Public procurement
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the regulatory framework for public procurement. M believes that the regulatory framework can be heavy and complicated, but that the government is already working on investigations and proposals 1. SD argues that the regulatory framework is too complex for small businesses, which leads to less efficient suppliers 2, and wants to promote Swedish-produced goods as well as increase self-sufficiency 2. V wants to introduce stricter rules against social dumping through requirements for reasonable conditions, limited subcontractors, and transparency regarding wages 3. MP wants environmental considerations and climate impact to become governing factors 4. S believes that the government has taken important steps 5, that tax money should be used in the best way 5, and that an investigation should produce a system for supplier control 5. S also wants to introduce an obligation to consider climate, environment, health, animal welfare, as well as social and labor law aspects 5. S also believes that LOU should not be applied to public utility housing companies 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Adam Reuterskiöld (M)
Madam Speaker! Procurement is an immensely important area for both the state, regions, and municipalities, and thus for all of us in society. The estimated value of procurements amounts to approximately 800 billion or one-fifth of Sweden's GDP every year.
At the same time, the processes are fraught with difficulties regarding getting more to participate in procurements, but also potential legal proceedings that may arise during and after processes. Procurement and the rules surrounding this are designed to ensure fair and economically advantageous procurement of state, regional, and municipal goods and services. The basis for this is found in both Swedish legislation and EU legislation.
The regulatory framework can be heavy and complicated when there are many wills to steer procurements in different directions. That is why the government already today has various investigations and proposals within this area. That is also the answer given in the committee's proposal for a report.
The regulatory framework provides great freedom to set different requirements depending on what one wants to achieve. Much of the procurement, however, does not lie in how one proceeds but in what is being purchased and in what structure. The size and structure of the procurement also often determine how many and which parties can participate and submit bids.
There are also many different types of procurement forms today regarding collaborations and distribution of responsibility. Steering of procurement can provide advantages, but with increased restrictions and statutory requirements, it always becomes more difficult for both procuring and bidding parties to meet. It is important that the requirements do not also overturn competition, set impossible requirements, or affect society's costs to an excessively great extent.
The work on what is presented in the report is ongoing in various forms, and development in this area will occur progressively over the coming years. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.
David Perez (SD)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that the Sweden Democrats move for approval of reservation number 4 in the report.
The subject of the report is, as said, public procurement, an area that is often both complicated and time-consuming. As we heard from the rostrum here earlier, it often involves billions of kronor annually.
Before I took the step into the Swedish Riksdag, I was a regional politician, and I know how difficult it can be to manage a good procurement. Many companies, especially small businesses, often have a strong desire to enter a procurement but cannot manage the task. It is not necessarily because the will is lacking, but because it becomes too complex.
In the end, it is the authority that loses out on this, as it becomes a less efficient or less competitive supplier. This can be a result of overly tough specific requirements in a procurement that creates problems for the company and which can lead to new, untested actors entering and winning the procurement and immediately mishandling their task.
A recent example of this that I experienced just before the pandemic broke out was when my home region, Uppsala, changed suppliers of healthcare equipment. The transition went poorly, and this affected both staff, patients, and healthcare capacity in the region.
The Sweden Democrats have a motion in a committee motion that highlights exactly this, that there should be exceptions for the need for changed purchases in the event of a crisis. I am convinced that this would have eased the crisis for us locally because there would have been more flexibility to act.
A problem in public procurement is that in particular smaller companies and small agencies can sometimes encounter problems as they do not have a specific person who can familiarize themselves with the extensive regulatory requirements that exist.
With this said, the laws on public procurement have been good for maintaining good transparency for the public sector and have contributed to the fact that we, as a country, have relatively little corruption in comparison to other countries.
Regarding the issue of corruption, the organization Transparency International conducts annual surveys where they look at this, and unfortunately, we as a country have lost positions and have done so since 2015. I truly hope that the new government will take this issue most seriously.
Madam Speaker! Last week I spoke with a procurement expert who is well-versed in the subject of public procurement and who emphasized the problem that there are companies out there that have the capacity but not the opportunity to participate in a procurement. Furthermore, he raised an example of a procurement that was so extensive that there was not a single actor within Sweden's borders who met the requirements. Obviously, the public sector should promote our domestic entrepreneurs if that is possible.
He also mentioned that there are specific requirements in procurements that are not even followed up on by the contracting authority. This shows that authorities and other public actors can be under heavy pressure to include requirements in a procurement just for show.
Another problem can be that a company is required to hold a specific certification even though one is already working with the issue in another way. In that case, the company is excluded due to a technicality, just because they lack a specific certification.
He also raised an example from our neighboring country Denmark, which operates very differently from Sweden when it comes to public procurement. At levels that fall below the EU's threshold values for public procurement, one has quite free rein to design their contracts.
This has also led to the fact that Denmark has very few public procurements where no bids are received at all. Is it true, however, that if one conducts a procurement and receives no bids, this procurement is completely unnecessary?
Just as I have mentioned here, there is potential for improvement in procurement. There is also an active effort among interest organizations to increase awareness and knowledge among companies regarding how a procurement process works. Of course, I must not forget to mention the National Agency for Public Procurement's contribution in this case, with both knowledge and help in resolving difficult questions. Ultimately, we must still remember that 99 percent of all companies out there are precisely small businesses and contribute both with taxes and by getting more people into work and, naturally, with a vibrant countryside.
Madam Speaker! In conclusion, the committee motions that we continue to stand behind are largely about promoting Swedish-produced goods to a greater extent in public procurement. For the Sweden Democrats, it is a matter of course that we should increase our degree of self-sufficiency. We also believe that there should be mandatory requirements that food that is imported must be produced in accordance with Swedish environmental and animal welfare legislation when possible. Obviously, the meat served in the public sector must come from animals that have been stunned before slaughter. And here, Sweden is ahead of a large part of other countries.
Ciczie Weidby (V)
Madam Speaker! Public procurement turns over more than 800 billion kronor of our common tax funds every year. This corresponds to around one-sixth of Sweden's GDP. There are therefore very large sums of money to be earned by the private companies that win these procurements. To counteract unserious companies winning procurements, a clear and strict regulatory framework for public procurement is required, and we do not have that today.
I believe that there should be order and clarity in public procurement. Workers who work within publicly funded operations that are procured, for example public transport, and workers who work in private companies shall be guaranteed fair wages and conditions. Tax money shall not go to companies that dump wages and working conditions.
To create a better regulatory framework for public procurement, a number of different measures are required.
Firstly, the government should return with proposals for amendments to LOU so that requirements for reasonable conditions shall be set as needed in all public procurements and that it becomes possible to, in procurement, set requirements on conditions regarding pensions, insurance, and other leave other than vacation. Today, there is no possibility to set such requirements for a large part of the procurements, which creates room for undercutting competition and social dumping.
Secondly, as a general rule, requirements should be set that a maximum of two levels of subcontractors may be used in public procurement. Today, publicly procured projects within the construction and civil engineering industry are characterized by long chains of subcontractors. According to Byggnads, this entails major problems regarding coordination and control at construction sites. Often, there are more deficiencies in the working environment and working conditions the further down the subcontractor chains one goes. Shadow work, tax evasion, and low-wage competition are very commonly occurring. If the number of levels of subcontractors is limited, the possibilities for coordination and control could be strengthened.
Thirdly, mandatory requirements should be introduced for bidders to report, in connection with public procurement, which staffing levels and what wage levels form the basis for their cost calculations. Today, the legislation makes it possible for the contracting authority to adopt the bid that is the most economically advantageous for the client, that is, the lowest possible cost within the framework of terms in accordance with collective agreements. This means that companies covered by collective agreements with lower wages and poorer terms often, of course, win procurements. For the employees, this means a successive wage reduction in connection with every new procurement. It becomes a form of state-sanctioned wage reduction policy. It is not reasonable. It should not be possible for the client to do this in this manner.
For the fourth, contracting authorities should have a dialogue with relevant trade unions in the industry where the procurement is to take place. Today, there is also no such requirement. Trade unions generally have quite good knowledge of the industry and very often also of the companies operating there. They often have a very good grasp of who are serious and who are not serious actors. If the authorities, for every procurement, were to proceed in this way, i.e., obtain relevant information from the trade unions, they could filter out very many unserious actors in the process.
Madam Speaker! Given how large a portion of our common tax funds public procurement handles every year, it should be in all parties' interest to achieve a better regulatory framework for public procurement that counters cheating, trickery, and unhealthy competition.
Even if one does not care about the conditions for the wage earners who work in the procured activities, one should at least care about how our common tax funds are used.
If you think it is okay for our common resources to go to unserious companies that dump wages and conditions and thereby compete out serious, decent companies, then of course you vote no to our proposal. But if you think that our common tax funds should go to serious companies that have decent wages and conditions, you support our proposal.
Madam Speaker! I therefore move for the approval of our reservation 9 and naturally urge all others to vote for it.
Janine Alm Ericson (MP)
Madam Speaker! In 2016, we received new procurement legislation in Sweden. It was welcome and meant that we got significantly better and, above all, EU-adapted legislation in place. It has been a while. But we thought even then that it had been appropriate to have sharp wording that environmental requirements would be set during the procurement significantly more clearly than what actually became the case. Despite the fact that there is now an opportunity for this, the procurement still very often goes to the one with the lowest price.
What should have been a requirement already became a "should". The legislation is still burdened by this problem. But it must change.
As many know, and as many have motioned about, there is great potential in using public procurement as a tool for increased environmental and social sustainability. It is about promoting common societal interests such as the environment, climate, a circular economy, reduced antibiotic use in animal husbandry, animal welfare, human health, and good conditions in the labor market.
In the report we are now debating, it sounds as if the committee is rejecting the demands because most of it is already being done or is underway. And it is moving forward, but there is significantly more that must happen. We see, in fact, how our tax money is still being used to promote the lowest price at the time of purchase, which results in others having to foot the bill.
We must also have updated legislation so that climate impact and resource use become governing factors. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants to introduce a goal that the public sector shall lead the transition and reach net-zero emissions by 2030. In that case, the law on public procurement must be updated so that instead of a "should" it becomes a "shall" - one shall take into account environmental considerations and climate impact so that low climate impact and resource use become governing factors.
We also want climate-smart food to be the norm in the public sector. Climate-smart food often coincides with healthy food, and in addition to contributing to meeting the climate goals, it contributes to meeting the public health goals.
We do not have time to wait. The climate impact of public procurement amounted to 23.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2019. That is a lot. We know from the National Agency for Public Procurement that there is great potential in using public procurement as a tool to set requirements for circularity and climate considerations and to reach the set goals that this chamber still agrees on, as well as several of the global goals in Agenda 21.
I am glad that we have these questions on the table. We must continue to debate them. We must achieve a change in order to be able to set better environmental and climate requirements and better requirements for circularity as well as requirements for transparency and efficiency. One should not be able to bluff one's way forward and thereby receive a share of the taxpayers' money.
With this, I move for approval of the Environment Party's reservation 8.
Gunilla Carlsson (S)
Madam Speaker! During the last two parliamentary terms, the previous government took many important steps to develop public procurement. There is now a procurement authority with the aim of strengthening the strategic importance of public procurement, and a national procurement strategy has been developed.
In 2021, a national procurement database was established at the National Agency for Public Procurement. The Riksdag also decided on a simplified procurement regulatory framework. From this year onwards, contracting authorities will have the opportunity to reserve the right for idea-based organizations to participate in procurements of certain welfare services, which the idea-based organizations have requested for a long time. This was a proposal that both M and SD voted against here in the chamber.
All this means that we today have more comprehensive legislation within public procurement, but more needs to be done.
For us Social Democrats, Madam Speaker, it is important that these tax funds are used in the best possible way. Therefore, the previous government appointed several inquiries. Some have not yet presented their proposals. One example is an inquiry that is to look into developing an effective and reliable system for supplier control in order to counter crime in the labor market and promote healthy competition.
Some proposals are already on the government's table. On 16 June 2022, the then Social Democratic government decided on a referral to the Council on Legislation regarding the obligation to consider certain societal interests in public procurement. It highlights that an obligation should be introduced to consider the climate, the environment, people's health, animal welfare, as well as social and labor law aspects in public procurement. It is about sharpening the regulatory framework so that the approximately 800 billion kronor that the state, regions, and municipalities procure annually can be a way to achieve other pressing goals.
This referral from the Council on Legislation is now, as said, finished at the Government Offices. It is only for the government to draft a bill and submit it to the Riksdag. We wait and hope that it is soon underway.
Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats now see how the housing market is collapsing. We hear how representatives from the industry are desperate over increased construction costs. To this is added the withdrawal of investment support that the right-conservative government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has carried out.
There is still a shortage of housing, not least rental apartments. The municipal housing companies provide most of the newly produced rental apartments, and they are leading in pressing down housing costs. But their conditions need to be strengthened and guided by social utility, and they must be given opportunities to build in weak markets.
In today's consideration, we have a reservation where we highlight that LOU shall not be applied to public housing companies. A study conducted by Sveriges Allmännytta shows that public housing has approximately 10 percent higher construction prices and longer construction times than private developers due to LOU. The investigation Sänk tröskeln till en god bostad has proposed that LOU be changed so that an entity that operates under normal market conditions, has a profit motive and bears its own losses, shall not need to be covered by LOU.
We therefore consider that LOU should not be applied to public service housing companies. With this, I move for approval of reservation 10.
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.