therefore, not just sell off our companies hux flux, but we shall, of course, do so with care for the structure of the entire society.

I would like to raise an example of a company that one should consider selling. My colleague Magnus Jacobsson has written a motion, which is being dealt with in this report, regarding Svensk Bilprovning. It is a company that I think it would work perfectly well to sell. It operates in a fully competitive market and does not need to be in state ownership any longer. It was good in a time when it was needed, but the market that the company operates in looks different now. Therefore, the state should also strongly consider divesting it.

That the state owns companies in markets subject to competition places high demands on clear principles. The state-owned companies shall focus on creating long-term value, and the state shall be an active, professional and responsible owner.

In those cases where the companies have a social mission, this must, of course, be performed well. There must also be strategic or security policy grounds for state ownership. They shall be reported and governed in a clear manner by the state, so that the company knows what applies or does not apply for the operations.

The government's management of the state-owned companies shall take place within the frameworks established by the Riksdag. As we all know, there may not always be the speed that a company needs from its owner when it is the government and the Riksdag that are in charge.

I must say that I feel strong sympathy with the Center Party and the Sweden Democrats when they, in the committee report, desire a review of the state's corporate portfolio. I believe that it is a task that needs to be done, and I am convinced that the government is looking at those companies whose environment has changed and which can therefore be sold off as they work fully in a competitive market.

With these words, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report on the 2023 report on companies with state ownership.

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

Marianne Fundahn (S)

Madam Speaker! As we have heard, the Christian Democrats and Larry Söder have a completely opposite view of Svensk Bilprovning compared to what I presented in my speech.

Vehicle inspection is a government mandate. This means that it must be carried out. The person who owns a car must ensure that it is inspected; otherwise, it may not be used.

During the deregulation, it was believed that competition would lead to us having more vehicle inspections than we have today. That was not the case. They are approximately equal in number. This also means that there is a large white spot on the map. In the entire inland of Norrland, there is no possibility for vehicle inspection. And those who are to inspect heavy vehicles have to travel even further, because not everyone can do it. Business owners have to drive perhaps 20-30 miles to inspect their vehicle and then lose, among other things, revenue.

How do Larry Söder and the Kristdemokraterna want to solve it for those car owners who live where there is no vehicle inspection at all?

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! All people who own a car must have their car inspected, regardless of whether they live in Skåne, Halland, or Norrland. Today, a number of companies carry out this activity. One of them is state-owned. However, it has no requirements to do anything different than the other companies. That means, in my opinion, that it should operate in a competitive market and deliver profit. Then I cannot quite understand why the state should own this company.

It could very well be the case that a competitive market without a state-owned company would function somewhat better. That is not to say that it is appropriate that one should have to travel all too far to have the car inspected. It is nothing that we advocate in any way. But we believe that competition could lead to it being handled in a better way.

As a Member of Parliament, I do not see why there should be a vehicle inspection company in state ownership in a competitive market if we do not use it in a different way than we do now. It must deliver profit, just like everyone else does, and cannot incur large losses. It also does not have any particular agency mandate from the state but has the same responsibility as everyone else.

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

Marianne Fundahn (S)

Madam Speaker! This shows the difference in attitude toward the whole country living. If we want the whole country to live, we must ensure that there is service and opportunities.

This is also mandatory for car owners. It is not something one can choose. One can choose if one wants to go to the cinema even if it is 20 miles away. But one cannot choose for oneself whether one wants to have the car inspected or not. If one does not have the possibility to do so, it may mean that one cannot get to work.

If the state has a company, one should perhaps, as I said in my speech, consider whether it should have a social mission so that the service exists in the entire country and to show that one is serious about people being able to live and reside in the entire country.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! When one sees a social problem, I mean that it can be solved in a few different ways. I do not see that this particular social problem is best solved by the state owning its own company. There are many different ways to ensure that there is vehicle testing across a large part of the country. It is not dependent on having to own just that company which carries out the operations. It can be paid for and managed in many other ways.

We do not actually operate companies in all types of industries that are competitive and that we consider important. We leave that to the market to handle. In cases where the state and we as the Riksdag consider something to be important, we provide funds and ensure that it functions in one way or another. I do not see that it is dependent on one having to own a company that exists in a competitive market.

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Madam Speaker! We stand today at a critical point in our national economic policy. The question of state ownership concerns not only the direct financial aspects but also deeper values regarding how we as a society choose to govern and utilize our common resources. State ownership in Sweden has long played a major role in our economy. But it is clear that the time has come for a thorough review and reforming of the principles and applications that have previously prevailed.

Our commitment in the debate on state ownership is driven by a conviction that every krona invested or managed by the state shall generate the greatest possible efficiency and long-term value for the Swedish people. It is with this orientation that we approach the ongoing discussion on state ownership. It is a discussion that must take into account both historical lessons and future challenges.

There are examples where state ownership in its current forms has significant flaws. Postnord was once intended to be a backbone in our national infrastructure but has long struggled to adapt to a digitized world and changing consumer needs. The result is a service that all too often does not live up to the citizens' expectations, despite significant economic investments from the state.

This case illustrates a broader challenge: the need to review and potentially restructure state-owned enterprises to ensure that they can act effectively and sustainably in a rapidly changing economic and technological environment.

Thus, the situation surrounding SJ AB is an example of the complex trade-offs that must be made regarding state ownership within the transport sector. Although SJ plays an important role in enabling sustainable and accessible passenger transport across the entire country, the company's economic goals and performance have sometimes come into conflict with these broader societal goals.

It points to a fundamental question: How can we balance the need for economic profitability with the requirement to provide important public services? This is relevant, not least given the critical situation with Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and Hamas's brutal attacks on Israeli civilians.

The Sweden Democrats' response to these challenges is clear. We argue for a more dynamic and flexible approach to state ownership that allows for both strategic thinking and operational adaptability. To this is added the ability to question and reassess the state's role as an owner in certain sectors, as well as to explore new models for partnerships between public and private companies where it can lead to better results for the citizens.

Furthermore, we must accept that state ownership carries a special responsibility to combat corruption and environmental destruction and to promote innovation. This means that we assess the performance of state-owned companies not only through financial results but also through their contribution to Swedish public interests.

A new vision is required for how state ownership can function as an engine for positive change, not only by ensuring that the companies are economically sustainable but also by having them actively contribute to solving the major societal challenges we face today. To achieve this, we must engage in an open and inclusive dialogue with all sectors of society, from business and trade unions to civil society and academic institutions. Such a dialogue can help us identify new strategies and paths for innovation that can strengthen the role of state-owned companies in society.

But there are also risks in this. We must be vigilant against over-regulation and bureaucratization, which can stifle innovation and entrepreneurship. A clear balance must be found where the state acts as a catalyst for development and growth rather than as a hindering force. In this spirit, the Sverigedemokraterna propose a number of reforms of state ownership. These include better goal-setting and monitoring, increased transparency and accountability. By implementing these reforms, we can ensure that state ownership continues to serve as a valuable asset for the Swedish people and not, in some cases, a burden.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it is worth emphasizing that state ownership, when well-managed and directed towards clear goals, can play a clear role in promoting economic stability. In this critical moment in our nation's history, it is crucial that we take bold steps forward.

We Sweden Democrats are ready to lead this change, to reshape state ownership in a way that truly reflects the values and ambitions that the Swedish people hold dear, that is to say that state-owned companies shall primarily safeguard our national interests. Through our strategy for state ownership, we will ensure that state-owned companies not only survive but are also innovative, are independent of external influence and ultimately contribute to a stronger Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I support all of the Sweden Democrats' reservations in the Committee on Industry's report 2023/24:NU4, but for the sake of simplicity, I move for approval of only reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Enterprise's report on the 2023 report on companies with state ownership.

Let me begin by saying that there must always be a clear purpose for the state to own companies. The Liberals' principled starting point is that the state's task should normally be to set the framework and rules that shall apply to the business sector and companies - not to own and operate companies. The state should therefore reduce or phase out its corporate ownership if such changes lead to better-functioning markets or a more efficient public service. The state should therefore only operate companies in exceptional cases.

Exceptions, therefore, for our part, concern state-owned enterprises with a specific social mission. This means that in state-owned companies where there is both a social benefit and a competitive situation, these activities should be separated so that the state ownership in the commercial part is separated and phased out.

Today, the state's corporate portfolio consists of about forty companies with a value of around 850 billion kronor. Are all these state-owned companies of benefit to society? No. Are they strategic for the state to own? No. Is there any security policy reason to retain all these companies? The answer to that is also no.

For the Liberals, it is therefore difficult to land on any other conclusion than that the state has currently gone beyond its mandate and is conducting activities that other actors are in a better position to conduct. I repeat myself, but for the sake of clarity: Only state-owned companies with clearly stated social utility should be kept in state ownership. We need, in other words, to divest and privatize a portion of the companies that the state currently operates.

Just as has been mentioned here earlier, all sales must, of course, be preceded by a thorough analysis that clearly demonstrates which parts of the operations should remain in state ownership for reasons including strategic or security policy reasons. But other operations conducted for commercial purposes in a competitive market should thereafter be divested. Divesting companies that lack social utility and that are not strategic in any other way means that we purify the state's tasks and create better-functioning markets.

Madam Speaker! Even with such a purification of the operations, we can state that the state will in the future be a significant corporate owner and, through its corporate ownership, also a large landowner.

The Liberals argue that Sveaskog's forest holdings should be reduced through sales. There are conditions to further increase the ambitions when it comes to transferring productive forest land from state to private ownership. The forest is a true treasure. The forest contributes many different values; not least has the debate we have had in recent years about the forest as a carbon sink been very important. Also, the recreational aspect of our forests, the role they play in an active outdoor life and not least for the biological diversity can and should be emphasized. At the same time, the forest industry is one of Sweden's most important industries and is absolutely crucial for Swedish exports.

More forest needs to be protected, but fewer forest owners are often more successful in terms of the environmental goal for forest management than the state has traditionally been as a forest owner.

In conclusion, I would like to say the following, Madam Speaker. The state should run companies only in exceptional cases. There must be a clear purpose for the state owning and operating companies. In a well-functioning market economy, the state enacts laws, makes decisions on taxes, and engages in the exercise of authority. If the state simultaneously competes with private companies in the market, the roles become mixed, and it can become unfortunate. Therefore, we believe that the state's monopoly should be phased out and that the state's ownership in companies should continue to decrease.

I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the Committee on Industry's report.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker, my colleagues and perhaps someone listening! The document concerns the 2023 report for companies with state ownership. It is clear and plain when the citizens have been present that they hate state ownership, that is to say that they do not want the state to own anything. But when it comes to the turn that one is to have something, then everything shall be on the table.

I remember so well when LKAB was in crisis. There were many bourgeois parties who thought that the state should not step in and provide support. LKAB has contributed hundreds of billions to the state, and that is also something to consider historically.

Madam Speaker! Let me then proceed to my written speech. I gained some momentum when I listened to the opening remarks.

In the memorandum, the Government provides an account of the management of the state's shareholdings and for the operations of the companies that the Government managed at the turn of the year 2022/23. In the memorandum, the Government states that it shall actively manage the state's assets in the form of shares in the companies with state ownership so that their value development and return become the best possible given a balanced risk-taking. Furthermore, it shall ensure that the specifically decided social missions are well performed. To achieve this, the Government states that it is important that the companies are given the conditions and opportunities to develop and continue to compete in their markets.

Furthermore, the importance of the state being an active, professional owner with a focus on long-term value creation is emphasized. Increased globalization, technological development, and exposure to competition have changed the conditions for a number of the state-owned companies. And it certainly can be so.

Vänsterpartiet can agree that the world around us, the developments, and the consequences that have arisen as a result of a market-liberal view on socially important functions have affected society but also the state-owned companies. When the government lifts up social missions as something that justifies continued ownership, I become a little bit suspicious, but not because I would have anything against governance that leads to social benefit and a better everyday life for the majority of the population and sustainability as well as climate ambitions.

I take Vattenfall AB as an example due to two motions regarding the ownership management of Vattenfall.

Elisabeth Svantesson said in her response to an interpellation in the autumn of 2023 that Vattenfall is managed according to prevailing principles for the state's ownership management, which are also safeguarded in the routines and the order that apply to the management of companies in the Government Offices. Furthermore, she stated that she saw no reason for the Riksdag to issue a motion to the government regarding the management of the company, that is, Vattenfall.

Why am I bringing this up now? Well, because I view with concern that the Armed Forces imply that even Vattenfall may need to be given a public mission due to the importance of energy supply and reserve power when the total defense conducts analyses. This makes me very worried, as this government will do anything to realize its wet dream of new nuclear power, even though it is unprofitable and very few actors are standing in line to fulfill this government's wet dream of starting new nuclear construction before 2030. Let us hope that I am wrong.

Madam Speaker! Here I really want to ask the representatives for the government base: Do you keep the promise that it shall be technology-neutral and without support when we build electricity production?

Something about SJ, which has been mentioned in previous speeches. SJ was once an actor that people related to railways and something one could rely on. What does one associate SJ with today? Irritation and nothing other than delays and cancelled trains. Obviously, return requirements have their part in that.

I believe that the state should use state-owned companies to serve socially beneficial purposes. The requirement for profitability in state-owned companies shall not take precedence over social benefit. Instead, the state-owned companies shall be used actively to build a Sweden that is safer, more equal and ecologically sustainable, to increase competitiveness and not least to level out unjust differences between city and countryside. If Sweden is to hold together and there are to be conditions for development in the whole country, one needs to have equal and fundamental conditions regardless of where in the country one lives.

And because the state-owned companies are owned jointly by the Swedish population, these companies have a special responsibility to ensure that people throughout the country have the same access to services and other socially important functions. The state-owned companies therefore bear a great responsibility for what their investments and operations have for effect in the places where they operate. I mean that it is important to clarify this responsibility. The Government should therefore appoint an inquiry into the state-owned companies' demographic responsibility and what demographic effects they have.

Furthermore, I mean that there are several reasons for the state to be a strong owner, or perhaps even have a monopoly, within socially important areas. State ownership is needed as a counterweight to prevailing speculative capitalism and short-term profit-seeking. What has happened with the construction sector? It is pure High Chaparral out there. I am therefore of the opinion that the ownership directives for several of the companies included in the state's corporate portfolio need to be developed on the basis that social utility shall always be the focus for the ownership strategy, while at the same time the companies shall be run economically efficiently. In cases where social interests conflict with return requirements, I believe that the ownership strategy should be reviewed.

I consider that the state, as an active owner through ownership directives, shall ensure that the companies are used to support technological development, drive environmental and climate work, and create employment. I mean that the opportunities for further processing and increased growth within Swedish industry are great. Both the forest, mining, and steel industries have the potential to increase their degree of processing, which would increase the number of jobs, reduce transport, and increase export revenues. This is something that can be promoted through active state management of the state-owned companies, increased research, and cooperation with the rest of the business sector. I therefore think that the government should work so that the state-owned companies shall work for increased processing for the purpose of creating jobs.

Equality in state-owned companies is decent in Sweden. The state-owned companies currently have a nearly equal gender distribution in their boards. It is a positive development. But the commitment to an equal business life must not stop at the management groups. I mean that companies with state ownership have a special responsibility to actively work so that equality permeates the entire corporate structure.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I have unfortunately noted that companies use investment protection clauses or ISDS clauses in international agreements as a way to prevent countries from reaching their sustainability goals. They sue states, for example, when they try to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. It is not sustainable.

I am critical of this development and argue that companies with state ownership should be prevented from acting in this way without the clear approval of the Riksdag. Therefore, the government should work to ensure that companies with state ownership cannot sue other states according to ISDS clauses without the approval of the Riksdag.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 10.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! The State is still one of the largest owners of companies in Sweden. The total result after tax for 2022 amounted to 23 billion. The companies that contributed most to this result were LKAB, which contributed 15 billion, and Akademiska Hus, which contributed 5 billion. Bostadslån, spel, and skog each contributed 2 billion.

There are companies with and without a social mission. LKAB competes in a free market and has no social mission. There are good reasons for the state to continue owning the company. It can, however, be questioned, which I have done in previous debates in this chamber, that LKAB in turn should be the largest owner in SSAB - especially in light of the collaborative projects currently underway where two state-owned companies, Vattenfall and LKAB, together with the partially state-owned listed company SSAB, are scaling up a demonstration project in a way that causes many to react to the impartiality between the companies and the authorities. SSAB must be divested from LKAB.

Akademiska Hus has no social mission. On the other hand, it is a kind of monopoly company. Academic activities must rent from Akademiska Hus, so the result of 5 billion originally comes from the Ministry of Education. This way of tying up the academy and moving money around must be evaluated.

SBAB also has no social mission and makes money on mortgage loans like any other bank. But it is nice that their 300,000 mortgage customers send 7,000 kronor each to the state treasury. SBAB's utility in the mortgage market must be evaluated, and if it does not exist, SBAB should also be divested.

Svenska spel has a social mission: to get Swedes to gamble in a responsible way. They presented their annual accounts today, and there one can read that Casino and Jack Vegas are running a loss of 165 million. It is therefore the taxpayers who are paying so that some can gamble at Casino and pull one-armed bandits. So we cannot have that.

Sveaskog has no public service mandate but sometimes receives tasks that resemble public service mandates. It is unclear for many forest owners how and why actions are taken in certain ways on the local market. Sveaskog's mandate must also be evaluated and clarified.

Madam Speaker! I leave the companies that have largely contributed to the result in a good way and want to bring up some examples of companies that I think have a strange residence, or a strange mission, in the state portfolio.

I will start with Svevia. Svevia was formed in 2009 because the Alliance government at the time, on good grounds, did not consider it to be completely competition-neutral that Vägverket Produktion was a part of the agency Vägverket. They were bidding on the same assignments as, for example, Skanska and Peab. The aim was to increase the conditions for competition neutrality and remove all suspicions of cross-subsidies.

It is interesting to note that Trafikverket is today Svevia's largest customer - they account for half of the turnover, even 15 years later - as well as that Svevia is still in state ownership. After so many years, Svevia should be standing on its own feet. Svevia's utility as a state actor in this market must be evaluated. If it does not exist, Svevia should also be divested.

Another small company is Sweden House, which was previously called Dom Sjvetsii, in Saint Petersburg. Here is what it says in the state-owned companies' business report: "Sweden House is a Russian joint-stock company owned by Ladoga Holding to 49 percent, the Swedish state to 36 percent and by the city of Saint Petersburg to 15 percent. Sweden House is located in the center of Saint Petersburg near the main street Nevsky Prospekt. The property's favorable location, historical origin and design make it attractive for potential tenants."

Sverigehuset turns over 15 million and yields a net profit of 7 million. It is not about the sums but about the principle: that we obviously still co-own a property together with the city of Saint Petersburg. The company was formed in 1994 through a tripartite agreement between the Swedish state, Saint Petersburg, and Skanska. The person who was first deputy mayor in 1994 was none other than Vladimir Putin.

Madam Speaker! If the government has not already taken measures to divest itself from this ownership, it must be done immediately.

Today I have not even spoken about companies such as Samhall and Lernia. The Government has appointed an inquiry regarding Samhall, and for Lernia, there is already a sales mandate. I therefore assume that everything is being prepared in those cases.

Madam Speaker! Two things are required to achieve a purposeful state corporate portfolio. For the first, a review of the companies I have mentioned earlier and a complete evaluation of which companies should remain in the portfolio is required. For the second, a new investigation into how the companies should be governed must be commissioned.

It has been more than ten years since Hans Dahlborg presented the investigation Economic Value and Social Benefit. It is still incredibly good. It was established there that there is a fundamental difference between political and corporate economic rationality in the management of the state-owned companies, which is not reflected in how the administration is organized, and that the state, as many speakers before me have pointed out, has dual roles as both regulator and corporate owner – roles that are difficult to keep separate.

To solve the problem, the investigator found that an independently responsible, professional organization for the operational ownership management should be established as a link between the political sphere and the companies. The investigator proposed a company responsible for the ownership management of companies with economic value creation as the primary ownership mandate, and a company for the ownership management of companies with the creation of social benefit as the primary mandate.

Madam Speaker! I am well aware that many measures have been implemented to address the problems without going as far as the investigator wanted. But there is still very much in these proposals that is correct. Given how large assets are managed, this must be done in the very best way. Every efficiency to save crowns is part of a future payout to the state treasury.

Therefore, it is necessary to take action again to ensure that our joint corporate portfolio has the conditions to be managed in the best possible way. I therefore move for approval of reservation 1 under point 2.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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