Simplified supplier control in procurement

David Perez (SD)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the Committee on Finance's proposed decision regarding the issue of simplified supplier control in procurement. It is a long-awaited proposition from the government. It primarily aims to ensure that there is a register control system that allows procuring authorities and other public entities to exclude suppliers as a result of, among other things, unpaid fees or taxes, crimes, or other difficulties, such as bankruptcy.

This concerns part of a problem that we often speak about in this chamber and that we have all around in public Sweden. Criminals and unscrupulous actors enter the public sphere and exploit it through advanced schemes, procurements, and other means. They infiltrate municipalities and regions for the purpose of acquiring tax funds. This is, of course, very serious.

In an article from 2024, it is reported that a third of the approximately 14,000 who are active in gang criminal circles operate through companies. They target the public in this way. It is gratifying that we can now do at least something to address this extensive problem.

The coordinated register system shall replace the system of truth declarations, which can be seen as part of the trust system we have had in the public sphere. I am pleased that we are removing this archaic declaration from the documents. No unserious actor is deterred by this declaration – one signs it and moves on with the aim of acquiring funds. I listened, among other things, to a lecture from SKR where this was highlighted as a major problem and as an enabler for crime out in the country.

But we cannot be satisfied with that, and the public sector must also become better at managing the supervision once the procurement has taken place. I think that Gothenburg Municipality and some other municipalities are doing very well with this. They have specific procurement officers who work on following up procurements and do not settle for the first step. I think more should focus on that.

The opposition's criticism on this point is that the government is not going far enough. I can understand that criticism. People want tougher measures, and I sympathize with that. But if we are to go even further, it could also take longer before we have good legislation in place. I think it is highly important that we change this as soon as possible, so that we can close the opportunities for criminals who make a living from the public sector in this way.

In the proposition, among other things on page 57, one can read about a number of different things that address the referral comments from, among others, SKR and the City of Gothenburg, or Gothenburg Municipality. I think it is reasonable that one actually places legal certainty so high; there is no case law regarding the broader group of persons and which persons it should include.

If one now wants to go a step further to close down crime, I think there is something that the opposition can do. It is about criminalizing gang membership. The Sweden Democrats are pressing the government to move forward with this. It would make it harder to live off the public system by belonging to a criminal gang.

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

Gunilla Carlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1. I move for approval of that one only, but I naturally stand behind all of our reservations.

Madam Speaker! Organized crime today threatens not only people's safety on our streets and squares, but we have also seen that society has lost democratic control over welfare. This threatens welfare but also the labor market and trust in our society. We see how criminals and unscrupulous actors seek out where the money is, which increasingly means submitting bids in public procurement or starting companies to offer, among other things, welfare services where the operations are financed with tax funds.

This is not something that has happened recently, but we have seen it happening for a long time. Already during the previous parliamentary term, the Social Democratic government commissioned the investigation "Efficient and reliable control of suppliers in the awarding of public contracts." In August 2023, the investigation presented its report, where it had a proposal to let Bolagsverket be responsible for a function that enables coordinated register checks.

This happened in 2023, and since then, not much has happened from the Tidöregering's side to address the problems. We Social Democrats have requested proposals since the investigation's report was presented, not least considering how it looks with unserious and criminal individuals who every day enrich themselves at society's expense by accessing our common tax money – money that is supposed to go towards maintaining the welfare and towards developing our country. This money is now ending up in the pockets of unserious entrepreneurs and outright criminals.

These actors also prevent serious entrepreneurs from conducting their business. Today, I meet entrepreneurs who do not even submit tenders. They do not think it is any idea because they are not competing on equal terms. We cannot have it this way, Madam Speaker. Therefore, we think it is good that one now finally, after pressure from us Social Democrats, presents a proposal to establish a system for coordinated register control to be applied in procurement and use of choice systems. The proposal is an important step toward getting rid of unserious actors.

A register ensures that procuring authorities and entities can gain better control over the companies that submit tenders. State, municipalities, and regions need a better tool. Companies should, for example, not be able to be stopped in one municipality and then submit tenders in another municipality without there being a possibility to find out why the company was not allowed to remain.

We Social Democrats, however, think that one should go a bit further. We want the control to cover all tasks that could lead to exclusion according to the mandatory and voluntary grounds for exclusion. We are also questioning why it should take until 2028 before the register is in use. We hear almost daily about how unserious and criminal actors exploit the systems within the framework of both the Act on Choice Systems and the Act on Public Procurement, so why wait so long?

It is good that the provisions on the exclusion of suppliers in the Public Procurement Act shall also primarily apply to the exclusion of applicants within the scope of the Act on Choice Systems, but even here the government should have gone further. We Social Democrats believe that the problem with LOV must be addressed more comprehensively and replaced with a needs-based right of establishment. The crime committed within the scope of the Act on Choice Systems is a specific and very harmful part of welfare crime. We have seen a number of examples of this – that people run health centers, vaccination clinics, and so on.

Madam Speaker! Public funds should never contribute to unfair competition and to the dumping of conditions on the Swedish labor market. Setting requirements regarding the working environment already at the procurement stage naturally prevents both workplace accidents and occupational diseases. It is also an effective way to prevent unscrupulous companies from gaining competitive advantages by violating the Work Environment Act in order to win tenders.

The number of subcontractors also has an impact. Above all, it affects how the work is planned and carried out and how one can hold people accountable if something actually happens. Today, subcontractors are used on subcontractors in several stages, and there is a great risk that the main contractor ultimately has no control over its own subcontractors.

We Social Democrats believe that a limitation should be introduced on the number of subcontractor links to a maximum of two in public procurement. Follow-up becomes significantly more difficult in a workplace where long and complex subcontractor chains occur, and we see how people shift blame and that no one takes responsibility for those in the links further down.

For us Social Democrats, it is obvious that there should be good working conditions in Swedish workplaces and that public procurement should contribute to that. Therefore, we also push for conditions according to collective agreements to apply in public procurement, and we want to change EU law so that requirements for collective agreements can be set in public procurement.

Madam Speaker! Procurement is carried out for approximately 1,000 billion kronor every year. Many billions also go to purchased care via municipalities and regions. Public Sweden should not be a market for the unserious and criminal, and therefore it is important that we have good control. We Social Democrats want a society where our common tax funds are used responsibly and for what they are intended for, where serious companies compete on equal terms and where workers have fair conditions in their workplaces. So, Madam Speaker, we build Sweden stronger.

(Applause)

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! We unfortunately know that there are sometimes some upsetting things occurring in procurements and in participation in various welfare systems. There are suppliers who have links to criminal groups, who do not pay their taxes or who in other ways neglect their responsibilities towards both the clients – that is, all of us in society – and their own employees. Every time such an incident is discovered, it creates a mistrust towards procurements, freedom of choice, and alternatives within welfare.

It is however important to point out, not least for those on the left who dislike freedom of choice, that the vast majority of companies and freedom-of-choice providers are actually responsible entrepreneurs who want to do a good job. But they are also hit hard when they are competed out by unsuitable, or sometimes purely criminal, competitors who win procurements and then mismanage themselves. To streamline and tighten control is therefore important also for all serious companies.

When procurements go wrong, it is often due to how the controls were carried out, or not carried out, before the procurement. Much of the problems stem from the fact that municipalities, regions and authorities that procure different services do not always have full control over all suppliers. They are not thorough enough in their controls – and perhaps also do not have the resources required to carry out the controls in a good way. Often it is due to difficulties in obtaining all relevant information.

In this report, the committee deals with the government's bill on simplified supplier control in procurement. The purpose of the government's bill is, as David Perez mentioned earlier, to create an efficient and reliable system for supplier control in connection with public procurement and when applying to participate in various choice systems. The Committee on Finance proposes that the Riksdag say yes to the government's proposal, which therefore concerns making it easier to control suppliers in procurements.

The proposal means that a system with a coordinated register check shall be established to be applied during procurement and in the use of choice systems. The system shall include relevant data that exists in the existing registers.

The register control shall facilitate for procuring authorities and entities to check if there are grounds to exclude suppliers as a result of, for example, crimes, unpaid taxes, or bankruptcies. This system can also be used in the follow-up of already entered contracts, which is often forgotten in the debate. It is very important that a continuous control of these activities is carried out.

Naturally, the new rules are also surrounded by provisions on confidentiality and secrecy, which means that information related to these controls may not be disseminated to unauthorized persons. Some companies have been concerned that this could threaten trade secrets and the like, but such things are therefore protected through this legislation.

At the same time as we do this, we align the grounds for exclusion according to the Public Procurement Act in all material respects so that they become equivalent to those that apply according to the Choice System Act. In all material respects, the same grounds for exclusion for crimes, unpaid taxes and social security contributions, as well as other irregularities, will therefore apply to both.

Those who are proposed to be excluded from a choice system or a procurement have the right, within a certain period, to comment on the circumstances that have formed the basis for the exclusion.

There are reservations here, and I reacted a bit when I read them. Just as the Social Democratic member stated here, it is emphasized that it takes too long before this is in place. At the same time, it is requested that a large number of additional tasks be added to the systems. I am somewhat in agreement with what David Perez mentioned earlier: It is important to get something in place so that something happens. If we are to go through everything and put in all possible conceivable tasks in these systems, it will take a very long time before this is in place. We want this to enter into force as quickly as possible.

The new rules are proposed to enter into force on July 1 this year, and the register will then be built up gradually. I am convinced that this will be another important piece of the puzzle to safeguard our tax money. It can also relieve procuring municipalities, regions, and authorities, who will avoid a lot of work thanks to this. Above all, it can strengthen confidence in the systems. For those of us who like freedom of choice and believe that people should be allowed to choose for themselves, it is important to safeguard these systems so that they function, so that there is confidence in them, and so that the companies we want to be involved in this feel that they are operating in a market with healthy competition.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report and against the motions.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! In this report, measures are proposed to address the problems that exist regarding the control of suppliers and applicants in procurement procedures and participation in choice systems. It is a step in the right direction, but it is not sufficient to address the system's shortcomings.

We in Vänsterpartiet welcome the proposal to establish a coordinated register check for procuring authorities and entities. The system will hopefully counteract crime in the labor market and protect public funds from falling into the hands of criminals or unscrupulous companies. It is welcome if the system contributes to creating conditions for healthy competition in public procurement.

LO states in its referral response that the proposal is not far-reaching enough, because the control does not cover all the data that could lead to exclusion according to the mandatory and voluntary grounds for exclusion. Vänsterpartiet shares this view. The coordinated register control should cover all data that could lead to exclusion, and we have therefore proposed this in our follow-up motion.

In the preparatory works, it is also proposed that a contracting authority, with a few exceptions, shall be allowed to exclude a bidder from a choice system on the same grounds for exclusion as in most public procurements. However, there are more grounds for exclusion in the Public Procurement Act than in the Choice System Act. Vänsterpartiet considers that all grounds for exclusion in the Public Procurement Act should be introduced in the Choice System Act.

Madam Speaker! The law on choice systems sounds good in theory, but what should have been a choice reform for the citizens has instead become choice for different companies. In my home municipality, Uppsala, LOV was introduced in, among other things, special housing during Ebba Busch's time as senior municipal councilor. Instead of planning new municipal housing, they relied on the private ones to build and plan. Since no new housing had been planned by the municipality, the system could not be abolished immediately upon a change in majority, even though the will existed. On the other hand, the insanely high amount of money that the housing within LOV received compared to, for example, the procured operations was lowered.

LOV means that care providers themselves decide when, where and to what extent they want to build, for example, elderly care homes. In the case of Uppsala municipality, it led to a surplus of places in special housing, which cost the municipality's residents somewhere between 30 and 50 million kronor per year, while the geographical distribution was lacking.

Now LOV has been abolished for Uppsala's special housing and home care. The freedom of choice for the municipal resident has not deteriorated. The possibility to choose housing remains and has improved because the municipality can now plan for a better geographical distribution. By replacing the freedom of choice system with public procurement, one has therefore not only saved money for the municipality but also increased the freedom of choice by allowing even elderly people outside the urban area to choose a special housing unit near relatives.

The free right of establishment in primary care has led to worsened cost control, over- and under-establishment, and more or less free rein for criminal actors to drain the regions' coffers. Healthcare companies usually establish themselves in areas with high-income earners and leave those whom the working life has worn out to the public sector.

Market solutions within healthcare cost more than they taste. LOV is more about the companies' freedom of choice than the citizens'. Our tax funds should go to operations and not to the companies' profits.

In the investigation *Fler möjligheter till ökat välstånd*, which was submitted last year, it was proposed that the freedom of choice system be revised to enable stronger gatekeeper functions against criminal and unscrupulous actors. The investigation also stated that LOV should be repealed in its entirety if it is judged not to be possible to achieve this with a revision of the legislation.

Madam Speaker! In this bill, proposals based on the investigation *Fler möjligheter till ökat välstånd* are not being debated; instead, it is the legislative proposal from the *Leverantörskontrollutredningen* that is being debated. Therefore, in our motion, we have adhered to what falls within the scope of that investigation. In other contexts, however, we will return to the choice system and why it should be abolished in its current form, as well as why Sweden needs a welfare system without profit motives.

I move for approval of reservation 3 but also naturally agree with reservation 1, which has already been mentioned.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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