2025 report on state-owned enterprises
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M moves for approval of the proposal and considers that state-owned companies are fundamentally wrong in a market economy 1. M proposes the sale of SBAB and Svevia 1. 2 S moves for approval of its reservation and considers that the state should manage the companies for long-term economic development and social missions 2. 3 S argues that it is not strange that state-owned companies act as private companies and attempt to influence politics 3. 4 KD moves for approval of the proposal and argues that the state should be an active owner that manages the companies professionally 4. 5 L argues that the state's task is normally to set frameworks and rules, not to own and operate companies in the free market 5. 6 V agrees and considers that the state should use its ownership to serve socially beneficial purposes where social benefit should take precedence over profitability 6. 7 MP considers that the government should steer the state-owned companies in a climate- and environmentally sustainable direction 7. 8 C considers that the state should only own companies in cases of national interest or strategic reasons 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (16)
Kjell Jansson (M)
Madam Speaker! The hour is late, but the debate continues.
I begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee report and the rejection of all motions.
State-owned companies are fundamentally wrong in a society with a market economy. There are exceptions, which I will touch upon. The reason we have 40 state-owned companies is that politicians have historically had great faith that the state is better at running companies than entrepreneurs are. It is a belief I do not share, as you understand. Politicians have historically felt security in that certain functions lie in companies with state ownership.
The State has during the mandate period divested SAS, which was bleeding with multi-million losses annually. One sold Bilprovningen for 1.2 billion in 2024, and one sold Lernia in 2025.
The deregulation of the inspection market is a brilliant example. It has truly improved the quality and service for car owners. Previously, one had to wait for several months to get an inspection time. When the monopoly disappeared, the possibility opened up to book an inspection quickly and smoothly. Competition drives development and delivers customer service.
Madam Speaker! SBAB is a company that the state should consider divesting. SBAB is a well-managed bank. As a Moderate, I believe that the bank should be sold in the long term. We have a regulated capital market that ensures that the regulations are followed. There is no reason for the state to be involved and risk money for mortgages and such.
The contracting company Svevia is another state-owned company that should be sold in the near future. They also have a subsidiary called Arento, which rents out cars and construction machinery in competition with many family businesses in southern Norrland and harms the business community with unhealthy competition.
It should however be said that the state has several companies that are very profitable and are doing well. LKAB and Vattenfall are very well-managed companies.
One of the most important issues is to solve the electricity supply in the long term. There, Vattenfall will have a very significant strategic role when nuclear reactors are to be built, primarily in Ringhals but in the long run perhaps also in Barsebäck and Forsmark. Before Christmas, Vattenfall submitted an application to build three to five SMR reactors in Ringhals, which is pleasing.
Madam Speaker! LKAB is facing a development phase. A new mine is planned at Per Geijer, where there is ore of extremely high quality – the highest quality in the world – and also rare earth metals, which we have a shortage of. Much is bought from China today. Today, LKAB produces 80 percent of Europe's iron ore – 80 percent! It is also important that we reduce our dependence on China.
The great challenge for LKAB right now is the large relocation of housing in Kiruna to make room for the expansion of the existing mine. Approximately 850 homes must be demolished or moved. This affects about 6,000 people – it is an enormously large operation. It is important that this happens with respect for those who own the houses and live there, and also that financial compensation is paid to ensure that those affected do not suffer a reduction in wealth.
Malmbanan must be upgraded and expanded with double tracks between Kiruna and Narvik to secure LKAB's transports to Narvik.
Sweden's prosperity is built on innovations and hard work as well as, not least, our fantastic export industry – 52 percent of Sweden's GDP comes from the export industry.
Madam Speaker! Sveaskog is a state-owned forest company, which has been tasked with divesting 60,000 hectares of productive forest land within the mountain-adjacent area as compensation land. It is not being executed.
Samhall is an operation that has received a lot of criticism. Several actors argue that underpricing occurs during bidding for, for example, cleaning services. I think it is important that the government follows up on the operation so that this is handled properly.
Madam Speaker! Postnord is co-owned by the Danish state. Denmark has implemented significant changes to the operations in recent years which have affected the company's finances, primarily negatively.
The most important thing is that the postal service functions throughout the country. The Swedish people must be able to rely on that the mail arrives on time. The company has at times had problems with deliveries. Hopefully, improvements are underway. It is therefore a top priority for the state as the owner to continuously monitor the development and ensure that the goal of a delivery quality of 95 percent is reached.
Madam Speaker! Arlanda is one of Sweden's most important nodes for travel abroad and for industry. Unfortunately, the number of long-haul flights at Arlanda has decreased during recent years. Kastrup and Gardermoen have taken over large parts and grown. Swedavia has now begun an investigation to develop Arlanda as a destination. They are also looking at PBI, pier and baggage, as well as check-in. It is of great importance that the logistics become better and simpler at Arlanda. It must be simple and smooth to travel both domestically and internationally.
Bromma Airport is being phased out successively. It is very cumbersome with domestic flights – it takes a long time to check in for everyone who needs to travel within Sweden. There must be clear improvements there and it must become simpler so that it works for people.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Madam Speaker! The Tidö Agreement's wording regarding not closing Bromma Airport puts Swedavia's board in an impossible position. It ties up capital, worsens the group's total return, and conflicts with strict business logic. The board ends up in a situation where business logic points in one direction and political decisions in another.
The state may weigh in on societal interests when it comes to the management of the state-owned companies, but the state must do so as an owner and not as a political power holder on the sidelines.
My question is: Is there a formally adopted decision to shut down Bromma?
Kjell Jansson (M)
Madam Speaker and Member Fundahn! It is like this: Bromma has a concession for aviation activities until 2038. The government has included in the Tidö Agreement that it shall remain. In the meantime, the airline Bra has ceased its operations – or not ceased them completely but divested them, moved from Bromma and so on. It is a fact.
There is still a great deal to resolve at Bromma. It concerns helicopter operations, smaller aircraft, private companies, and so on. One must have a solution for that before phasing out Bromma. If one phases out Bromma, one must also, as I said in my speech, arrange so that the logistics at Arlanda function better. It is messy out there with check-in and everything.
Nothing will happen with this before the election; I can say that. As mentioned, there is a concession until 2038, so for quite a long time ahead.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Madam Speaker! The Tidö Agreement is not a corporate law document. It is not binding for the board and is not an ownership directive.
The government talks all the time about the companies', in this case Swedavia's, responsibility and says that it is they who decide how they conduct their operations. Why is there then the provision about not closing Bromma airport in the Tidö Agreement? What lies behind that? The Tidö Agreement was written long before Bra stopped flying at Bromma airport.
Kjell Jansson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Fundahn, for the question!
As I said in the first answer, there is activity remaining at Bromma. It is not possible to just shut it down, there must be replacement sites for, for example, helicopter operations. I cannot give a better answer on this here and now.
How it looks in the ownership directives for Swedavia, I have no knowledge of, I must say. I have not seen them, but that is where one can regulate it. If it stands in the Tidö Agreement, it is well reasonable that one regulates it in the ownership directives as well, but I am not updated on those.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Industry's report NU4, the 2025 report on companies with state ownership.
I would like to begin by moving for approval of our reservation 15. We also have a special statement regarding the state's ownership of companies.
The state is a significant corporate owner in Sweden. The government shall manage the companies so that the long-term economic development becomes the best and the social missions decided by the Riksdag are performed well. Companies with state ownership are ultimately owned by the Swedish people and constitute a significant part of Swedish business.
The State's ownership policy specifies the framework for corporate governance and clarifies the relationship between owner, board, and management. A new ownership policy to be applied in companies with state majority ownership from and including the 2025 annual general meeting was decided by the government in February 2025.
The ownership policy is a legally binding ownership instruction and aims, among other things, to guide and clarify the owner's expectations of the state-owned companies. We note that the government in the new ownership policy has decided that it is the board's responsibility to establish the company's strategy within the framework of the articles of association and any ownership instruction. As part of this, the board shall establish overall strategic goals for sustainable value creation and formally decide on economic goals.
Madam Speaker! We consider that the state's corporate portfolio constitutes an important part of the Swedish state's assets that provide returns and added value for the benefit of the citizens. State-owned companies operate in a range of central areas, and this applies in particular to companies concerning the green transition.
For us, it is important that companies with state ownership are at the forefront when it comes to sustainable business and continuously carry out investments aimed at strengthening their position and providing long-term returns to the state. We believe that without clearly formulated measurable goals and transparent follow-up, it becomes difficult to assess whether a company delivers according to the owner's, i.e., the state's, intentions. We will therefore closely monitor how the ownership governance that the government has decided on, where the company's board sets the goals itself, will affect the state-owned companies. We will also closely monitor how the goals develop and how the ownership policy will affect the state and the citizens as owners.
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. It is therefore important that the government's work to ensure that the companies have competent boards is conducted with great precision.
The composition of each board needs to be based on the company having the knowledge and competence that is relevant as the company develops and the world around it changes, and every nomination of board members should therefore be based on the competence needs in each respective board. We therefore believe that the government should ensure that board members in the state-owned companies have relevant knowledge of and competence for the challenges that result from the climate transition.
Madam Speaker! A majority of the state-owned companies are members of one of Svenskt Näringsliv's member organizations, which act as both employers' federations and as industry associations. The state-owned companies thus likely pay a considerable sum in membership fees to these member organizations and to Svenskt Näringsliv every year.
A central part of Svenskt Näringsliv's activities is to conduct opinion-building, among other things regarding privatization and deregulation. We have no views on how Svenskt Näringsliv and its member organizations conduct their work as employers' federations and opinion-builders. On the other hand, we think it should be possible to assess to what extent Svenskt Näringsliv and its member organizations are supported financially by the state-owned companies and that these membership fees should therefore be clearly reported by the companies.
Madam Speaker! The Government decided on 14 November 2024 to sell Aktiebolaget Svensk Bilprovning, and the state therefore no longer owns any shares in the company. The sale of Bilprovningen risks leading to vehicle owners having to pay higher fees for vehicle inspections and that primarily rural areas and the countryside will get poorer accessibility.
We mean that a central service for the citizens based on societal requirements and which is a government task should have been retained in state ownership to guarantee that the service is available throughout the country. We therefore consider that the consequences of the sale regarding price development and availability should be followed up. One alternative could be that the inspection activity in Sweden is re-regulated.
Madam Speaker! Swedavia is a wholly Swedish company that today has ten airports. The company is currently not meeting its financial goals and is therefore in need of measures and investments that can strengthen the result and generate a return for the state.
It is now a year since the airline Bra stopped flying to Bromma, and the airport is almost deserted today. This means that the cost for Bromma must be taken from the other airports. I have heard that the annual loss is 1 billion.
Due to the provisions in the Tidö Agreement stating that Bromma shall not be closed during the mandate period, Swedavia's board is nevertheless prevented from acting. Instead, the government has appointed an inquiry that shall review, among other things, Bromma Airport and the state's role as the owner of the airport. They also point to the defense's need for the airport due to the deteriorated global situation. But is it a business-oriented state-owned company that is to fund this?
If the state requires unprofitable activity, it should also compensate the company for this. How else can the board live up to the requirements of the Companies Act regarding the company's interests and the owners' requirements to generate profit? This stands in total contrast to what the government says in the ownership policy. There, it is stated that the government has high expectations that the company's business activities are conducted in accordance with the principles that are guiding for the government's management of the companies. Some examples of the principles are that companies with state ownership shall act commercially, have good corporate governance, generate sustainable value creation, and have long-term ambitions and good adaptability.
It is further said that activities in companies with state ownership, just like privately owned companies, have the purpose of generating profit for the shareholders. This means that the Tidö Agreement's wording about not closing Bromma is not compatible with the state's ownership policy and the Companies Act.
The consequences for Swedavia's economy of retaining Bromma must be reported. Such a report of the additional costs for continued operation should also highlight the consequences for the company's profitability and the possibility of delivering a return to the state.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Marianne Fundahn, for the speech!
I thought we would have a brief discussion about a reservation that the Sweden Democrats have in this report. I fully understand that the member may not be familiar with all 21 reservations at the level of detail that might be required. Therefore, I intend to explain a little bit about this reservation.
The reservation concerns opinion-forming carried out by state-owned companies. Marianne was involved in this regarding Svenskt Näringsliv. For many years, I have been irritated by the phenomenon of using state institutions for party-political opinion-forming. In our reservation, we exemplify this with when Systembolaget went out and tried to persuade members of the Riksdag not to introduce farm sales. It was not particularly elegant, at least I and many others in my party think.
I would like to ask the member if it is possibly the case that we can agree that this is something unwelcome, unwanted and improper and perhaps even something that needs to be addressed.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Mr. Speaker! I see nothing strange about a company that is to operate in a market, just like any private company, acting as a private company. The ownership instructions are followed, which state that the company shall make a profit and pay out dividends to the state. I cannot see that one would do anything other than try to influence politics just like any other company.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I am very surprised by the answer. I understand that the Social Democrats do not want to admit that this would be a problem, because they use the state-owned companies a bit as part of their own party organization. They use the state-owned companies to provide retirement positions to former politicians, perhaps partly to maintain control over the operations even during those years when they do not have the government power. They also pay for long and loyal service by placing their own. In my speech, I shall in a short while take up another example.
I think this is wrong, regardless of whether it is a right-wing government or a left-wing government that does it. The Social Democrats, however, have over the years distinguished themselves in terms of using the power of appointment to appoint various Social Democrats – former politicians and high-ranking political officials – to positions in, among other things, municipal companies. I think it is very problematic. Furthermore, these tentacles out in the companies are used to conduct party politics.
As has been said, it is not very surprising that the Social Democrats do not think this is problematic. That is how it has been worked in all times, and I am completely convinced that it is how one wants to continue to work. I intend, in any case, to point out the problem with this, so you can try to defend it.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is somewhat flattering that Josef Fransson believes that the Social Democrats influence the government to such an extent that mostly Social Democrats are appointed to sit on the boards of state-owned companies. If they sit there, they certainly do so because they have the right competence.
I cannot really see the problem with state-owned companies fulfilling the owner's requirements for them, i.e., that they should operate like any other company on the private market to be as profitable as possible. It would probably have been a problem if the state-owned companies had not lived up to what the owner expects of them. The owner sets the requirements, and then it is the company's responsibility to live up to them. If you do not do that, you get into trouble.
Lili André (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing with the report NU4 2025's report on companies with state ownership. I would like to begin by moving for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of all motions.
The Government's report on state-owned companies is an important and recurring part of the Riksdag's work, as the state is a significant owner within the Swedish business sector and thus bears a great responsibility both economically and socially.
At the turn of the year 2024/25, the state's corporate portfolio consisted of 38 companies. In most cases, these operate on market terms in competitive markets. Of the 38 companies, 22 companies have a so-called social mission, which means that they are to achieve goals other than financial return.
The starting points for the companies are that the state shall be an active owner and manage the companies professionally and in the long term, as well as be motivated by a national or market-specific interest. The government's goal is to ensure the best possible long-term value development in the state-owned companies, while the social mission that the Riksdag has decided upon shall be performed well and with high quality. The state shall not be a passive owner, but one should also not micro-manage the operational activities.
The Swedish model for corporate governance is fixed: the State is the owner, and decisions shall be made where they belong, i.e., in the boardroom and at the general meeting. The general meeting is the highest decision-making body. The board is responsible for the company's management, and the executive management is responsible for the day-to-day operations.
Mr. Speaker! It is important that companies have good adaptability, are security-conscious, and contribute to Sweden's preparedness in crisis or war. This is not a side issue but part of a modern and responsible state ownership. It is crucial to maintain public trust and for the companies to be able to compete on equal terms in often fully competitive markets.
With and due to increased globalization, technological development and exposure to competition, the conditions have changed for a number of the state-owned companies, and therefore the corporate portfolio has changed over time. As owner, the state tests the reasons for continued state ownership and reviews the companies' various missions as well as the direction of their operations.
The government has taken concrete measures in several state-owned companies during the mandate period. The state, for example, completely exited SAS. Other examples are the sale of Lernia and of Aktiebolaget Svensk Bilprovning, where the state completed a long-standing authorization and divested the business in a commercially sound manner. This meant that the state exited a market that functions competitively, just as a responsible owner should do.
Another change that has been implemented concerns Sveaskog, which, through the sale of Setra Group, strengthens its role as an independent actor in the timber market. It is a development that is completely in line with the government's ambition that the company should focus on its core mission of being a commercially sustainable and responsible forest owner.
Mr. Speaker! A new ownership policy has been introduced from the 2025 annual general meeting, which entails clearer requirements for the companies regarding business acumen, sustainable value creation, good corporate governance, security awareness, and transparency. It strengthens the board's responsibility and ensures that the companies have the conditions to develop and compete in their markets while the tasks decided by the Riksdag are carried out in a responsible manner. This also includes revising the ownership policy as needed.
We Christian Democrats see the new ownership policy as an expression of responsibility with clear goals, professional governance, and respect for the companies' independence within the framework of current legislation.
In the government's annual activity report for companies with state ownership, it is reported how the management of the state's shareholdings has developed during the year, as well as the companies' economic goals and mandate goals. The government has now announced that the design and scope of the activity report shall be revised. The intention is to provide a clearer and more efficient reporting in order to create a more relevant, coherent, and easily accessible whole. It is about increased clarity, better coherence, and more relevant reporting to the Riksdag and the public. Transparency and oversight are fundamental in the management of the state's assets, Mr. Speaker, so this work is welcome.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to state that state ownership must always be justified. The State shall review the reasons for continued ownership over time. In some cases, it is about national interests and in others about market failures or social missions that cannot be ensured without state influence. The Government is therefore working continuously to review the corporate portfolio to ensure efficiency and clarity in the ownership role.
Mr. Speaker! In summary, this year's report shows that the government's management of state-owned companies rests on a stable foundation: clear principles, strong corporate governance, and a long-term responsibility for both the economy and society.
With this, I would like to once again move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
Josef Fransson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating NU4 2025's report on companies with state ownership. I would like, as a preliminary point, to take the opportunity to move for approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation number 4, which concerns the public opinion formation of state-owned companies. I will return to this reservation.
The Swedish population owns 38 companies through state ownership, some of the largest of which are LKAB, Vattenfall, Systembolaget, and Apoteket. Some of the companies are of great strategic importance, while it can well be discussed whether others should even exist in the state's portfolio. I want to emphasize Vattenfall and LKAB, where the Sweden Democrats have previously called for and continue to call for a review of the government's management, not least by reason of the example with LKAB and the Hybrit project.
It is central that the state as an owner should be able to demand consultation with a state-owned company, for example if the state suspects that the company is not living up to what is prescribed in the company policy. The state needs to work to ensure that the state-owned companies act transparently, long-term and responsibly, for the good of the whole society. We consider against this background that the Riksdag should clarify to the government that risk assessments in state-owned companies should be made on a factual basis and evaluated in the annual report for companies with state ownership. More on this can be read in our reservation number 1.
Mr. Speaker! Now I shall speak about Swedish corruption, at least a part of it. The international reputation for Sweden's institutions is good, and relative to others we stand well in various corruption indices. But there is, in my opinion, corruption in Sweden, and my opinion is also that it is getting worse over time. Still, there is hardly any talk about fighting corruption despite it being well known how destructive corruption is for a society.
Swedish corruption manifests in different ways and leads inexorably to inefficiency in the public sector, not least in the state-owned companies. Something that I have been annoyed by for a long time is how authorities and state-owned companies engage in political opinion-forming. This is what we address in our reservation number 4.
We exemplify this with when Systembolaget tried to influence members of the Riksdag regarding so-called farm sales of alcohol. Exactly who pulled which strings to ensure this would come to fruition is, of course, difficult for an outsider to determine. But it is very easy to suspect that it was a political commissioned job, given that the state-owned companies are unfortunately populated by former politicians and political officials, who naturally have strong party interests.
I also remember another example on the same theme, where LKAB made a statement about what energy policy they wanted the government to pursue. It was therefore not about the company considering itself to need more or less electricity, but in detail about how the electricity should be produced.
That time I quickly began to suspect something was fishy because the proposal aligned perfectly with the Social Democrats' energy policy at the time. Therefore, I became curious and started checking who the person behind the move was. Judge my lack of surprise when it turned out that the communications director was a Social Democratic political operative who, among other things, had worked as a state secretary under a Social Democratic minister. The fact that LKAB's then-chairman of the board was also named Göran Persson is not entirely irrelevant in this context.
Mr. Speaker! It is unfortunately not up to me, but if I were to decide, we would reform the appointment power for both agencies and state-owned companies. The fact that the government has almost unrestricted appointment power has time and again been abused to place their own in central positions, both to maintain control and to scratch each other's backs with lucrative retirement posts.
In my world, this is a kind of corruption. In my world, this is a corrupt system. Instead, we would need a system that entails costs for nominating a friend, a relative, or a party loyalist – a system where the letter of the law that public employees shall be appointed based on merit and skill is observed. The day the political will exists for this, we solve it in a heartbeat. It is not particularly difficult.
Mr. Speaker! Today we must take a stand on our reservation number 4. We state there concretely that the government needs to carry out a review of the opinion-forming work conducted by state-owned companies and that this work shall in the future be included in the reports submitted for companies with state ownership. That, Mr. Speaker, is well the least one can request.
Last but not least, I also want to wish the national handball team good luck in the ongoing European Championship match, which we are missing while we sit here.
Louise Eklund (L)
Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Enterprise's report on companies with state ownership. Ultimately, these are owned by the Swedish people. They also constitute a significant part of Swedish business.
My colleagues on the bourgeois side have addressed this previously: The government shall actively manage the companies with state ownership so that the long-term economic value development becomes the best possible, and the social missions decided by the Riksdag shall be performed well. It is worth repeating that companies with state ownership shall act commercially, sustainably, and in a way that maintains the public's trust. In other words, there must always be a very clear purpose for the state owning companies.
The Liberals' fundamental 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 the companies. It should not be to own and operate the companies that operate on the free market.
We consider that it is only in exceptional cases that the state should operate companies. These exceptional cases concern state-owned enterprises with a specific social mandate. 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.
As has been mentioned here in the chamber earlier, the state's corporate portfolio today consists of just under 40 companies. The value is more than 800 billion kronor.
Since this government took over, a review of the state's companies has been conducted. We have developed a new ownership policy. It has been clarified what the companies' boards should be occupied with. We have heard examples here in the chamber of how the company work should preferably not be conducted.
The purpose of the review has just been to clarify the owner's, that is to say the state's, expectations of the state-owned companies and to give them a clearer framework for governance. Thus, it shall also be possible for the companies to focus on profitability. It is precisely what the new ownership policy shall emphasize: profitability, adaptability and accountability.
This is good. It is reasonable that the companies we Swedes own together are managed in a professional manner and that they contribute to society. But it can also be questioned whether some of the companies that are now under the state's corporate portfolio should do so in the future. I do not need to go into individual companies. We can state that there may at times have been a need to keep these companies within the state's fold. Times have, however, changed in a way that makes it reasonable for the companies today to be able to act in a competitive market without being part of the state.
The question we should ask ourselves is: Are all the companies we currently have under state control of benefit to society? Are they strategically important for the state to own? Is there any security policy reason to retain them? I believe that for several of the companies, we can answer no to those questions.
For the Liberals, it is therefore difficult to land on any other conclusion than that the state is currently exceeding its mandate and conducting activities that other actors are in a better position to carry out.
I am certainly repeating myself, but for the sake of clarity, I want to say: Only state-owned companies with a clearly stated social benefit should be kept in state ownership.
We need to divest and privatize a portion of the companies that the state currently operates. My view is that such a divestment and privatization would allow us to purify the state's tasks and create better-functioning markets.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: The state should only operate companies in exceptional cases. There must be a clear purpose for the state to own companies. I repeat myself, but it is important to establish that in a well-functioning market economy, the state enacts laws, makes decisions on taxes, and engages in the exercise of authority, but the state does not run companies. We must not confuse the roles. Therefore, the state's ownership in companies shall continue to decrease.
I therefore move for approval of the Committee on Industry's proposal.
Birger Lahti (V)
Mr. Speaker! This evening would become long if I were to say everything I have thought about when I heard the speeches. But the heading for the report we are debating is the 2025 report on companies with state ownership.
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 shall therefore not take precedence over social benefit, if there are more values in the social benefit than what can be counted in kronor and öre.
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 unjust differences between city and countryside. Let me take an example that affects many in the rural areas right now. For example, I can no longer get any daily newspapers delivered, because Postnord has no obligation to provide service with newspaper delivery. Then one must ask: Are we using our company for the public good for the citizens?
I came across an old picture from 1933. In the picture, one can see a skier with a mail bag on their back. It was the mail delivery to a village. The mail arrived once a week. Soon, my villages will be at the same service level as in 1933. Rumors are heard that it will be investigated to have mail delivery only once a week.
If Sweden is to hold together and there are to be conditions for development throughout the country, one needs to have equal basic conditions regardless of where one lives.
The actual owners of the state-owned companies are the Swedish people, and 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 view that social utility should always be the focus for the ownership strategy, while the operations are conducted economically efficiently, of course.
I mean therefore that the objective in the ownership strategy should be reviewed in cases where important societal interests are in conflict with the profit requirements of the state-owned companies.
Furthermore, the state-owned companies bear a great responsibility for what their own investments and operations have for effect on the places where they operate. I have much to say here about Vattenfall and Jokkmokk, but I will leave that for this time. Their responsibility needs to be clarified, and it also needs to be clarified how the state companies should be able to take responsibility.
The state-owned enterprises also have a special demographic responsibility and play a key role in how society meets different challenges. The Government should therefore commission an inquiry into the state-owned enterprises' responsibility to meet demographic challenges, such as depopulation, an aging population and regional imbalance, as well as the enterprises' role in contributing to a more equal social development.
Clear frameworks must be established for how the state-owned companies shall take their responsibility and for how this shall be concretized in the daily work.
Mr. Speaker! I take the liberty of giving you an example where Sveaskog, in my opinion, actually does not contribute to a positive rural development, which they could do, however, if the will were there.
An acquaintance of mine called the local Sveaskog office and asked if they could buy birch logs located after a forest road just a few kilometers from the village where they live. Sveaskog has thinned the area, and therefore there is now timber by the road. It is a good thinning, by the way, and everything has been carried out as it should be when one manages the forest actively. The answer the person received was: Of course – it costs 880 kronor plus VAT and transport per cubic meter. With the knowledge I have, I am convinced that Sveaskog does not receive this amount when they sell their timber. They have to cover the transport for the timber, either to the coast or to some district heating plant in the vicinity. They wanted, therefore, 1,200 kronor per cubic meter. They will never get that!
Such a way of responding to the local population who are still struggling to stay in forest areas is nothing other than working against the possibility of staying. Often it even concerns old forest workers who struggle with a low pension and who would benefit if they were allowed to buy birch for heating their houses. This type of action from a state-owned company is, for me, completely incomprehensible.
Today it is super important that people are given the conditions to inhabit those parts of the countryside that today are almost extinct. We cannot meet all the challenges we face: the green transition, civil defense, food supply, and so on. Doing all this without a permanent population will not succeed. Believe me! Add to that small municipalities struggling with staffing. The state-owned companies simply must contribute more, because they can.
I have heard what the citizens think about sell-offs. I generally oppose sell-offs of state-owned companies and instead want the state to be an active owner of its companies which, through ownership directives, ensure that the companies are used to support technological development, drive environmental and climate work, and create employment. The possibilities for further processing of Swedish industry are generally great. The forestry, mining, and steel industries have the potential to increase their level of processing, which would provide an increased number of jobs in the country, reduce transport costs, and increase export revenues. This is something that can be promoted through active state management of the state-owned companies as well as through research and cooperation with others in the business sector. The government should therefore work to ensure that the state-owned companies act for 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 increased. But the commitment to a gender-equal business sector must not stop at the management team. I believe that the state-owned companies have a special responsibility to actively work to ensure that equality permeates the entire corporate organization.
Mr. Speaker! Furthermore, I can state that Israel's brutal warfare against Gaza has led to catastrophic destruction. At least 60,000 people have been killed. Others have been injured or disappeared in the rubble after the bombings. Famine is widespread. The shortage of medicine and medical care is acute, and the humanitarian conditions are appalling. It is my view that the rest of the world needs to introduce sharp sanctions against Israel. This government should therefore ensure that state-owned companies do not trade with Israel as long as Israel's genocide in Gaza and the occupation of Palestine continue.
Mr. Speaker! Before I conclude my speech, I must express how concerned I am about the view of state-owned enterprises that this government has, as we have heard. This actually applies to all bourgeois parties. Tell me what has improved with the liberal view and all the privatizations that have occurred towards the rural population! I am thinking of Apoteket and Bilprovningen, which someone praised here. Call the people of Gällivare and hear how it is! Call the people of Gällivare and hear if they have been given time for inspection and if it is 20 miles they have to travel when they are not given time! How successful is this? I am thinking of railways, power grids, schools, and healthcare facilities.
There are reasons to start looking at how AB Sverige, with the state as a main actor, does what is best for the citizens in the long term and not just look at how capital owners can profit from things that people cannot opt out of. Why is one afraid of something that we own collectively? I honestly do not understand that at all, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker! I shall not forget to move for something. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval of reservation 2 in the committee report.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Mr. Speaker! The state today owns around 40 companies, companies that constitute a significant part of the Swedish business sector. The companies are owned by the state as they are judged to provide great social benefit, be of strategic importance and, not least, in some cases, strengthen security for Sweden. The state simultaneously, through its companies, gets a great opportunity to contribute to various social goals through an active management and governance of its corporate portfolio. This applies in particular to the sustainability work and the climate goals.
I and Miljöpartiet consider it a self-evident matter that the government, in its role as a corporate manager, should take greater responsibility and steer the state-owned companies in a climate- and environmentally sustainable direction. Not least LKAB, as one of Sweden's largest emitters, and Sveaskog, as Sweden's largest forest owner, could play a much more important role in Sweden's environmental and climate work than they do today.
The government has recently updated the state's ownership policy, in which environmental and climate goals are an important part. But since the ownership policy is not counted as a directly governing part for the companies, there is great flexibility regarding what the company boards can adopt as goals for the companies. This is clarified, among other things, in the matter we are to debate next. I will not go so deeply into just that now. But the National Audit Office emphasizes in that matter that LKAB, despite its size and importance for the climate transition, has no mandate to specifically work towards Sweden reaching the climate goals. It stings the eyes of most of us when we are aware of the potential in LKAB's ongoing transition projects. It is, therefore, quite striking.
Miljöpartiet believes that the government needs to develop and intensify ownership governance so that writings on sustainability achieve an actual impact. If the state's ownership policy is not sufficient, ownership instructions need to be used. We believe that 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 seize the fantastic opportunities for a sustainable societal development and a strengthened competitiveness for Sweden.
We believe that all state-owned companies need to contribute so that Sweden can meet national and international environmental and climate goals. The state-owned companies need to be at the forefront, because it will be difficult to impose strict requirements on private actors unless the state-owned companies take a leading position. Clear political steering is needed for this.
The EU has set clear requirements for Europe's countries to work with carbon sequestration in nature and to strengthen nature and biodiversity. The discussion surrounding the forest's environmental and climate benefits has become very heated and polarized, but I do not believe that any of us sitting here today can ignore the forest's great importance for nature and climate. Our forest and our nature are what will protect us from the most serious effects of climate change.
Even here, the state needs to take the lead and go first. Sveaskog, with its large forest holdings, could be a clear guiding star to demonstrate how biodiversity and climate benefits can be strengthened, while the state's forest holdings could tangibly contribute to Sweden's environmental and climate goals. A major investment and development towards more sustainable forestry could simultaneously benefit smaller forest owners, if the state takes the lead instead of the individual forest owner having to do all the work with the transition of the forest.
When it comes to Sveaskog's ownership directive, it should also be a self-evident matter that one should clearly steer towards a sustainable use of the forest's resources in order to specifically contribute to national environmental goals and international commitments within climate, environment, and biodiversity. Unfortunately, we do not quite see that prioritization from the government today. But Sveaskog could be a pioneer and could truly combine biodiversity and climate with business utility. We really think that the government should prioritize this.
Mr. Speaker! I would also like to say a few words about SJ and the rail traffic. I am quite sure that most Swedes have views on SJ, punctuality, expansion, speed, service, the discontinuation of night trains, cleaning, convenience, and delays. Ask anyone you know! I also believe there is a broad consensus in the Riksdag regarding the need to upgrade and strengthen the Swedish rail traffic, despite the fiery speech for aviation that we heard from the Moderaterna earlier. The trains have also become a matter of preparedness at the current time.
However, for a state-owned company, there are profit requirements. SJ needs to create economic value for the owner, something we have discussed earlier in this debate. There is a great need to strengthen rail traffic and our railway networks and to make it easier to take the train. In doing so, we also create great social benefit. Miljöpartiet believes that the government primarily needs to investigate the possibility for SJ to deviate from the requirements to create economic value for the owner and that SJ's profit requirements should be removed. Just as we have talked about earlier, there are other values. It might do greater good if the money can be reinvested in the companies than if it goes to the state.
With that said, I want to emphasize the importance of the state-owned companies contributing to social benefit and the goals that Sweden is to fulfill to the greatest extent possible. We own these companies together. Our money needs to work in a sustainable direction, and that can only happen with clear state guidance in the direction we want to go. We have the tools. We can use them better – much better.
Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all the reservations from Miljöpartiet in the report, but to save some time, I move for approval only of Miljöpartiet's reservation 9.
Catarina Deremar (C)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the Center Party's reservation 3.
For the Center Party, the fundamental principle is that the state should only own companies when there are weighty reasons such as national interest, strategic or supply policy reasons, or when important societal missions cannot be performed in any other way. The state should be a strong and neutral procurer, purchaser, and regulator, not an actor in the market where private companies can just as well or possibly better do this.
I quote my party leader Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist from last year's 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." The state corporate portfolio, valued at approximately 820 billion kronor, is Sweden's largest. It is the taxpayers' money at stake, and it must be managed responsibly. Unfortunately, a clear plan from the government for the divestment of companies operating in fully functioning markets is still missing.
Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party's vision is a Sweden where the entire country lives and develops. It is a gap that is not about kilometers but about opportunities. It is about being able to get healthcare in time, having an equally good school and feeling the same security, regardless of where in the country one lives.
Therefore, the state-owned companies and authorities must have a strong regional and rural policy responsibility. We view with concern how the government is cutting the appropriations for regional development measures. It is the wrong path to take in a time when our regions are struggling with great challenges but also possess enormous potential for a green transition and growth.
Centerpartiet wants to see that a larger part of the value creation from natural resources such as forest, ore, and hydropower is returned to the local communities where the operations are conducted. It is an old Center issue that the value from mines, water and wind power plants should come to the local municipalities. This shall provide incentives for growth and development on site.
Mr. Speaker! Certainly, there are companies that have a strategic importance. LKAB and Vattenfall are examples of such companies that the Center Party considers should remain state-owned. But even here, we must ensure that their activities truly benefit all of Sweden.
For LKAB's part, a larger part of the value creation must be returned to the region where the operations are conducted. The company shall be a tool in the climate transition. Vattenfall shall continue to be a pioneer in the energy transition. Sveaskog should also be reformed to put biodiversity, leases for small-scale farming, and local influence at the center.
We welcome that the government in the 2025 ownership policy has chosen a more comprehensive and systematically structured model that strengthens transparency and long-term perspective.
Mr. Speaker! In order for us to build a Sweden that holds together, where all parts of the country are given the opportunity to flourish, an active and responsible ownership management is required, based on decentralization and social utility.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.