New tools for strengthened competition in private and public activities

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Enterprise's report on new tools for strengthened competition in private and public activities.

The purpose of the new legislation is to prevent municipalities and regions from selling goods and services in a way that distorts competition. At the same time, the Competition Authority is given the opportunity to intervene even in cases where no crimes have been committed but where competition is still functioning poorly. The goal is that more companies should be able to compete on equal terms, which in the long run provides better prices and selection.

This is an important step towards creating fairer rules of the game in the market. We know that competition is a fundamental pillar in a functioning market economy. It drives innovation, presses prices, and creates better quality for consumers. But the competition must also be fair.

This is an important issue for the Sweden Democrats. We meet entrepreneurs all over the country who do everything right, who invest, hire, and take risks, but who nevertheless find themselves pushed out – not by better products but by actors who play by completely different rules.

There are examples of activities that have been subsidized with tax money that can sustain losses over time or that have access to resources that private companies lack. The result is that serious companies are pushed out – companies that create jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to our prosperity. In some cases, as entrepreneurs themselves testify, services are even offered for free.

I want to highlight a concrete example from reality. A company within the tourism industry in Western Sweden describes how regional tax-funded destination companies offer free planning and support to foreign tour operators. These are services that private companies must charge for and include in their quotes in order to survive. When the public sector steps in and does this for free, it doesn't matter how efficient you are or how innovative you are as an entrepreneur. You are competed out regardless.

It is precisely these types of situations that this legislation aims to address, and that is why the new law on public commercial activity is needed. It establishes a clear principle: public actors shall not be allowed to distort competition in an improper manner. It is not about banning public activity, on the contrary. It is about setting up clear frameworks and guidelines.

This proposal also contains important exceptions. Public activities motivated by the public interest shall continue to be able to be conducted. This applies, for example, when the market does not function, when it concerns socially important services, or when there are needs linked to security and preparedness. This is, of course, crucial.

For the Sweden Democrats, it is obvious that the state and municipalities should be able to act where it is truly needed, but it should not happen in a way that unnecessarily pushes out companies.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government have prioritized combating inflation during this parliamentary term, and we are now seeing the results of that work.

Our reform with reduced food VAT has had an effect. According to preliminary figures from SCB, food prices fell by 5.5 percent from March to April. This is an important message for many households. At the same time, it is clear that the food market still has structural challenges. It is characterized by few actors, weak competition, and difficulties for new companies to enter. Therefore, competition needs to be strengthened further. It is crucial for pressing prices over time but also for ensuring a wide range of good food – not least Swedish food products, which are produced with high quality.

This also shows that competition, which may sound a bit complicated when we stand here in the rostrum and talk about it, is actually not an abstract issue but directly affects people's wallets. When competition functions poorly, prices rise. Therefore, we are now developing more tools and creating a stronger competition policy.

Madam Speaker! Now the Swedish Competition Authority's possibilities to act are strengthened. The authority receives better tools to investigate markets, demand information, and intervene even in cases where no one breaks the law but where competition needs to be improved. This means that the Swedish Competition Authority can order companies to change behavior or take measures to improve competition when it concerns both public actors and private companies. This is an important modernization of competition policy.

At the same time, I share the government's assessment that requirements for the divestment of property should not be permitted. Forcing companies to sell off parts of their operations without the possibility of full compensation is an excessively far-reaching intervention and risks undermining the right of ownership. It is also difficult to back out of if it were to turn out that it does not achieve the goal. The protection of property in the constitution is a fundamental principle in our society and must be safeguarded.

Some argue, Madam Speaker, that this law goes too far. I do not share that view. Rather, we should ask ourselves if it is sharp enough. We should be prepared to closely monitor this law, and if it turns out that it does not have sufficient impact, we must be open to developing it further, because we know that the problems exist.

Madam Speaker! At its core, this is about the society we want: a society where entrepreneurship is encouraged, where competition is healthy, and where taxpayers' money is used responsibly. The Sweden Democrats want to see a Sweden where companies can grow and the public sector focuses on its core tasks. We therefore also believe that this is not necessarily the endpoint but the beginning of a work to improve the markets and strengthen competition in Sweden, for the benefit of both citizens and the business community.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Angelica Lundberg for the speech. There was much in the speech that was interesting to listen to. One part that I thought about was precisely that this is a law that perhaps does not go far enough and that the Sweden Democrats want to evaluate this.

From the responses of the referral bodies, we can see what, for example, Energiföretagen and Svenska Stadsnätsföreningen – quite heavy referral bodies, if I may say so myself – warn about regarding the new law on public sales activities. It is about the fact that one cannot guarantee that the municipal electricity companies are not affected by this and that one cannot guarantee that the municipal and public city network companies are not affected by this. It has been considered and flagged to the government for a very long time that there is an insufficiently clear principle of impropriety in the proposed new law.

What will then be the consequence when it becomes unclear, Madam Speaker? Well, the consequence is that the costs for ordinary people will increase. This does not only concern energy supply or fiber networks, but it also concerns waste management. We have very many municipal waste companies that must handle household waste, which is not profitable. Therefore, they are in a competitive market in order to be able to finance what they have a statutory duty to do.

I do not think I have met a single municipal waste company that has not said that they will need to shut down the profitable part, and the consequence of that will be that they will need to introduce fees for the municipal residents or that the municipality will need to raise the tax.

My question to the Sweden Democrats is, therefore, why one proceeds with something that all referral bodies working with this believe will increase the costs for the Swedish people?

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

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question and the opportunity to further discuss this report!

I do not share the view that it is unclear what undue influence is. It is a concept we already have in the legislation, and the concept will be developed through the practice that follows from all legislation.

I do not represent the government here today, but regarding the criticism from the referral bodies, the government has in its bill taken into account those referral bodies that have commented. It does not have to mean that one shares that opinion. I believe we will see that much of the criticism that has been put forward against the bill is simply not justified.

I think this bill is clear. We have authorities that will clearly implement this, and we have courts that will then clarify the practice regarding certain ambiguities in the legislation. I therefore do not at all share the view that this is unclear. Improper influence is a concept that already exists in the legislation, and I do not think at all that it is anything strange that we are now using that concept in this legislation. I believe that the criticism is unjustified.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! We begin at this end: Why is new legislation being proposed when there is already legislation today? It is very strange. If the system works and there is legislation today, it is very strange that the Sverigedemokraterna support the government's bill and change the law. It is a quite large change.

The Sweden Democrats usually say that they do not sit in government, but now we are discussing a bill that the Sweden Democrats support, Madam Speaker. I assume therefore that the Sweden Democrats fully support the government's position in this matter.

When it comes to this matter regarding the authorities and the courts, it is currently the Patent and Market Court that decides. In the proposed legislative change, the Competition Authority is the implementing authority which will also receive an expanded mandate. What Angelica Lundberg argues – that we will have a procedure in the courts – will only be built upon if the municipalities have the capacity to appeal this. What is forgotten to be mentioned, and which Angelica Lundberg has not mentioned at all, is namely the market disruption fee of 20 million kronor that is also proposed.

When you sit in the Swedish Riksdag and make major decisions about nuclear power that will cost whatever it takes, I understand that 20 million does not seem like that much, but for a small municipality, it is an incredible amount of money, and it directly affects the municipal budget.

I maintain my question: Can the Sweden Democrats guarantee to the Swedish people that it will not result in higher costs for municipal residents when, for example, waste companies can no longer operate within the competitive market? Can it be guaranteed that this will not lead to the Swedish people receiving more expensive fees and higher taxes?

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

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! The reason we are introducing the new legislation is precisely because the old legislation has not functioned satisfactorily. I did not say that we have legislation that functions satisfactorily – that would naturally have been strange – but what I said was that the concept of undue influence is already used today, and we know exactly what it means. It is not unclear, I think.

The legislation that we are now presenting is fundamentally about a simple principle, namely that there should be the same rules of the game for everyone. The purpose of it is that we should get better competition, cheaper prices for consumers and better functioning markets. We see large examples today where it really does not work as it should. This applies in particular to the food market, which I mentioned in my speech. We have other sectors that also need better competition.

I am completely convinced that this legislation will contribute to this. I am, however, not entirely sure that it will be sufficient. I mentioned, for example, the free services that some regions and companies offer. These do not appear in a report because they are, de facto, free. Perhaps we will need to adjust the legislation in the future, but that remains to be seen.

For us, this is an important step that will sharpen and improve competition in Sweden.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! We heard the member raise an example of how free services compete out private companies. Now, it is the case, as the entrepreneur in the example himself also said and pointed out very clearly to the committee, that free services are not a sales activity because they are precisely free. Therefore, they are not covered by this legislation. My first question is, therefore, whether Angelica Lundberg makes a different assessment of what is covered by this legislation than the entrepreneur in question himself does and, if so, on what basis.

The second question concerns the fact that this very example applies to Turistrådet Västsverige. One can read in the Sweden Democrats' own budget in Västra Götalandsregionen that they speak very highly of Turistrådet Västsverige. If what Turistrådet Västsverige is doing is such a large problem, why do the Sweden Democrats not act in the decision-making assembly where they actually have the opportunity to do so?

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

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for another chance to elaborate on the arguments regarding this legislation!

Regarding this individual example that we all in the committee have taken note of, it is not my impression that what this entrepreneur says is the biggest problem will be covered by this legislation. That was precisely why I said, both in my statement and in previous exchanges of remarks, that we need to follow the development of this legislation closely to see if it achieves the effect we desire. We naturally cannot make decisions on a law based on individual examples, but we need to see that the law achieves the effect we want it to have.

When it comes to tourism issues, it is naturally something that regions and municipalities work with. What becomes a problem in this case is that one enters into a certain part of what the tourism company does and then competes out a local actor. Here, there is a private alternative that is willing to invest in this – a company that is willing to invest and perhaps hire and gradually contribute to our welfare in many ways. In that case, the municipality or the region should not step in and compete out that business.

I believe that one can appreciate what the tourism companies do in Western Sweden and other parts of the country and at the same time be critical of municipal companies, the state and regions entering into activities and perhaps competing out private alternatives.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is therefore not clear whether this is included in the legislation or not, but one must follow the development. Why is this not included from the beginning? If this is such an important example that it is taken up in the Riksdag's rostrum as the only example, why is it not ensured that it is included? That would have been the only reasonable thing to do. Otherwise, one should have found another example. I have plenty of such from Gothenburg, I can state; they will appear in my speech.

The second question is: If the Sweden Democrats now think that this is poor conduct by Turistrådet Västsverige, why is one not acting in the decision-making assembly responsible for Turistrådet Västsverige? It is not the Riksdag that is responsible for this, but it is Västra Götalandsregionen. If we look at the Sweden Democrats' policy in Västra Götalandsregionen, we see that they think Turistrådet Västsverige is doing a good job. They highlight them in positive terms in their budget.

Why hasn't Angelica Lundberg spoken with her colleagues in Västsverige if she thinks this is so bad? That is where the decisions are made. It is easy to say one thing from the rostrum of the Riksdag, but where the decisions are made – in this case Västra Götalandsregionen – the Sverigedemokraterna think this is good. Why then?

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

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is clear what is and is not covered in the legislation. I expressed this both in my speech and in my previous exchange of remarks. That is why I say that we need to look at whether the legislation is sufficiently sharp.

Why this has not been included from the beginning is a question that the member must ask the representatives of the government parties. We have not been involved in developing the bill, and I do not know what considerations were made in that specific part. It does, however, naturally rest on an investigation.

Then one must remember that we cannot decide on legislation based on a few individual examples. It must be a problem that is extensive. If it turns out when the legislation is in place that it does not work in the way we intended it to work, I am of course open to reviewing how we can strengthen it even further.

When it comes to Western Sweden and what the regional group in Western Sweden does, I warmly hand over to the regional group in Western Sweden to work on the issues they deem appropriate. I do not think it is my role as a Member of Parliament or representative for the Sverigedemokraterna to step in and point out what different representatives out in our municipalities and regions should or should not think.

I can, however, state that one can have two things in mind at the same time. One can think that the tourism companies are doing a fantastic job and at the same time think that they should act in a different way in certain parts.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the joint reservation from the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Green Party, reservation 1.

The government is now proceeding with a law that in practice means that public actors will not be able to conduct large parts of their activities. Municipalities and regions, but also the state, will find it much more difficult to deliver what is demanded by citizens because they are prohibited from conducting sales activities.

Madam Speaker! At its core, this is about three things.

Firstly, it is completely obvious that the government puts the market before the human being. The private business sector is to be strengthened both locally and at the national level, but in many parts of Sweden, the market has never lived up to the promise of freedom of choice, nor has it succeeded in delivering what the citizens have demanded.

When state-owned companies were sold off or when activities were privatized, the market was supposed to offer a freedom of choice that would lower costs for the Swedish people, but that is not what happened. And when no one else steps forward, it is usually the public sector, very often a municipality, that needs to take the responsibility when citizens demand different types of activities.

It is completely obvious that the right's privatizations have left behind a divided country where the profitability of companies has been prioritized over people's needs. Now that the government has also shut down many service offices, many towns are seeing their communities die. This is because Sweden for far too long has been governed by what works in some form of market economic theory instead of what actually works for people.

Many in our country have felt the effect when society withdraws. It is banks that close, restaurants that no longer offer lunch, or a cinema that no longer stays afloat. It should not depend on where in the country you live whether your community is alive for you. When private actors do not want to establish themselves, someone must step forward. I believe it is expected of those who are ultimately affected because the market has opted out of them. It is important that the public sector has the opportunity to offer service so that all towns can be good and viable.

The government has no plan for how all of Sweden should live, but rather seems to want parts of Sweden to continue being dismantled or sold off. The promises we heard from the Sverigedemokraterna here earlier, that a new law, which in practice prohibits municipalities from conducting any form of sales activity, will increase competition and thus also reduce costs, is a lie. That thesis has, in fact, never been shown to be true.

On the contrary, it has been shown that ordinary people are affected when the public sector takes a step back. Ordinary people have to live with the consequences of the market not considering them profitable enough. It may be those who need to feel these consequences in a rural area or a municipality that has valued activities so that the municipality has ensured that they too shall have viable communities.

It is not just about cafes, shops or cinemas; it is about things that are much more fundamental than that. What happens when there is no one who wants to expand the broadband? What happens when the energy supply is no longer sufficiently stable? What happens when waste management does not function as it should or becomes much more expensive? All of these are activities affected by the new law. Referral body after referral body has pointed this out, but the government has completely ignored it.

However, I think that it is perhaps here somewhere that reality catches up with the government, Madam Speaker. It is indeed easy to speak of competition and market solutions in abstract terms, but when the broadband does not work, when the power grids cannot be developed, or when waste management simply becomes more expensive, it is people's security and economy that suffer. When the municipalities' ability to operate in competitive markets is limited, their ability to take the responsibility that I believe the citizens expect them to take is also diminished.

It is therefore not just a question of service but also a question of society's resilience and preparedness. The government risks weakening precisely that local capacity that is needed in the event of a crisis. I think it is a high price to pay for an ideological conviction that the market should always come first.

Secondly, the government is presenting a law that increases the regulatory burden, Madam Speaker. That is not what one would expect from a right-wing government, but that is what it is. What is now being proposed is a law that, in practice, is intended to make everyday life more difficult for a municipality. Increased requirements, more administration, and higher costs are what the government is delivering to the country's municipalities and regions – in the midst of a cost crisis where they have also not received any help from the government when it comes to general state grants.

Public actors will need to introduce annual separate reporting of their sales activities and additionally carry out recurring, comprehensive evaluations every four years. These are not small adjustments, but new layers of bureaucracy that require time, competence, and resources.

What does this mean in practice? Well, it means that money and working time are moved from core activities to administration and reporting. These are resources that instead could have been used to improve welfare or guarantee social services for all municipal residents who pay taxes. Those funds will now instead have to be spent on managing the regulatory burden that the government places on the municipalities.

This is also happening in a situation where the ambition at the national level – from the government – seems to be to reduce the regulatory burden in our country. However, this does not apply to the municipalities or ordinary people; for them, it is instead to become more complicated. The requirements are to be tightened, and it is to become more expensive to be Swedish.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, the government is not acting against the truly unhealthy competition. The changes to the Competition Act that are now being presented are good. For far too long we have lacked a regulatory framework that prevents corporate concentrations and have had laws that have created a country where market failures have been too many.

We need legislation that prevents companies from dividing the market among themselves and in that way preventing competition, which in turn leads to high prices for customers. We have seen this during the cost crisis, with high food prices and high veterinary prices. These are two industries where competition does not work, which has led to a lack of availability in the countryside and in rural areas as well as higher prices. With broader competition will come opportunities for more actors, who can offer different prices and goods.

Madam Speaker! These changes are good, but the government may be missing perhaps the most important thing that the investigation presented, namely a competition tool through which, as a final measure – in the last instance – one should be able to demand divestment of operations if companies do not act as the Competition Authority has required. Such a tool exists in quite many countries. It exists in the United Kingdom and the USA, and Germany is to introduce it. The EU Commission urges countries to introduce it.

If the government is unable to see beyond the country's borders, one can read the investigation that preceded the bill, where this is proposed. If one does not think it is good, one can review the Productivity Commission's final report – there, too, such a tool is proposed.

This would strengthen the tools. It would give us the opportunity to work for healthy competition in Sweden and bring down prices for the Swedish people.

Overall, we Social Democrats want to address market failures and ensure that the municipalities, regions, and the state can offer basic community services that lower costs and secure viable communities throughout the country. Sweden has long had problems with communities being dismantled, unhealthy competition, and market failures. Therefore, we want to see a society that does not look to the market's best interests but puts the interests of the Swedish people and your best interests first. That is the most crucial factor for lowering costs and standing on the side of the Swedish people.

(Applause)

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! This is very good legislation. I have worked for 40 years against municipalities competing with the private sector. I was previously chairman of the technical committee in my home municipality and then outsourced large parts and procured them. The purpose was precisely to reduce costs, as member Castro took up here.

I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the government bill and the rejection of all motions.

This legislation will enter into force on August 1. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the private business sector and clarify the regulatory framework regarding unfair competition from the public sector. The state's role is to set the rules of the game. The state shall determine laws and regulations, and then the companies may compete with each other in the market. This is what is called free competition.

Sweden is a country built on a free market economy. A free economy has, over the last 100 years, built up Sweden's fantastic prosperity. Despite the fact that we have a very large public sector, the companies, not least our export companies, have succeeded with it. Swedish companies – both the export companies and those working within the country – have built up our growth, our prosperity, and our public activities. Even the specific taxes, for example the VAT, have contributed to this. Many taxes are harmful. The income tax on work is harmful, as is an excessively high corporate tax. The VAT, however, is not harmful – it is a consumption tax.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, free competition has not been respected in all of our 290 municipalities. Many forces have wanted to play entrepreneur and run businesses. Inventive civil servants and politicians have embraced it. It has been very common for municipalities to engage in activities that the private sector was already conducting, for example within the trucking industry.

These activities create unhealthy competition. Operating companies and other activities with tax money as venture capital is indecent, and this should be restricted. A private entrepreneur risks their own capital and puts houses and homes up as collateral, which means the entrepreneur has to face the consequences if the company goes bankrupt. These consequences become very dramatic for a small business owner and his or her family.

I have never seen or heard of a municipal official or any other official in the public sector who has run companies or other operations through which taxpayers have lost millions of kronor having to leave their houses and homes. Officials in the public sector, therefore, take no economic risk when they are involved in and run companies or other operations that compete with private companies.

That is why this legislation is important. It clarifies the roles. There are activities that will be exempted in the legislation and which the law is not aimed at, for example, activities within the energy sector, as mentioned here earlier, and housing. On the other hand, Madam Speaker, it will not be permitted for municipalities to operate gyms, cafes, restaurants or other activities where the private market functions excellently well at the present time.

One might ask whether operating a sauna is a municipal core activity, as the City of Stockholm does down at Hornstull.

The state has also not swept clean in front of its own door, which is even more remarkable. The state-owned company Svevia has a subsidiary in southern Norrland called Arento, which rents out construction machinery and the like. There are private companies that do this in southern Norrland. They feel outcompeted by Arento, which naturally should be divested.

The state also operates pharmacies, despite the pharmacy market being deregulated, and banking activities through SBAB. These state-owned companies should be sold. Even parties outside the Tidö agreement agree with this, at least judging by what I have heard previously. These activities do not contribute to improving the business climate but instead damage the free economy.

Madam Speaker! Most municipalities have some form of municipal companies. Here in Norrtälje, during the late 90s, we had several companies with questionable activities. We had a trucking company to collect household waste that ran at a loss every year. We also had a real estate company, whose sole mission was to rent out premises to the city library, as well as a workshop to repair the municipality's cars. We decommissioned all of that quite quickly when we took over the municipality in the early 2000s.

The worst in the class, however, is Gothenburg. One receives 3 billion in tax equalization funds, which mainly come from the Stockholm region. Gothenburg also has 100 municipal companies. They can use the tax equalization funds as venture capital, which no other municipalities have the possibility to do. Among other things, they are involved in camel rentals and operate amusement parks, hotel activities, and nightclubs. One might wonder if it is municipal core activity. In my world, it is as far from core activity as one can get.

Finally: The purpose of the legislation is not to prohibit municipalities from operating real estate companies, energy companies, or water and sewage companies. These companies are essential for society. The purpose is to provide the private sector with better conditions against unhealthy competition from the public sector.

The Competition Authority will further be given a strengthened and central role as a supervisory authority when cases and violations are being examined.

Madam Speaker! This is my last debate after eight years in the Riksdag. I want to thank the Chancellery for a fantastic cooperation throughout all the years. I also want to thank my colleagues in the Committee on Industry for a fine cooperation.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M) concurred.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kjell Jansson for a speech that is always interesting, even though we stand on quite different sides of this.

It was exciting to hear which examples Kjell Jansson chose to list. One of them was the pharmacies. I think the pharmacies are a fairly good example of what happens when it becomes too market-concentrated. The number of pharmacies has increased, and Sweden has never had as many pharmacies as today. But in the countryside and in rural areas, they are few. Almost 95 percent of all new pharmacies have indeed opened in large cities and urban areas.

My speech was very much about what this means for those who do not live in, for example, Stockholm, as Kjell Jansson and I do, Gothenburg or Jönköping, but in the countryside and in rural areas where the market does not reach because it is not profitable.

According to the bill, it is no longer the municipality's justification for an activity that matters, but rather what shall matter is the Competition Authority's assessment of what the effect on the market will be. A market can be very large. Let us take an example. The energy market is very large and affects all of Sweden, not just one municipality. If, for example, a municipal electricity company operates in a competitive market, one can measure whether it affects Sweden's entire electricity market in an undue manner.

Madam Speaker! In what way can the Moderaterna and the government guarantee that this will not result in activities being shut down when the municipalities' justification for why an activity is needed – that the residents demand it – no longer applies, but instead officials in Stockholm decide what applies?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Castro for the question.

When it comes to the pharmacies, it is exactly the opposite of what the member says. When I was the chairman of the municipal executive board back home in Norrtälje, we tried for six years to get a pharmacy to Älmsta on Väddö. The state pharmacy refused to come, likewise Systembolaget. They said it was not needed. But when the pharmacy market became free, a pharmacy established itself there immediately. Systembolaget still has not come there, and it is probably thought that Hallstavik is too close and that the Eckerö line, where people can buy refreshments, departs nearby. That is my analysis.

So to the electricity companies. As I mentioned, the purpose of the legislation is not at all to stop municipal electricity companies, so the member Castro does not need to worry about that.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not only I who is concerned. The energy companies are also extremely concerned about this.

Madam Speaker! My question is not about Kjell Jansson's analyses or speculations, but my question is about the bill that is on the Riksdag's table and which we are to vote on this afternoon. According to it, it is not the public actor's justification for the activity that will apply, but the one who decides whether an activity shall be allowed to remain is the Competition Authority, which has its office here in Stockholm.

One can make fun of various municipal activities, but I do not believe that any Swedish municipality would say no to a private actor who wants to open a hotel, conference facility, café, or lunch restaurant. I have, in any case, not met a single Social Democratic municipal councilor who has turned down this opportunity. It is, in fact, an opportunity, and the private business sector shall be strengthened.

But Sweden is an elongated country, and there are very many municipalities where the market has judged that it is not profitable to conduct operations. Fine, okay. But why should the municipality then be deprived of the opportunity to offer what the taxpayers demand? Is it also completely unreasonable that a municipality should be able to have a profitable operation? Should a municipality only be a tax collector and not be able to have an operation that is demanded and appreciated and is also profitable? This law means that the municipalities will not be able to conduct profitable operations, and the cost for that will land on the municipal residents through increased taxes or higher fees. This, therefore, risks becoming a cost shock for the municipal residents.

I want an answer. Why is this being proposed, and why is the opportunity being taken away from the municipalities to offer the citizens the activities they demand?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe the member understands market economy.

(DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S): You do not need to lecture me.)

If there is demand for services, companies will come there and sell services. The municipality should not step in and play entrepreneur, and that is exactly what this legislation is intended to curb. Municipalities have done so in many places and pushed out private actors. We do not want that, because it is completely wrong. Sweden is built on a market economy; it is one of the most important legs we have to stand on. It has created Sweden's prosperity. Therefore, the municipalities must be prevented from creating activities just because someone says they are needed.

Municipal energy companies are doing very well, but otherwise, municipal companies do not usually do so well. That is my experience after 35 years.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by thanking Kjell Jansson for good cooperation in the committee and for his final speech in the chamber, if it comes to that.

I must touch upon what Kjell Jansson said regarding core activities, and I agree with him in many respects. He also spoke about tax money being used incorrectly, which I agree with. But when Stockholm, for example, privatizes a preschool and sells it for 3.5 million when it is worth over 80 million, state money is also being used incorrectly. It is actually our Prime Minister who has their fingers in that jam jar.

Well. We are now debating new tools to strengthen competition in private and public activities.

We in Vänsterpartiet oppose the government's proposal for a new law on public sales activities. We see problems with the proposal and its consequences. We believe that the proposal is unclear regarding which sales activities will be considered improper and thus could affect private actors' opportunities to act in the same market.

Furthermore, there will be difficulties when it comes to determining whether public actors' sales activities fall within the scope of municipal competence. We further want to highlight that the proposed law also risks limiting public actors' opportunities to act and counteract market failures in areas where there are no private actors providing socially important activities, which the Social Democrat Castro also touched upon.

In our opinion, this could collectively risk leading, in the long run, to the absence of socially important services in many smaller localities, to the hindering of urgent public initiatives, and to the weakening of society's robustness and preparedness. The new law also risks having a negative impact on the private business sector and on competition.

Some time ago, it was proposed in the chamber that all legislative proposals should be rural-secured. One should look at how different legislative changes could affect the countryside in different ways. Here is now a clear example of a legislative proposal that could go completely wrong if one does not produce clear exceptions or simply let the exceptions confirm the rule in a sensible way.

It is easy to have an image that the municipalities and the state should not interfere in the markets. But when it clearly arises in situations where private actors can skin the society of economic resources simply because there is no competition, it is damn well a dereliction of duty not to look at other ways to provide the activity, regardless of what it concerns.

One of the problems in society is when monopolies or cartels disrupt the popular market economy. This is ongoing all the time when it comes to large food chains and when it comes to monopolies on electricity grids. There are also other examples.

We agree with some other parties that structural measures, similar to what was proposed by the investigation underlying the bill, could ultimately also include a requirement for the divestment of property if this is necessary.

Madam Speaker! We mean that there may be circumstances where far-reaching structural measures are the only way to solve a competition problem in the long term. Requirements for divestment can also be justified from a general point of view and can also become subject to legal review through appeal.

I am satisfied with this and move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! Municipal companies in Sweden turn over a total of tens of billions of kronor annually according to SCB's industry statistics within activities that in normal cases can, and often should, be operated by private actors. This figure shows the enormous impact public activity has, not only on welfare but also on the entire economy and the companies' opportunity to grow and create jobs.

Sweden builds its welfare on work, entrepreneurship, and an economy where new ideas can grow. It is therefore crucial that people who dare to start companies, hire, and develop new services also meet fair conditions. Therefore, we are today discussing the government's bill on new tools for strengthened competition in private and public activities.

The legislative change that we propose today, Madam Speaker, contains important trade-offs. The Competition Authority will now receive the tools required to remove barriers in the market and act against actors who distort competition. The proposals are aimed at actors within the public sector. It is about protecting private actors from undue influence from public actors and thereby protecting private actors from unequal conditions that can arise when public and private actors act in the same market.

Healthy competition, Madam Speaker, is a prerequisite for being able to use taxpayers' money wisely, promote innovation, and provide consumers and citizens with better quality at reasonable prices. When competition works, the entire economy is strengthened. When it does not work, we risk the opposite: higher prices, poorer service, and fewer companies that can manage to invest.

Analyses from the Competition Authority show that lack of competition in certain sectors can lead to significant costs for both households and society. According to the OECD, well-functioning competition is a key factor for productivity, innovation, and long-term growth.

Madam Speaker! It can sometimes be justified, as today, to let public actors conduct sales activities in markets where private companies also operate, but we must also dare to see reality. Public actors often have different economic conditions than private companies. It can be about tax funding, special regulations, or the possibility of bearing risk in a way that a small family business never can. When the playing field is not level, private small businesses risk being pushed out, not because they are worse, but because the conditions are different from the start.

The consequences will be very concrete. Local contractors lose business, and the willingness to invest and hire decreases. That is how the entrepreneurial spirit is hindered.

Madam Speaker! Let me give a concrete example. In several local markets, for example within services and simpler services, companies testify about how they compete with public actors who can offer lower prices thanks to completely different conditions. A small business owner expressed it like this: I am not only competing with other companies but also with the region, which does not need to be paid for development costs that I, as a private entrepreneur, need to reinvest in my business.

It is a reality that we must take seriously. Municipalities should focus on their core missions: school, health care, and elderly care. There is, of course, socially important activity that justifies municipal ownership, especially in areas where the market does not function or where preparedness is required. Such activity is justifiable and shall continue to be able to be conducted.

Public power shall be used responsibly, and safeguarding this is one of society's most important tasks. The public sector has a responsibility to counteract market failures but should never compete with the business sector. Therefore, we shall also not preserve an old order where municipal ownership swells and where local companies and entrepreneurs pay the price. Ultimately, it is about our common tax funds and how we use them in the best way.

Madam Speaker! We are now putting a stop to such a development by introducing a more modern competition tool. The Competition Authority shall be able to intervene earlier, more accurately and more proportionately in order to remove obstacles to effective competition.

For Kristdemokraterna, this is a question of principle. We believe in the social market economy. The state shall set the framework and uphold justice but shall not itself distort the market. The opposition has expressed concern that the proposals will create uncertainty. That concern must be taken seriously, but the alternative, to let today's deficiencies persist, would be worse. Turning a blind eye to unhealthy competition helps neither citizens, companies, nor welfare.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats want a society where small businesses can grow, where idea-driven actors can contribute, where local entrepreneurs are not knocked out by unreasonable conditions, and where citizens can feel confident that the markets function for their best interests.

That is why this bill is important. It is not important for the sake of the system, but for the sake of the people, the companies, and the welfare. It is important for the entrepreneur who wants to hire their first employee, for the family that needs better services at more reasonable prices, and for the Sweden that needs more dynamism and more growing companies.

Madam Speaker! This is about safeguarding both social responsibility and entrepreneurship. I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Lili André for the speech.

I realize that we do not share the same view of the problem when it comes to the new law on public sales activities. I nevertheless want to say, Madam Speaker, that Lili André and the government underestimate what the law actually entails.

Sometimes it seems difficult to grasp the bill that we are debating. It is proposed that the Competition Authority shall measure the effect on a market. What Lili André raised in her speech regarding it being justified from the municipality's side will not apply. It is the government's proposal. Saying something in the speaker's chair will not help in reality when the law is implemented on 1 August 2026.

There are plenty of companies out there in municipal Sweden that have said: We will probably stop our operations, because we do not know how the law is to be interpreted. The government probably does not know either. This law has been forced through.

Madam Speaker! I want to bring up the second part of the law, which concerns a competition tool. As Lili André mentioned, it is good, and important changes are being made to the Competition Act. But what is missing is what has been most requested from the Competition Authority and also in the Productivity Commission's final report. It is about being able to demand divestment of operations as a final measure, as a last resort. I would like to hear a little about why the government is not proceeding with that.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question regarding the divestment!

According to the proposal, if there are obstacles to effective competition in one or more markets, the Competition Authority shall be empowered to order companies to take measures necessary to remove the obstacles. An order shall, however, not include requirements for the divestment of property.

We mean that it is an excessively far-reaching interference in the right of ownership that companies, even though they are not acting in violation of the current competition law prohibitions, should be forced to divest property in the form of, for example, shares or other assets.

We therefore consider that measures involving the divestment of property for a company shall be exempted.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! I have taken note of the government's reasoning behind the proposal. My question is: What is the justification for not wanting that tool?

The proposal did not first come from the Social Democrats. It came from the investigation for the bill and the Productivity Commission's final report. It has been identified that in the countries where one has a tool and can use divestment as a final measure, one has actually been able to remedy the unhealthy competition.

Madam Speaker! In my speech, I mentioned an example, and that was the United Kingdom. I advise the member to read how they have used the tool in the United Kingdom. It has been very successful. As far as I know, the United Kingdom has a well-functioning market.

Madam Speaker! In addition to mentioning the competition tool, I would still like to take the opportunity to say the following. The government is now forcing through what risks becoming a forced privatization law. Municipalities will no longer be able to conduct profitable activities that are demanded by citizens and that municipal residents who pay taxes to the municipality expect.

It will disappear completely. The government seems to take it very lightly. They sometimes seem to say, somewhat mockingly, that the concern from the opposition is exaggerated. But it is not just concern from us. There is not a single municipality or region that has not stated in its referral response that it will lead to important operations shutting down. I wonder why the government does not take that concern seriously.

Why is it that one does not listen to the municipalities and regions? Why is a law being introduced that risks becoming a cost shock for the Swedes in a situation where we live in a cost crisis that the government has not done enough to curb?

Madam Speaker! Why is this surcharge being introduced, which will result in a cost shock for the residents of the municipality? Then, perhaps it also would have been appreciated to have a clarification regarding competition tools.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro, for the continued questions!

The proposed law on public commercial activity does not aim to prohibit public actors from conducting commercial activity. The member highlights the referral responses. We and the government are not painting such a dark picture in advance.

The Member of the Riksdag insinuates that there would be higher prices and a worse market as a result of the law. The Member of the Riksdag knows themselves that when competition works, the citizens win, and then companies can also grow and even increase their profitability.

It may sound contradictory. But municipal competition on the market where private companies can and want to operate does not lead to lower prices but to higher costs for the citizens.

I want to reassure the member. When competition disappears, what always happens when competition disappears happens. Prices fall when competition increases.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden builds its prosperity on entrepreneurship, innovation, and open competition. When competition works, prices are pushed down, quality is raised, and new ideas get a chance to grow. When it does not work, both entrepreneurs and consumers are affected.

That is why it is good that we today are addressing proposals aimed at strengthening competition in both private and public activities. There are clear problems today in several markets.

The regulatory framework is in many cases designed to handle individual violations – cartels or abuse of a dominant position – but works significantly worse for handling structural problems where entire markets function poorly. The Competition Authority needs more muscles. It is good that it gets it with this legislation, but I would have liked to see even more powerful legislation on the subject.

Another part of this is perhaps the most remarkable or eye-catching. It concerns public commercial activity. Here there is a problem that many small business owners recognize: When municipalities or authorities act in markets where private companies already exist, they often do so under different conditions. It is unacceptable.

It can be about cross-subsidies, lower risk or access to tax funds. It can be activities such as gyms, restaurants, hotels and much more that top the list of municipal activities. The city where I live, Göteborg, tops the list of the number of municipal companies, as we heard earlier.

It distorts competition. Therefore, it is good that the regulatory framework is tightened and that a new law is introduced to address improper public competition. But balance is also required here.

The public sector should not compete out private companies, but it should also not be prevented from performing its core mission. For example, municipal energy companies are often an important part of societal development. The ownership of local electricity grids has kept prices down significantly more than larger actors have done.

Important cultural carriers such as Liseberg should not be forcibly sold just because the government got a feeling. It is up to the people of Gothenburg to decide. But unhealthy competition must, of course, be curbed. Therefore, I also move for approval of reservation 2 in the report.

The lack of clarity in the legislation and the lack of specific identified exceptions is a problem. It becomes apparent only in this debate. Kjell Jansson from Moderaterna pointed out that municipalities should not own amusement parks. He is referring directly to Liseberg. At the same time, Ebba Busch says that Liseberg is not affected by the legislation. That is also what the Moderate municipal councilor in Gothenburg says.

The question is: What actually applies? Kjell Jansson says that the legislation is intended so that one cannot own amusement parks. Ebba Busch says that it is not affected by the legislation.

It is completely obvious that the government should have clarified the exceptions so that we do not get a situation where, for example, district cooling from a municipal energy company is ruled out because there are other cooling solutions in, for example, heat pumps operated for cooling. It is a huge problem. It creates great uncertainty, not least on the energy market.

It would therefore have been better to have more clearly specified exceptions in the legislation, which the Center Party has also demanded in reservation 2.

For the Centre Party, the development is clear and the direction is crystal clear: We shall have more companies, not fewer. We shall have lower thresholds to enter the market, not higher. We want the state to set the rules of the game but not itself become a dominating actor on the field.

That is why it is important that these new tools are used with precision. They should solve real competition problems and not become a general steering instrument for markets.

There is also another important aspect. Competition is not just about rules but also about dynamics – about new companies being able to start, grow, and challenge established players. Therefore, competition policy must go hand in hand with regulatory simplifications, better conditions for small businesses, and lower costs for hiring. There, the government still has much to prove; otherwise, we risk treating the symptoms and not the causes.

We in the Center Party know that Sweden can get more companies, more innovations and more jobs. We know that Sweden can do more.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! It is amusing when two liberal parties follow one another on the speaking list! Now comes the short version of what was just said here in the speaker's chair.

The government has decided on new rules aimed at improving competition in both private and public activities. Amendments are proposed in order to give the Competition Authority the power to decide on this type of competition-promoting measures. A new law on public sales activity is also proposed specifically to be able to protect private companies from the unequal conditions that can arise when public and private actors act in the same market.

These are obviously important changes. If we are to have a chance at sensible pricing, competition must be able to function properly. The proposal that the government is now putting forward aims to both make it easier for new companies to establish themselves and easier for customers to choose or opt out. It is a tool to be able to press the prices and make everyday life easier for Swedish households and Swedish companies.

So, here is the short version of what was said earlier: Why is competition important? For liberals, it is obvious. We need competition so that we can have economic growth, innovation, and ultimately prosperity. It is through free trade and market competition that we create the conditions for viable companies and firms and thereby lay the foundation for Swedish prosperity.

We need a strong economy that stands on its own feet. This applies in Sweden, and it applies in Europe. If we are to be able to have that, the possibility of and the conditions for competition are absolutely necessary.

That is why this proposal is so important, and that is why I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! In the debate on competition, we often hear the Moderates speak of the market and the private business sector as the solution to almost all societal problems. More competition is said to automatically provide lower prices, better quality, and increased efficiency.

The reality is, however, as most know, a bit more complex than that. When competition policy becomes ideology rather than a tool, the municipalities and their inhabitants risk becoming the losers.

The report contains proposals that may appear quite technical on the surface. But in practice, it concerns a much larger issue: Who should have the power and the room for maneuver to solve the societal problems – the market or the democratically governed society? Or is it, as I believe, both together?

Today we look with concern at how the Tidö parties are pursuing a line where public activity is being cast into doubt while private actors are given ever greater interpretive priority. The reinforced tools being proposed risk becoming yet another way to push back the municipalities' ability to act for their residents.

Madam Speaker! Municipalities rarely compete to maximize profit. Municipalities build housing so that people have somewhere to live. Municipalities operate energy companies to secure basic infrastructure at reasonable prices. Municipalities and regions operate public transport, waste management, and broadband expansion because it is needed throughout the country, even in places where the market does not directly see the quick profits.

When parties talk about that distortion of competition must be stopped, they often mean in practice that municipalities should step aside, even when they fill a vacuum that private actors do not want to or dare to take. The report that we are debating today risks stopping public investments as it can be difficult to determine in advance whether one risks competing with someone else.

We can only guess who the losers will be when a municipality no longer dares to invest in local energy production for fear of interventions. We can guess who loses when a municipal company refrains from building housing because it is considered to disturb the market, or when a municipal company decides not to build the municipal sorting plant because it might not be economically viable. It is the residents – the tenants, the electricity customers, and the taxpayers.

We already see the consequences today when the municipalities cannot or do not want to invest. It is high electricity prices and welfare services that are withdrawn when they are not profitable enough. To then further limit the municipalities' room for maneuver is not to strengthen competition; it is to weaken social responsibility.

Miljöpartiet shares the view that competition problems should be able to be managed even when they arise in public activities. But we also see competition as one tool among several and not as a paramount goal that should trump democratic decisions or local needs.

Madam Speaker! The risk with the proposals in the report is not always about how they are written, but about how they will be used. In a political climate where the governing parties question the role of the municipalities, there is a risk that new legislation will be used to shift power away from the local community and closer to the large private actors.

It is not self-evident that small business owners or local initiatives are the ones who benefit when the public sector is pushed back, but rather the strongest actors. The result risks being less local anchoring and, ultimately, perhaps less freedom of choice for the citizens.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to see a competition policy that strengthens companies and gives us new solutions. But we also want to see a policy where activities that take place in municipalities can also be seen as part of the solution and not as a problem to be phased out.

For Miljöpartiet, the goal is an economy where many actors can operate, where innovation is encouraged, where local and cooperative companies have a chance to grow, and where competition contributes to transition, not to exploitation.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

Since I see that Rickard Nordin is still sitting here in the chamber, I will also take the opportunity to say happy birthday!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 18.)

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