2024 report on state-owned enterprises

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

State-owned companies are fundamentally wrong in a society with a market economy. The reason we have 41 state-owned companies is that politicians have had a belief that the state runs companies better than entrepreneurs in certain areas. This may be because politicians have historically felt security in that certain functions are located in companies with state ownership. I have respect for that.

The government has now left SAS, and we are gradually phasing out our ownership. It is not finished, but it is ongoing. We have sold Svensk Bilprovning to Germany for 1.2 billion, a brilliant example of how a deregulation of the inspection market truly is a boost for quality and service for car owners. When the monopoly disappeared, the possibility opened up to book an inspection quickly and smoothly. Previously, one had to book at least one to two months in advance to get an inspection time. I know how it was; when I had my company, I had six cars for a while.

SBAB is a company that the state is considering divesting. Operating a bank is perhaps not the state's core activity.

It should however be said that several of the state's companies are very profitable and are doing well, for example LKAB and Vattenfall. They are making large profits. Vattenfall will have a very strategic role now that new nuclear reactors are to be built in Ringhals and furthermore perhaps also in Forsmark. I also expect that they are more on.

Madam Speaker! The most important issue for Sweden to be competitive is to solve the energy issue. LKAB is in a development phase where they plan to open a new mine, Per Geijer. LKAB has extremely high quality in its ore, and the new mine provides even higher quality. What I understand is that it is the world's best quality of that ore. Today, LKAB produces 80 percent of Europe's iron ore. It is fantastic. I must say that it is impressive.

Swedish prosperity is built on innovations, hard work and the education of fantastic people. We can look back to 1880, when Sweden was as poor as countries in Africa are today. We have made an enormous journey with hard work and education in Sweden.

The income from the export industry constitutes 52 percent of GDP. The government is following the same line as previous governments, and there is broad support for this in the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! Decisions will soon be made here in the chamber regarding allowing farm sales from June 1. It will be a major boost for rural entrepreneurs who produce food and other products. I look forward to that. Some detractors are afraid that Systembolaget's monopoly will be undermined. I do not believe one needs to be worried about that. The assortment that Systembolaget has can never be offered by a farm shop. One thing is completely clear: Without competition, neither quality nor service increases. Farm sales will be a boost for food producers, not least smaller breweries, of which there are very many in the Swedish countryside.

Madam Speaker! Sveaskog is a state-owned forestry company, which has been tasked with selling 60,000 hectares of productive, mountain-adjacent forest land as compensation land.

Samhall is an operation that receives quite a lot of criticism from private companies. Several actors argue that Samhall has underpriced, for example, in tenders for cleaning services in public premises. Therefore, I think it is important that the government follows up on their operations carefully.

Madam Speaker! Postnord is a company that the state co-owns with the Danish state. In Denmark, significant changes have been made to the operations during recent years, and this can affect the Swedish operations. Postnord is doing poorly. At the turn of the year, the postage rate was increased by 4 kroner. The most important thing is that the postal service functions throughout the country. The Swedish people must be able to trust that letters arrive on time. That is actually Postnord's main mission, I believe. The company has had problems with the delivery quality, which is concerning. Much mail has disappeared. It is therefore a priority that the state as an owner should monitor the development progressively and ensure that the delivery quality target of 95 percent is achieved.

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

Marianne Fundahn (S)

Madam Speaker! The airline Bra is now leaving Bromma, and domestic flights are being consolidated at Arlanda. Consequently, the majority of flights from Bromma will disappear. There are now only two regular departures per day. Swedavia's CEO Jonas Abrahamsson says that the business conditions to continue operating Bromma are lacking. The financial situation has been eroded.

In the Tidö Agreement, it states that no decisions on closures shall be made during the mandate period. A debate article from the Tidö parties was recently published in the media.

Should Swedavia continue to operate Bromma even though almost all traffic has disappeared? How will they finance it? How long do the Moderaterna want them to continue – until 2038, when the agreement expires?

The Moderates usually claim that the market should solve the problems, but it is the market that has practically closed Bromma.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Marianne Fundahn, for the question!

There are concerns regarding aviation. Since the pandemic, it has declined. The political mandates that one should not fly have also scared away some travelers.

That Bromma is being phased out is serious for domestic aviation. The only ones who win from this are Copenhagen - Kastrup. They will get more passengers, especially from southern Sweden. I suspect the member is from there. I hear from colleagues that many will fly via Kastrup instead.

The concession at Bromma remains until 2038. There is other aviation there, for example helicopter activity. Bras's operations have moved to Arlanda, and they constituted approximately 80 percent of the aviation at Bromma. It remains to be seen what happens. Discussions are being held between the government and Swedavia, but I do not know more than that. I am not aware of the details, but personally, I think it is sad, because Bromma was needed here in the capital - especially for domestic flights.

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

Marianne Fundahn (S)

Madam Speaker! The business community argues that Sweden is losing competitiveness by having two airports in Stockholm and that one should invest in Arlanda to save Swedish domestic flights. How does the continued operation of Bromma square with this? Is the business community not being listened to? Do the Moderaterna have any figures on how large the losses will be for Swedavia if one continues to operate Bromma airport without any flight routes?

We can read in the report that the government's mandate is to actively manage companies with state ownership so that the long-term development becomes the best possible. To achieve this, it is important to provide the companies with the conditions to develop and compete in their markets. Do the Moderates think that this is being done when it comes to Swedavia?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is exactly as the member says that the market has opted out of Bromma and moved out to Arlanda. But we in Sweden are also in a rather serious situation. I cannot stand here in the speaker's chair and say straight out that Bromma shall be phased out. One must hear if the defense has use for Bromma. I do not know that. There are also other things that discussions are ongoing about and other activities at Bromma that also must be moved.

Communications to Arlanda must be progressively strengthened. Today there is Arlanda Express. Stronger train connections there are needed, at least in my opinion. It is important that Arlanda is expanded. There must also be faster check-in and check-out at Arlanda when it comes to domestic flights. It is quite cumbersome compared to how smooth it is to check in and depart from Bromma. There are improvement measures that need to be taken at Arlanda as well.

I thank you for the question.

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 NU4 2024, the report on companies with state ownership. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 10. We also have a specific statement regarding Svensk Bilprovning.

The state's corporate portfolio consisted of 44 companies at the turn of 2023/24 and has its weight within basic industry and energy. Most companies are profit-making, and 22 companies have a specifically decided social mission. The value of the companies amounted to 820 billion kronor at the end of 2023, which makes the state corporate portfolio the country's largest.

The state-owned companies are not the government's or the parliament's companies, but the real owners are those who live in Sweden. The state-owned companies should therefore have a special responsibility to ensure that people throughout the country have access to the services and other socially important functions that they provide.

The state has a long tradition of owning companies. The Post Office, which was initiated during the 1600s, is regarded by some as the first state company. But it is only in modern times that the state companies began to grow and develop, for example Televerket, which was started to develop the country's telegraph network. Another example of companies that received monopolies on important social functions is Statens järnvägar.

During the 1800s, several different railways emerged in Sweden. Many of these were financed and operated by private investors. In 1887, the Royal Railway Board was formed, later State Railways, which had the task of expanding the Swedish railway network. In the beginning of the 1900s, State Railways gained more influence and the company grew. In 1939, the Riksdag decided that all railways should be nationalized so that a functioning railway network would be achieved. This meant that SJ received a monopoly on the Swedish railways. That is not the case today. Sweden has Europe's most deregulated, privatized, and competitive railway. Did it turn out that well?

Madam Speaker! During the preparation of this matter, the government has sold AB Svensk Bilprovning. We regret this. A service as central for the citizens as this, which stems from societal requirements for safety and which is a government task, should have remained in state ownership. The sale risks leading to vehicle owners paying higher fees for vehicle inspections and having poorer accessibility in sparsely populated areas and in the countryside.

To manage the green transition, the right competence is required in various areas. According to SCB, by 2030 there will be a shortage of 100,000 people trained in the technology sector. If nothing changes, it will be necessary to hire 410,000 people in the welfare sector by 2031 due to demographic developments and retirements, according to SKR's personnel forecast for 2021-2031. Many companies state that they are in great need of employees with upper secondary school competence. The question is who is to train these people.

Part of the solution could be Lernia. Lernia is one of Sweden's leading matching actors within adult education, staffing, recruitment, matching, and transition. We believe that the company should not be divested as it can be an important actor in the green transition. Instead, the company should be given a social mission with a focus on shortage occupations where vocational training is required. Such a mission could have particularly positive effects in regions where it is very difficult to find the right competence as a result of the industry's transition and large investments.

Madam Speaker! Companies with state ownership work to be at the forefront of sustainable business and continuously carry out a series of initiatives aimed at ensuring their future in a sustainable world.

The composition of each board needs to be based on the fact that the company shall have knowledge and competence that is relevant as the company develops and the world around it changes. Companies with state ownership shall be leaders in the green transition. We therefore believe that the government should ensure that the board members in the state-owned companies have relevant knowledge about the challenges that follow from climate change.

The Government has the Riksdag's mandate to actively manage companies with state ownership so that the long-term development becomes the best possible and, where applicable, that the specifically decided social missions are performed well.

Three areas are particularly important for the state as an owner: companies as examples, companies with operational excellence, and companies that ensure long-term value creation.

When it comes to companies as examples, we have, among others, Vattenfall, which is now taking further steps in the work with biodiversity and is investing 65 million kronor in a new five-year program. The money will be used for research and concrete measures in and around rivers where Vattenfall has hydropower production. Vattenfall works to reduce hydropower's impact on biodiversity and collaborates with county administrative boards and universities to increase knowledge in the area.

When it comes to companies with operational excellence, I want to mention Svensk Bilprovning, which has once again been named Sweden's most sustainable inspection company according to Swedish consumers. This is shown by the Sustainable Brand Index 2023 survey. When the result was published, it was clear that Bilprovningen had once again been named best in the industry among companies within vehicle inspection. In the total ranking, Bilprovningen is in 67th place, which is far ahead of its industry colleagues. This lead among state-owned companies is now unfortunately no longer in state ownership.

When it comes to securing long-term value creation, Swedavia has decided to provide Malmö Airport as a test arena for the electric aircraft ES-30. The full-scale model of the aircraft will be tested and demonstrated for taxiing and charging at the airport. The project is co-financed with 20 million from the Swedish Innovation Agency.

It is good and important that state-owned companies take the lead, drive development and demonstrate solutions. This can pave the way for many other companies in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motion proposals.

The State's corporate portfolio consists of 44 companies within the sectors of basic industry and energy, real estate, finance, infrastructure, services, telecommunications, consumers, and transport. Most of the companies operate on commercial grounds in fully competitive markets. Of the state-owned companies, 22 have a so-called social mission, which means that they are to generate effects other than economic profit.

Madam Speaker! We are in a time of global challenges and national opportunities. Our duty is to ensure that Sweden stands strong, both today and in the future. One way to strengthen the country's competitiveness and sustainability is the management of state-owned companies. For the state as an owner, it involves constantly testing the reasons for continued state ownership of the companies and considering different missions and directions that operate on commercial grounds in fully competitive markets.

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

Madam Speaker! The state has a responsibility to manage our common assets in a way that creates the greatest possible social benefit. This means that the state shall own and operate activities where the market cannot deliver sufficient or necessary solutions or where there are clear social missions that cannot be fulfilled by private actors. The state shall not engage in activities that private actors can take responsibility for in a better, more efficient, or more innovative way.

Madam Speaker! I must say that I feel sympathy with the Center Party and the Sweden Democrats when they, in the committee report, desire a review of the state corporate portfolio. We Christian Democrats have on several occasions stated that state-owned companies that do not have a clear socially critical mission in the long term should be sold off, but that all state-owned companies until then must have good governance of the operations.

Public ownership means that the state sits in two chairs by being both judge and player in the business sector. 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 shall be sold at a pace that is good for the companies, their employees, and 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 into account the complexity. We shall, therefore, not just sell off our companies hux flux, but we shall, of course, do so with care for the entire structure of society.

The divestment of state-owned companies has been carried out when we Christian Democrats have previously sat in government, and also now. It has concerned Apoteket, Vin & Sprit, Vasakronan and, most recently, Bilprovningen. These operations could be successfully handed over to the private market without either quality or accessibility being jeopardized. On the contrary, many of these deregulations have led to increased competition, more choices for consumers and improved service.

When it comes to Lernia, it is important to carefully evaluate whether state ownership continues to be the best way to achieve the labor market policy goals. If private actors can offer the same or better solutions, it is reasonable for the state to focus its resources on areas where the market cannot manage to meet society's needs.

Madam Speaker! The state's role is not to compete with the private market but to complement it where needed. By divesting activities where the market functions well, the state can instead free up resources to strengthen areas with clear social mandates, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This is a responsible way to manage our shared assets and ensure that taxpayers' resources are used where they do the most good.

The state is, however, today 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 that are today owned by the state must remain in state ownership. Society's needs change, and development is moving at a rapid pace.

Madam Speaker! This government is looking at those companies whose environment has changed and which can therefore be sold on the basis that they operate in a fully competitive market. We Christian Democrats stand firm that state-owned companies shall act professionally and efficiently, without compromising on their social mandates. At the same time, we should actively look at those companies whose environment has changed and which can therefore be sold on the basis that they operate in a fully competitive market.

With these words, Madam Speaker, I move again for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by stating that I stand behind all of the Sweden Democrats' reservations in the Committee on Industry's report, but for the sake of simplicity, I move for approval only of reservation 1, which concerns the review of the state's corporate ownership.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' position is clear: State-owned companies shall be operated with a clear focus on the core mission, business acumen, and respect for market principles, without transitioning into political opinion-forming activities or any form of activism.

State-owned enterprises play an important role in the Swedish business sector and manage significant assets, estimated at around 850 billion kronor. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the companies are governed with a high degree of transparency, according to business principles and with respect for fair competition. As stated in our motion on state ownership, the Sweden Democrats maintain that state ownership must be justified based on social utility and long-term value creation for Swedish citizens.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, some state-owned enterprises have developed an activist and political agenda, which risks undermining the trust in these operations. State-owned enterprises do not have a mandate to engage in public opinion formation or participate in political campaigns but should strictly adhere to their core mission. Systembolaget's campaign against farm sales is an example of how one deviated from its basic mission.

We Sweden Democrats consider that a review of the state's corporate portfolio is necessary, with a particular focus on identifying operations where state ownership can no longer be justified on the basis of social utility or for economic reasons. We are already pointing out Lernia AB, whose operations in staffing and training take place in a competitive market where we believe the private sector can deliver at least as well, if not better.

Furthermore, we believe that Postnord AB, which has been characterized by economic difficulties and is in need of state capital injections, should be reviewed for a possible division as the Swedish and Danish parts are in different phases of market development. We also propose that the government considers a strategy to gradually reduce the state's ownership in companies operating in fully competitive markets, in order to avoid unhealthy market influence.

We also emphasize the importance of state-owned companies acting as role models in sustainability work, without this leading to distorted positive preferential treatment. The requirements from previous governments for different types of quotas in corporate boards should be phased out in favor of competence-based recruitment - this is to ensure that the right competence and experience are represented.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to point out once again that state ownership of companies must always be justified by clear social benefit and necessary management. It is unacceptable for state-owned companies to pursue a political agenda or abuse their position in the market. Our concrete examples, such as Systembolaget's campaign and the situations in Postnord and Lernia, clearly show the need for stricter regulation and oversight.

Therefore, we welcome that the government in the budget for the next three years has allocated approximately 100 million kronor for the restructuring and review of state-owned companies. This is important, because by acting powerfully and decisively, we can restore the citizens' trust in state-owned companies and ensure that state ownership continues to be of benefit to society.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I also begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

As a liberal, my starting point is naturally that companies should primarily be run by the private sector. The market is much better than we politicians at allocating resources and ensuring that supply and demand meet. Therefore, I think it is good that the state has now sold companies that it previously operated but where it has been seen that the market can handle the exact same mission to the same level of satisfaction for customers and clients.

With this said, there are naturally companies that should be in the state portfolio. These concern important societal functions that should exist even where it is not always economically profitable. The state should be present here, and in that case, companies can be a solution – very good.

Men, Madam Speaker, the core mission of the state is not to run companies. And unlike my Social Democratic colleagues, I believe that the division between private and public/state that Western democracies are built on is important to maintain. The state is not society and should be involved in the business sector to the smallest extent possible.

This, Madam Speaker, naturally leads me to farm sales. Finally, we get the opportunity for this in Sweden! Private actors - craft-skilled ones - can function as a complement to Systembolaget. I believe this is extremely important for a number of producers, who can now expand their operations and build further on their craft skills, without endangering public health or anything else. I look forward very much to the spring, when this will take place.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! The 2024 report on state-owned enterprises is the heading for the committee report.

When it comes to the state-owned companies, I believe that the state should use its ownership to serve socially beneficial purposes. The requirement for profitability in state-owned companies should therefore not take precedence over social benefit, at least not always.

The state-owned companies shall be used actively to build a safer, more equal and ecologically sustainable Sweden, to increase competitiveness and, not least, to level out injustices and differences between city and countryside.

I will give an example of something that affects many in rural areas, for example, me. I no longer receive any daily newspaper just because Postnord has no requirement to coordinate or provide service, such as delivering the newspaper. Then one must ask: Are we using our company for the public good for the citizens?

If Sweden is to hold together and there are to be conditions for development throughout Sweden, one needs to have equal basic conditions regardless of where one lives. The actual owners of the state-owned companies are, as we have heard earlier here, the Swedish population. These companies therefore have a special responsibility to ensure that people throughout the country have the same access to services and other socially important functions.

It is my firm opinion that social benefit should always be the focus of the ownership strategy, while the operations are, of course, conducted economically efficiently. I mean, therefore, that the objective in the ownership strategy should be reviewed in cases where important social interests are in conflict with the profit requirements of the state-owned companies.

Back to Postnord: The Swedish Post and Telecom Authority has, as I understand it, tasked Postnord with managing and administering the postal codes in Sweden. Now it gets a bit detailed here, but you must be informed that Sweden does not end outside the Stockholm gates. I hope many are listening now. About two years ago, my postal code, which was 984 99, was changed. If you Google that, my hometown still appears, and if you Google my new postal code 984 98, my hometown and a few others appear. More than 80 private individuals have that postal code.

Why am I dwelling on these zip codes? Well, because it can make you damn well angry. When you occasionally try to order something from a Swedish company online, they say that the zip code 984 98 does not exist. Then they say that it exists in Lakewood in Washington in the USA. Do you understand that one can get angry?

When one tests with the old number 984 99, which was changed two years ago, the village name appears. In that case, it works to order. The problem is that the package then takes a different route and ends up at a delivery point either four or six miles north of me, where I never have any errands.

I really must restrain myself, Madam Speaker, from using swear words or behaving badly here in the speaker's chair. We do not receive any daily newspapers, and the packages end up in Gällivare or some other place where I cannot get them from because Postnord cannot fix a zip code that works.

Do we even come close to a society that provides everyone with the same service? And that is without me even mentioning healthcare and other essential societal functions that we also need.

Furthermore, the state-owned companies bear a great responsibility for the effect that their own investments and operations have on the places where they operate. This responsibility needs to be clarified, and it also needs to be clarified how the state-owned companies should be able to take responsibility. I mean, therefore, that the government should appoint an inquiry into the state ownership and the demographic effects and responsibilities of the state-owned companies.

I generally oppose the sell-off of state-owned companies and instead want the state to be an active owner of its companies and, through ownership directives, ensure that they are used to support technological development, drive environmental and climate work, and create employment.

The possibilities for further processing within Swedish industry are generally large within both the forest industry, the mining industry, and the steel industry, which have the potential to increase their degree of processing, which would increase export revenues. This is something that can be promoted through active state governance of the state-owned companies as well as through research and cooperation with other parts of the business sector. The Government should therefore work to ensure that the state-owned companies work towards increased processing in order to create jobs and increase export value.

In the current situation, the state-owned companies have an almost equal gender distribution in their boards, and the proportion of women holding the role of board chair has also increased. But the commitment to an equal business life must not stop at the management groups. I believe that the state-owned companies have a special responsibility to work actively to ensure that equality permeates the entire corporate organization.

Madam Speaker! Before I conclude my speech, I must express how concerned I am about the view of state-owned enterprises that the government, or rather all the bourgeois parties, have. I want to remind you of one thing. In the early 80s, LKAB had major problems, and many bourgeois parties demanded that the company be divested. I am convinced that if LKAB had been divested then, Kiruna's mines would have ended up underwater and never been opened again. If it had been privately owned, the owners would never have invested money. It is also doubtful whether one, as today, would have spent billions to move a city. They would probably have emptied the coffers and fled.

What has improved with the liberal view and all the privatizations that have occurred regarding the rural population? I notice when I listen to the speeches here that we have differing opinions on what works and what does not. As someone who comes from the most sparsely populated rural areas, I must, of course, present my view.

When it comes to pharmacies, vehicle testing, railways and power grids, but also schools and healthcare facilities, even if there are no state-owned companies there, a liberal view has been held and privatized. I assert that there are reasons to start looking at how AB Sverige, with the state as the main actor, can do what is best for the citizens in the long term and not just look at how capital owners can make money on things that people cannot opt out of.

Why is one afraid that we should own something in common? I simply do not understand that.

Madam Speaker! We obviously stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval only of reservation 13 in the report.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! I begin by repeating what I have said in previous years in this debate: The Government must conduct a review of the state-owned companies to decide which should be sold and which should remain in state ownership.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 1 in decision point 2.

The corporate portfolio is worth 820 billion today and distributes 22 billion. It is difficult at the portfolio level to get an idea of whether the state is a good or bad owner given the mix of companies. If one studies the two largest, which account for a third of the profit that is distributed, one still sees that they are not dividend machines, as the business press usually writes.

LKAB and Vattenfall are actually to distribute 40-70 percent, according to the ownership directives that the government stands behind.

LKAB distributes just over 7 billion of its 15 billion. That is at least half of this year's profit. But one can state two things.

Write-offs and provisions increased very significantly during last year. It is a classic way to reduce the dividend if one does not want it to be visible that one has so much distributable profit.

LKAB has approximately 100 billion in distributable profit. This is this year's profit and previously deferred profit funds combined.

Vattenfall, then, how does it look for them? They have a result of just over 10 billion. They distribute 4 billion. That is actually below the owner's guidelines.

Vattenfall turns over almost 300 billion and pays out 4 billion. Is that reasonable? Companies with comparable turnover pay out twice as much.

I am fully aware that these companies are going to invest a lot and need to save a portion of the dividend possibilities. But they shall always invest in a new baseline. They shall move a city - yes, perhaps they won't do that many more times - and build new energy sources. But that does not mean that they should constantly save their profit funds and put money in the bank.

There are many advantages to being a listed company. There are also quite a few disadvantages. But listed companies are the target of analysts. The analyses do not always feel fair, I must willingly admit, but they create transparency. There are very few analysts who look at the state-owned companies. There are some because some of our state-owned companies have bonds issued, but they are very few.

I am absolutely not arguing for selling LKAB and Vattenfall. On the contrary, those are companies that we should keep in state ownership. My point, Madam Speaker, is that the review of the state portfolio should not only be about which companies should be sold but also be a comparison with other companies of the same type so that we know if these enormous companies are being managed in a wise manner.

Madam Speaker! It is good that the government has now started to clean up. Bilprovningen is sold, which was the intention when we in the Alliance government worked with the deregulation of the market. Sveaskog has finally sold its holding in Setra, and SAS has found a new long-term owner.

Taxpayers should no longer have to pay for some to be allowed to play at casinos. According to the latest available figure, we are subsidizing them with a full 165 million kronor, so it is good that the proposal comes to the chamber shortly.

But there is more to do. Last year, 13 companies reported a loss. Even if one excludes SAS, Postnord accounted for a loss of half a billion and the other 11 companies for half a billion.

Some of these companies have no social mission. It is clear that companies with a social mission have some problems between the years with zero results. But there are companies that should be evaluated immediately for potential sale.

We have talked about Lernia. They are clearly competing with private service companies, and there is no point in keeping the old Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen under the wing.

Svevia is another company operating in a fully competitive market. Svevia was formed in 2009, at the time when there was something called Vägverket, and within Vägverket there was Vägverket Produktion. Within an authority, there was therefore a company that competed with private companies. That part was resolved, but it was never intended that the state should own Svevia in the long run.

Within Svevia, there is today an interesting small company called Arento. Arento offers a wide range of construction and civil engineering machinery, including trenchers. It is not a state mandate to rent out trenchers and cars. It occurs in direct competition with small companies in local markets all around Sweden.

Svevia has by this point come so far in its transformation that they can stand on their own feet.

SBAB distributes a profit of 1 billion. They have quite good cost-efficiency, but compared to other banks, they have lower profitability and lower return on equity. SBAB's utility in the mortgage market should also be evaluated.

Madam Speaker! I also raised last year one of the very smallest companies in the portfolio, a company that strangely enough is located in Saint Petersburg: Sweden House, which was previously called Dom Sjvetsii, where the Swedish state owns 36 percent and the city of Saint Petersburg owns 15 percent. The rest is owned by a real estate company.

A year ago, I submitted a written question to Foreign Minister Billström regarding what measures the government had taken to divest the ownership in Sweden House. I received the following answer: "My and the government's focus in the short term has been on winding down the consulate general in an orderly manner despite the limited time allowed for divestment." The answer continues: "Regarding a possible divestment of the Swedish state's minority share in Sweden House, both the articles of association as well as local and Swedish legal conditions for divestment must be taken into account." It still seems reasonable.

Judging by the report we are debating today, Sweden House still believes in a future, because it states the following: "In view of the fact that the lease agreements for the office premises of the Swedish Consulate General have been terminated, the vacancy rate will increase significantly. The office premises are in great need of renovation, which is challenging given the sharply increased construction costs and the shortage of suitable building materials." Yes, it is because we have sanctions against Russia! That is why there is a shortage of building materials. Still, people in this company believe and write in the Swedish annual report that it shall continue to be developed.

I have now repeated the question, and a few hours ago I received the following answer from Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard: "The question of a possible divestment of the Swedish state's minority share in Sweden House is currently being prepared in the Government Offices. Both the articles of association and the local and Swedish legal conditions for divestment must be taken into account."

Yes, that is clear. But it has almost been three years since Russia started its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is completely unreasonable that it can take so long to exit an ownership. It is as if it is not an issue at all for the Swedish government that Sweden exits a joint ownership with Russia. How can that be? Many Swedish companies had, within half a year, wound down their operations, laid off their staff, and disappeared from Russia. The government blames that it has been difficult for the state to exit a lease agreement – with itself, for it is UD that owns both matters.

I am ashamed that Sweden House is still a Russian interest in the Swedish state's economy, and it is my hope that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs resolves this here before the three-year anniversary of the invasion. Then the government can forcefully criticize companies that bypass sanctions, for on that point we agree.

Madam Speaker! The state-owned companies are a very great asset that must be managed well. I know that the officials who work with this do a good job. But the government must put further analysis into which companies should be kept in state ownership and which ones, when the time is right, can leave the state company portfolio.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet believes that the state should be an active and responsible owner of our state-owned companies, ensuring that they do not only generate profit but also contribute to the long-term, sustainable development of society. We believe that the companies should participate in showing the way to a fossil-free society and be role models in issues such as climate, biodiversity, and equality.

State-owned companies have a unique position with the possibility to make a big difference in areas such as energy, transport, forestry and infrastructure. But for that to be possible, clear governance is needed that puts climate and sustainability in focus.

A large majority of Sweden's population thinks that it is very important that we reach our environmental and climate goals. It would be strange if that were not reflected in the companies that we as citizens own together.

Vattenfall, LKAB, Postnord and Sveaskog account for approximately 99 percent of the emissions generated by state-owned companies. We therefore believe that above all those, but actually all state-owned companies, should set scientifically based climate goals in order to have an active role in fulfilling the Paris Agreement.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 7.

I also wanted to take the opportunity to mention a few words about, among other things, Swedavia and Bromma Airport. We have heard from several Tidö parties that it is considered important that state-owned companies are operated on market terms. Swedavia itself states that there are no economic conditions to continue operating Bromma Airport. On the contrary, they are losing money, and virtually no flights depart from there. At the same time, Stockholm as a city has an acute need for more housing. It therefore becomes somewhat strange that for ideological reasons, one prevents Swedavia from doing what is market-rationally correct.

2024 report on companies with state ownership

I also want to take the opportunity to mention a bit about SJ and about the trains. We have had the worst punctuality on the railway in 14 years. Many measures were needed to rectify this. I believe that the Swedish population expects this from both the government and the Riksdag.

There are many larger reforms that are perhaps more important, such as splitting up Trafikverket, ensuring that we get a banverk and that maintenance is managed long-term and under state management. Above all, we need to invest in new railway.

In the short term, however, there is a measure that we can take here and now regarding the management of the state-owned companies. That is to give SJ a public service mandate, at least during a transitional period, to ensure that we get night trains running between Gothenburg and Umeå and between Gothenburg and Östersund, for example. The last time I checked, 78,000 had signed a petition to preserve that specific route. I believe that clear management is needed in this.

It was also an interesting ideological discussion here that I unfortunately do not have time to engage in due to limited speaking time.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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