New law on municipal port activities
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a new law for municipal port activities. S considers the ports to be strategic infrastructure for supply preparedness and total defense 1, but argues that the government is choosing an excessively far-reaching solution through corporatization despite other ways to meet the EU's requirements 1 2 3. S emphasizes the importance of municipal self-government and public benefit 2 3. SD considers that corporatization does not threaten preparedness 4 and that the law is necessary to follow the EU's decision 4 5 6. V considers that the law implies a forced corporatization that restricts municipal self-government 7 and motions for rejection 7. Kristdemokraterna motions for approval 8. Liberalerna motions for approval 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Mattias Ottosson (S)
Madam Speaker! Sweden is a maritime nation. Nine out of ten goods exported from or imported to Sweden go through our ports. The ports are not just a part of the transport system. They are a part of our supply preparedness, our total defense, and our economy. Therefore, it is strange that the government and the Sweden Democrats choose to treat the ports as a matter of organizational forms and corporate structure.
For us Social Democrats, the ports are something significantly greater than that. They are strategic infrastructure that must function in peace, in crisis, and in war. They must be able to receive energy, food, raw materials, and military equipment. They must contribute to jobs, growth, and supply throughout the entire country. But this perspective is strangely absent in the government's bill.
Madam Speaker! The Government says that it is about the EU's state aid rules. But that is not the whole truth. The European Commission has questioned that certain municipal ports operated in administrative form may have tax advantages compared to other actors. That is one thing. The question is how Sweden should handle this. That is where the Government's argumentation becomes significantly weaker.
Several referral bodies have pointed out that there are other ways to meet the EU's requirements than to introduce a general requirement for corporatization. If the activity is reported separately, operated on market terms, and follows competition rules, the same purpose can be achieved without the state forcing a specific organizational form. But the government has not chosen to proceed with those alternatives. Instead, they choose the most far-reaching solution directly and use the EU as an argument to introduce new rules, new processes, and new administrative requirements. It is not particularly convincing.
Madam Speaker! There is also a clear contradiction here. The Moderates constantly speak of simplifying rules, even if they are now conspicuously absent from the chamber, and the Sweden Democrats say it should become easier to conduct business in Sweden. But what are they doing now? They are introducing new organizational requirements, demanding corporatization, building on further administration, and creating more bureaucracy. It is difficult to see how this makes it easier for anyone. When the government meets companies, the message is fewer rules, but when the government meets ports, the message is more rules. That equation does not quite add up.
Madam Speaker! I also think that the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats have a problem when it comes to preparedness. On one hand, they speak every day about total defense, security, and national resilience. On the other hand, they choose to proceed with a bill that several referral bodies and even the Council on Legislation have had objections to regarding the consequences for security and preparedness. The Government says that the consequences will be small. But the truth is that one does not know. They admit themselves that the consequences are uncertain. Still, they choose to proceed. It is a strange way to handle society-critical infrastructure. When building up the total defense, the precautionary principle should apply. Then one should analyze once more when so many warn that important perspectives are not sufficiently illuminated.
Madam Speaker! What perhaps concerns me most is the view on the smaller and regionally important ports. Sweden's strength is not that we have a few large ports. Sweden's strength is that we have port capacity spread across the country.
It creates redundancy and robustness, and it
make the transport system less vulnerable. If we experience disruptions, sabotage or, at most, a military attack, we will be grateful for every functioning port we have left. Therefore, the legislation should be designed with the starting point of how we strengthen the port system, not how we standardize organizational forms.
Madam Speaker! The difference between us and the government base is clear. The Moderates and the Sweden Democrats see this primarily as a state aid issue. We Social Democrats see the ports as a strategic resource for Sweden. We see ports as nodes for trade, industry, jobs, supply, and total defense. Therefore, we believe that the legislation must take its starting point in the ports' social utility, not in a bureaucratic discussion about organizational forms.
Sweden needs ports that function throughout the country, in peace, in crisis, and in war. This bill does not meet that ambition. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1.
Patrik Jönsson (SD)
Madam Speaker! We are now debating TU19 New law on municipal port activities, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal. Reservations have been submitted in the report from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet.
The Government has submitted the proposal for the EU to crack down on certain Swedish ports being operated within the municipalities' own activities without being corporatized and therefore avoiding income taxation. This is argued by the EU to provide a competitive advantage and could be classified as an improper subsidy.
I believe that the EU should refrain from interfering in the form of how we conduct our municipal port activities, whether it is in our own administration or in corporate form. I also find it difficult to see that this takes business away from other EU countries or, for that matter, prevents other private companies from establishing themselves.
Regardless of what I think, it is nevertheless a decision from the EU that we have to abide by. I find it difficult to see that it would be a problem. Already today, almost all ports are actually operated in corporate form, Mattias Ottosson. This also applies in the municipalities where the Social Democrats are in power.
For example, Malmö samägs is owned by Malmö kommun and Köpenhamns kommun. The Socialdemokraterna rule in Malmö. Mälarhamnar AB is owned by Västerås and Köping. The Socialdemokraterna rule in both municipalities. When it comes to Hallands Hamnar AB, the Socialdemokraterna rule in Halmstad but not in Varberg. When it comes to Stockholms Hamnar AB, the Socialdemokraterna rule in Stockholms stad and in Norrtälje. When it comes to Göteborgs Hamn AB, the Socialdemokraterna rule. The same order applies for Gävle Hamn AB; the Socialdemokraterna rule the municipality. This list can be made significantly longer, but I will stop there.
Madam Speaker! In light of this, I find it difficult to understand the objections from the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party, who have reservations that a corporatization would be a threat to our total defense. The objections that this is a threat to our supply, infrastructure, and preparedness ring false, to say the least. If you truly felt that way, you would have reasonably de-corporatized your Social Democrat-run ports a long time ago. Or?
You could also have enacted legislation against corporatized ports during your time in power 2014–2022, but you have not done so. I welcome clear answers from you regarding how you actually intend to proceed and why you speak with a divided tongue. Where you hold power in the municipalities, you choose corporatized ports, but here you make it sound as if it would lead to our downfall.
Madam Speaker! I concur with the government's view that this would not have any noticeable negative impact on Sweden's port activities. Regarding the ownership, it is managed through ownership directives adopted by a political majority in the municipalities.
I can conclude that the Committee on Defence makes the same assessment – that the proposed law cannot be considered to contribute to increasing the risks linked to Sweden's preparedness and security. I also note that there are a number of rules that prevent the activity from being taken over by unsuitable actors.
My question is: Do the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Green Party intend to oppose the EU in this matter? Do you intend to force a privatization of existing port companies? Do you believe that this will in any way simplify or improve the municipal port operations?
Mattias Ottosson (S)
Madam Speaker! To the long list of ports, we shall of course add Norrköping Harbor, which is also operated in corporate form. I have myself been involved in managing it for many years. It works perfectly well. My criticism is not that the vast majority of the 52 public ports in Sweden are operated in corporate form. However, I am concerned that we must safeguard municipal self-government.
The members of the board themselves seem to be of the opinion that the EU perhaps should not interfere in everything. The problem with the bill is that the referral bodies are clear that it is possible to operate ports in administrative form without violating the EU's competition rules. In that way, the EU's requirements in the matter are met.
I think that each municipality or region should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to proceed. The problem is that there are some not entirely insignificant ports that have been chosen to be operated in a different way. These are the two large ports in Blekinge, it is all ports on Gotland, and it is the other deep-water port on the west coast. There are a few more, but the mentioned ports are strategically important.
Is it not important that we can have these ports running? It seems that the member shares my view that the EU should not interfere in this and that we can manage it in a sensible way. I think it concerns ports that are quite strategic for the nation's supply.
Patrik Jönsson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question and for the answer from the Social Democratic member Mattias Ottosson.
It is somewhat comical and ironic in the context that the Riksdag's perhaps most EU-critical party nevertheless realizes that we must accept the situation and introduce this, while one of Sweden's most EU-positive parties thinks we should defy the EU.
It is very strange that the few ports that remain under own management could not be corporatized. The member knows just as well as I do that it is perfectly possible to carry out a corporatization. As all of us experienced politicians know, municipalities can form companies very easily. It would not affect anything at all. It will be exactly the same activity regardless of whether it is conducted in a company or under own management.
Strangely enough, we seem to have the same position on the merits, that the EU should not interfere in this, but the interpretation that it must be in corporate form, I think is quite clear. Otherwise, we still have the so-called state aid, i.e., support by virtue of not having income taxation. It simply becomes an undue advantage when it is run in one's own capacity; it is impossible to avoid.
Mattias Ottosson (S)
Madam Speaker! I do not quite understand how the member is arguing. The EU has set these requirements. When the government prepares [a proposal], it sends out proposals for consultation. Here, the consultation bodies have been clear that one can manage it in administrative form and still achieve the competition conditions that the EU has set. In that case, we do not violate the EU's regulatory framework, so I do not understand that.
There is nothing that says it must be companies, but one can do it in other ways. Then I also think it is up to each municipality or region to decide for itself how it should be done. The risk now is that we mess it up so much that one might get tired of it and not want to conduct the activity.
It concerns a number of ports which, if I may put it that way, are very strategic for Sweden's security of supply. With the local self-government we have, which I believe the member also appreciates, it is those who are closest to the activities being conducted who should decide.
I do not understand. One can fulfill the EU's requirements without doing this. Now, one is just causing trouble for the municipalities. That surely cannot be how the Sweden Democrats want it to be. Or is it that the Sweden Democrats have been overridden, so it's looking great in the cooperation and they have sort of laid down and do not care about this? Is that the signal one wants to send out?
Patrik Jönsson (SD)
Madam Speaker! This is truly a battle over the Pope's beard. I consider it more likely that it will snow on Midsummer Eve in Skåne than that Visby Hamn would suddenly be forced to shut down because it is being converted into a company.
One has chosen to operate almost all ports in corporate form because it is perceived to be the best form in which to operate them. Both I and the member Mattias Ottosson – I know this deep down – are one hundred percent certain that it will work just as well when the laws enter into force on 1 August 2026. Furthermore, we will avoid risking having the EU on us with all that follows from it, such as the risk of fines and other things. I am completely convinced that it will turn out as well as can be.
In principle, of course, the EU should not interfere, but now it is what it is. One actually has to live with that.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill on a new law for municipal port activities. The new law means that several ports that are currently operated on a cost-price principle and as part of the municipal administration may not continue to be operated that way but must be converted into a municipal limited company and be operated on a commercial basis.
It is in practice a forced corporatization that the government is now pushing through. It is a significant restriction of local self-government.
Port activity is not just any activity. It is socially important activity and also part of the critical infrastructure. With corporatization, as stated, return requirements and requirements for profitability are introduced, but a port does not need to be profitable and generate large surpluses to be strategically important.
The National Agency for Public Procurement has a longer reasoning on this in its consultation response. It is noted that publicly funded infrastructure, such as these ports, is precisely publicly funded because the market lacks incentives to finance and operate it.
It is also noted that it is very unusual for a smaller, general port in Sweden to be profitable. This means, therefore, that profitability cannot be seen as a measure of how important this activity is. Socially important activity is not justified by profitability, but it is justified by social utility. It is a very important principle that we must not lose sight of in this, a principle that is at risk with this bill.
Madam Speaker! By corporatizing these ports, one can also make it less profitable for the municipality. It is a matter of building up a structure that is, in itself, more costly.
Skellefteå hamn describes this well in its referral response. What will happen after the municipality has corporatized its port is that the municipality will sign a lease agreement with the municipal company. That lease must be at market rates, which for Skellefteå's part will mean that the municipal company will face significantly higher costs for the port than the operating costs the port has today, when it is operated in administrative form. It will therefore result in higher costs that must then be managed through increased fees on shipping and diminished competitiveness for an important type of traffic.
The liberalization thus risks making it more expensive for the municipalities and less favorable for shipping. In the long run, it could lead to ports having to be closed down. Trafikanalys, which is an expert authority in the field, states in its referral response that ports may need to be closed and that it will have an impact on local logistics. Upphandlingsmyndigheten states exactly the same thing – that system-critical infrastructure may need to be closed down. It is a large, serious, and completely unacceptable risk with this bill.
Mr. Speaker! The Left Party therefore says no to this proposition and moves for the proposal to be rejected.
Regarding the government's justification that this law is needed for Swedish port activities to be compatible with EU state aid rules, we are not at all as convinced as the government. We want instead to investigate how Swedish port activities can be compatible with EU state aid rules without a requirement for corporatization. We believe, in accordance with several referral bodies, that this is fully possible. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of reservation number 2, where we propose such an investigation.
Magnus Jacobsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a new law on municipal port activities.
Regarding the law itself, I do not have much to add. The law equates different port activities. I have listened to Sveriges Hamnar and Svensk Sjöfart, who consider that the law is moving in the right direction. I therefore move for approval of the proposition.
Mr. Speaker! This is the last opportunity during this parliamentary term where we will discuss shipping and the conditions for the ports. I will therefore highlight the Christian Democrats' views regarding Swedish ports and the importance of shipping.
I myself was a member of the Christian Democrats' social construction committee, which was appointed by the party board and aimed to develop concrete proposals to strengthen Sweden as an industrial nation, all based on the motto that the whole country shall live.
Mr. Speaker! Of all the goods that are imported and exported to and from Sweden, 90 percent come by boat. We must therefore have a policy that strengthens Sweden's ports, and to succeed with that, we need to commission a new port investigation that looks at the challenges that Sweden faces.
The last port investigation was carried out 20 years ago. Feel that – 20 years ago! It was, if I remember correctly, Åsa Torstensson who was the infrastructure minister then. In that investigation, the risk of over-establishment of ports was pointed out. The need for better coordination between the ports' owners and Trafikverket was also pointed out. The infrastructure connections between ports and other infrastructure – the last mile, so to speak – were also an important part of that investigation.
Madam Speaker! Since then, a lot has happened. Our Natointräde sets completely new requirements on our ports, but not only on the ports. It also sets requirements that the infrastructure is connected.
In other countries, it is often the state that handles port activities. In Sweden, it is primarily the municipalities that own and operate ports. Today's bill clarifies the requirement that these ports shall be managed in an equal manner regardless of which operating model the municipalities choose to some extent. Even for private ports, today's bill will facilitate free competition regarding cargo.
Today's bill, however, does not handle relations between ports and other transport systems. We must find a better way to solve the connection between ports and other infrastructure such as roads and railways.
In several municipalities, there are problems with the fact that the ports need to be moved out of the city centers due to modern requirements, but when this is done, it is often difficult to achieve a good connection between the new port and existing infrastructure.
We also have problems with port authorities and various national interests colliding with one another, which becomes clear when a municipality wants to develop its city centers.
Mr. Speaker! We are dependent on functioning ports to safeguard trade and economic development. Therefore, we need to improve the conditions for the ports.
Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats believe that a new port investigation is needed, which needs to look at the following questions:
Does today's system with port authorities work in a good way?
What consequences will Nato have for Sweden's ports?
How many ports do we need for the future?
How do we achieve a better connection between ports and the rest of the infrastructure?
How do we live up to the agreements on core ports and TEN-T within the EU?
Is it necessary to have more core ports?
How do we handle national interests in relation to municipal development?
The investigation also needs to look at issues such as those concerning border police and coast guard and the rotation of personnel on ships.
As a Christian Democrat, I hope that we can achieve a new, broad port investigation during the next parliamentary term. With those words, Mr. Speaker, I move for the approval of the proposal in the committee report.
Helena Gellerman (L)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a new law on municipal port activities.
We liberals are very positive about Sweden's EU membership and all the advantages that come with it – not least in the current situation, when we stand significantly stronger together against Russia and can support Ukrainians with significantly greater resources than if we had acted alone from the Swedish side.
The EU has also created a more efficient market where the competitiveness of Swedish companies has been strengthened, and we citizens can move freely in Europe without passports.
Yes, there are a multitude of advantages with the EU. Along with them come obligations and adjustments so that the EU can continue to be a competition-neutral market, which benefits Swedish companies in particular.
One example is the climate legislation, where common requirements have a major impact on climate emissions. This benefits Swedish companies, which are far ahead in the transition. Another is the initiative with common rules for international train travel.
Mr. Speaker! The EU's state aid rules, which govern when a member state may support businesses, benefit Sweden because many of our companies, which create jobs in Sweden, compete on an international market and Sweden will never be able to provide as much state aid to companies as larger countries such as France and Germany.
In the current bill on port activities, the government proposes how the Swedish regulations on municipal port activities can be compatible with EU rules on state aid.
Mr. Speaker! In several European countries, there have previously been specific tax exemptions for ports and port activities. The EU Commission investigated the functioning and taxation of European ports in 2013 and concluded that the tax exemption of ports in several European countries constituted state aid. This forced changes in the tax legislation in these Member States.
The Commission has since, over several years, drawn the Swedish government's attention to the fact that certain municipal ports are operated as part of the municipal administration and are exempt from income taxation, while other port activities, including those conducted in municipal companies, are taxed according to the general rules.
Mr. Speaker! The proposal on corporatized port activities means that a municipality or a region that conducts port activities in a market shall conduct the activities in a municipal limited company on a commercial basis.
There are, however, exceptions, and they are important. Port activities may be carried out within the municipal administration if the port is primarily used by local users and the activity cannot be considered to affect trade between the member states within the EU. It is an important exception, because it covers many of the ports that I might perhaps be worried about this having a major impact on. Many fall under this exception.
The bill is submitted so that the Swedish regulations on municipal port activities shall be compatible with EU rules on state aid. The new law is proposed to enter into force on 1 August 2026. The municipalities and regions that today conduct port activities as part of the municipal administration may, however, continue with their port activities until 31 December 2028.
Mr. Speaker! The committee has also requested the Defence Committee's views on the submitted proposal. Earlier in the debate, we have heard a concern regarding what this change would mean for the nation's preparedness and security. The Defence Committee, however, writes in its response that it shares the government's and the committee's assessment that the law on municipal port activities in corporate form cannot be considered to contribute to increased risks linked to Sweden's preparedness and security. I think that is an important message.
The Liberals consider that the bill is well-balanced and that it meets the EU's rules on state aid. It is important that we in Sweden stand up for the EU's state aid rules, as it benefits Swedish companies internationally.
I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.
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.