Public procurement

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Prudence and economy with the taxpayers' money is a crucial mission for those of us who have been entrusted to represent the citizens and manage the common resources.

When used correctly, public procurements are a tool to get as much as possible for every tax krona. When misused, they can lead to tangled bureaucracy that creates sub-optimization and waste.

Mr. Speaker! Public procurement shall promote competition, quality, and innovation. The procurement system shall be developed and nurtured through legislation but also through new models within the existing regulatory framework.

An example of this is how more and more actors use different dynamic purchasing systems to ensure continuously high quality and at the same time continuously put prices out to tender. This is shown to work in reality in both construction services and fruit purchases.

We promote an open and transparent procurement process. It is through healthy competition that companies get equal opportunities to participate. This also creates incentives to deliver the best possible offer to the public entity that is to conduct the procurement, which not only benefits the taxpayers but also drives forward new ideas and innovations and high efficiency.

We safeguard quality and development. By setting high standards for the goods and services that are procured, we ensure that the public and, ultimately, the residents or employees in operations gain access to the very best possible. At the same time, we want to promote rules that encourage companies to be forward-thinking and innovative to meet society's constantly changing needs. Procurement processes must, of course, not lock in solutions but should promote that we keep up with the times.

Bureaucracy needs to be reduced in the procurement process. We want to simplify rules to make it easier for companies to participate and to speed up decision-making so that we can solve problems when they arise. By reducing unnecessary administrative burdens, we can open up for a smoother and more efficient management. It can lower prices and motivate more to be part of the competition when the system functions well.

Mr. Speaker! The legislation must, of course, be coherent. It is not possible to have an arrangement where we legislate high requirements for producers to ensure high quality and safety in society but at the same time prevent authorities and other actors from imposing corresponding high requirements on consumers. In that case, we risk shutting out Swedish companies from participating and delivering. The security situation we have right now justifies, on the contrary, that we increase the opportunities for Swedish suppliers and perhaps also consider whether we should sometimes limit others'.

Mr. Speaker! Jens Nylander, also known as Jens of Sweden, has recently shone a spotlight on how tax money is being mishandled. We in this chamber can discuss priorities, tax levels, savings, and investments, but I believe we all agree that municipalities, regions, and authorities should not be paying expensive invoices to companies that do not even exist.

Nylander, with the help of artificial intelligence, performs compilations, reviews, and audits of millions of invoices. Among the revelations is an advertising company that bluffed its way into nearly 300 million tax kronor from authorities.

Nylander also reveals how wasteful it can become when procurement is not used. For example, one municipality purchased services for approximately 3,500 kronor per hour, totaling nearly half a million, without even comparing prices at all. Another municipality purchased a set of power plants without service documentation at an abandoned military facility for 2.1 million tax kronor.

Nylander has discovered individuals who worked full-time in one agency and simultaneously invoiced another agency through a company for the same time. This is the kind of thing that can be difficult for a person to detect but that can be detected with the help of that technology, just as it was discovered that assistance companies had forged annual reports because an AI tool recognized identical texts over several years. This is artificial intelligence in public service.

Mr. Speaker! This type of AI disclosure serves as a reminder that the best remedy against corruption and waste within the public sector is transparency and openness. Therefore, it is important that public procurements are well-functioning and are carried out in the taxpayers' service.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! I take every opportunity I get to have a small debate with Oliver Rosengren.

Oliver talks a lot about wanting to simplify rules. It would be interesting to hear which rules are to be simplified, because many are already very simple as they are now.

It is also very much about lowering prices. Then I become curious. When prices are to be lowered further, at whose expense should they be lowered? Is it some kind of state wage-cut policy where, for every procurement, wages and conditions can be worsened? Is it those who are making life miserable at workplaces in simplifications that make it so that one has no control who should pay for the price reduction?

Another question I have is how many subcontractors Oliver Rosengren and the Moderaterna think should be allowed to exist. How many is reasonable? Is it 10, is it 20, or is it 119, as in the case of the tragic elevator accident in Sundbyberg? Does the Moderaterna have a figure on how many subcontractors they think is reasonable to have?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Ciczie Weidby, for the questions!

To begin with the question of simplified rules, I am quite sure that a good portion of, not least the small business owners who want to participate and deliver when, for example, a municipality is going to procure services for park management, do not agree that it is so simple to fill out those 800 pages in the procurement documents. I am quite sure that there is one woman or another in elderly care who would have gladly participated and delivered when a service is to be procured for, for example, home care, but who thinks that there are parts in the documents that are complicated.

We shall set high requirements, but we shall also be clear. We shall ensure that it is easy to do the right thing for those who want to participate, and that those who are excluded from the procurement system—those who do not get to deliver—are not those who get stuck in bureaucracy, but those who simply are not good enough to offer services or products to our residents. It shall be quality, not complications, that determines whether one is included and delivers to the public for the taxpayers' money.

Speaking of money, we come to the question of price. It is clear that in a Left Party's world, this is a zero-sum game where it is not a question of a well-functioning dynamic market where there are several different actors delivering, for example, mobile phones to Alvesta municipality. In that case, it doesn't matter how many there are or how well it works, because it directly becomes a question of it becoming worse for someone when a price is to be lower.

It is the opposite, that if we have a well-functioning procurement system, one can end up in a situation where there are perhaps five actors ready to offer a municipality a solution. Then one can imagine that they need to do it at a better price than if there is only one. This is the point. We shall not press prices on things when this cannot be done, but in well-functioning competition, we will get a better price level.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! How lucky that Oliver has one reply left since he did not answer how many subcontractors one should be allowed to have.

Oliver Rosengren says that it should be clear and simple to do the right thing and to compete. But that is not the case now, because those who win procurements are always those who come with the lowest price. One can calculate how it turns out that they have the lowest price; it is because the contractor in question buys up other suppliers under them to perform the work. This is the core of the poodle and the problem: that the good companies are not allowed to compete on equal terms. A contractor comes in and gives a price and then buys in very low-paid people to do the work. It would be much better if one limited the number of subcontractors so that one knew who was performing the work and, above all, if the conditions for performing the work are decent and good.

I could ask many more questions, but I will stop there. Oliver Rosengren is now given the opportunity for two minutes to explain how he thinks it should look and how many subcontractors one should be able to have to conduct a good and safe operation.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must admit that even if I sometimes might even speak somewhat too fast, it was difficult to manage to get through all three of Ciczie Weidby's questions in two minutes. Therefore, it is good that I now get to devote two minutes to the third question.

You are pointing out something very relevant, Ciczie Weidby, regarding what does not work in procurement. We put disproportionately much control, requirements, scrutiny, and follow-up into the procurement phase but have far too little follow-up during the process. That is what makes it so often that we do not get what we have purchased - that municipalities can have housing procured for young people who are unwell and have very difficult problems, where it is claimed that they shall receive well-functioning 24-hour care but they do not get it. That is what makes it possible that there can be construction sites that clearly state they shall follow all rules but do not do so. In the worst case, this can end with people losing their lives at their work. It is completely unacceptable and appalling and should not occur in Sweden.

This is the reason why the requirements set must not only be set at a desk when a procurement is made, but must also be set throughout the entire delivery process so that we follow up and ensure that one does and gives what one is paid for.

You are asking me to specify a number of subcontractors. It is of course not possible for me to say exactly which or how many. The important thing is that the one who has responded to a tender, won a procurement and entered into a contract shall be responsible, regardless of whether one does not have a single subcontractor or if one has several. One is responsible for ensuring that the contract, the law and all requirements are followed, not only on the first day of delivery but also on its last day.

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

Gunilla Carlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Public procurement generates billions of kronor in Sweden every year. It concerns a significant part of the society's total economy and our collective tax money, which is to be used in a responsible and wise manner.

Through procurement legislation, we have the opportunity to counter corruption, arbitrariness, and waste of taxpayers' money. But we also have a responsibility to demand that the money goes to companies that offer good working conditions, that workers' rights are met, and that procurement is conducted with consideration for climate and the environment. It is important to hire companies that want to do the right thing. Public funds should never contribute to unfair competition and to dumping conditions on the Swedish labor market.

Unfortunately, we see, Mr. Speaker, how crime in the working life is a growing problem, and this has consequences in several different ways. Unserious actors make good business through creative arrangements. No tax is paid, and there are VAT frauds and parallel criminal activities. Foreign labor is exploited.

Serious companies experience that procurements sometimes have all too great a focus on low prices, that the relevant quality requirements are too few, and that there is a lack of contract follow-up. The combination of low prices and lack of contract follow-up risks giving unserious companies a competitive advantage in relation to those companies that follow regulations and contracts. In some cases, the serious companies choose not to submit bids, because they know that they can never and do not want to compete with such low prices.

That unserious companies receive assignments through public procurement means that our public funds contribute to maintaining operations where people suffer greatly. Last week, I visited one of the seven a-krim centers that the previous Social Democratic government established. I heard, among other things, stories about how adults and sometimes even children live at workplaces. People sleep and cook in environments that are directly hazardous to health. They are in Sweden and are forced to work and live here under extremely poor conditions, which are actually outright illegal.

Mr. Speaker! Last year was a black year when it comes to workplace accidents - 65 people went to work but never came home again. Yesterday, I was able to read on the Swedish Work Environment Authority's website that even after the first two months of this year, 8 people have been injured in connection with their work. This is a great tragedy for families, relatives, friends and colleagues, but also for the whole society.

These people have lost their lives in connection with performing their work. This we can never accept. Everyone must be able to feel safe when they go to their workplaces.

Setting requirements regarding the working environment already at the procurement stage naturally prevents both workplace accidents and occupational diseases. It is also an effective way to prevent unscrupulous companies from gaining competitive advantages by violating the Work Environment Act in order to win tenders.

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

A few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I had an interpellation debate here in the chamber with Minister Slottner, on the grounds that he is responsible for procurement issues. My question to the Minister was whether the government intends to act to change the procurement regulations in order to reduce the number of accidents and limit the possibilities for cheating.

In his response, the minister stated, among other things, that the most effective measure against companies engaged in crime in the labor market is to never give these actors access to the market – that criminal actors who systematically act in defiance of laws and regulations shall not be granted public contracts through procurement.

I can only agree. But for this to become a reality, we Social Democrats see that the procurement legislation must be tightened and the necessary tools must be created.

I have full respect for everyone who works with procurement. People have very different circumstances, ranging from large procurement organizations to a single individual. I know that the National Agency for Public Procurement does a good job of helping and informing, and in most cases, the procurements work well.

But we see that a considerable number of improvements should be implemented.

For example, it would be necessary to strengthen the exchange of information within the EU. Today, e-Certis exists, but it is insufficient. There should be a common system within the union to ensure that taxes and social security contributions are paid in due order.

We want the government to proceed with the proposal from the inquiry on an effective and reliable control of suppliers in the awarding of public contracts, the so-called Supplier Control Inquiry, which has submitted a proposal to let Bolagsverket be responsible for a function that enables coordinated register checks. In this way, the contracting organization can gain access to information that is currently confidential from registers at Boverket, Polismyndigheten, Skatteverket, Kronofogdemyndigheten, and the county administrative boards.

One must also look at the problem with the long supply chains, as they involve an increased risk that agreed contractual terms are not respected and complicate the monitoring of compliance among all subcontractors. We believe that the number of subcontractor levels should be limited and an investigation should be commissioned to look at how such a measure could be designed.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for approval of reservation 11. But we, of course, stand behind all Social Democratic reservations.

(Applause)

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 3 in the report.

Public procurement turns over approximately 900 billion annually, which corresponds to approximately one-sixth of Sweden's GDP. It contributes to authorities, regions, municipalities and other public actors remaining transparent towards both companies and citizens. As with all legislation, there are always things that can be improved - we have heard that from the rostrum today - and this is no exception.

Last year, an average of 4.8 bids were submitted per procurement, which is a decrease compared to the year before. In 21 percent of all procurements, only one bid was received, which is in line with last year. This means that more needs to be done. The majority of these procurements are made by municipalities. Increased competition, even within the public sector, contributes to increasing efficiency and the number of jobs, something we all welcome.

Today, we have also heard from the rostrum much about a person who has done a very important job. It is also important to have order and tidiness in the public sector. The major revelation of how municipalities across the country are failing in their task and are negligent with supplier invoices is worrying. The man behind this is, as we have already heard, Jens Nylander. He showed how a number of municipalities bypassed procurement and, for example, purchased licenses that were never used, security keys that were never collected, and power plants that were acquired via Blocket. It is serious. According to his own calculations, he estimates that the public sector could save up to 90 billion. Better and more comprehensive audits were simply needed.

The major work regarding audits lies with the client, but there is also a guiding authority for this, Upphandlingsmyndigheten, which works actively to facilitate for more to participate in procurements. But it is far from easy, as we have heard here today, especially for small companies. The statistics database that we spoke about from the rostrum a couple of years ago is now in place and contributes good insight into how procurements can be developed and become even better.

It is important to have clear requirements in procurements, sometimes tough ones. But it is also important that they are followed up and have a concrete purpose. A company that lacks a specific certification should not be disqualified due to a technicality if the product or service meets the other requirements. Collective agreements, which are highlighted in our motion, are another requirement that sometimes causes companies to be weeded out even if their product or service meets the requirements.

Another proposal that we from the Sweden Democrats are pushing is that a procurement should be able to be divided into smaller components to encourage competition from small businesses, alternatively that these small actors can join together to win a large procurement. In this way, there is an alternative for small companies to cooperate to win a procurement.

Mr. Speaker! There is today a concern that direct awards are not occurring on equal terms. We therefore believe that the threshold for direct awards needs to be raised and that the transparency in connection with these needs to increase to avoid the risk of corruption and abuse. This form of procurement does not need to be advertised in the same way and is not available for inspection by other companies or market actors.

Regarding the report, the Sweden Democrats have a number of committee motions that, for example, highlight the importance of being able to pivot in the event of a crisis. This can, for example, concern the purchase of food. If we can help our domestic companies in times of crisis, we believe that should be done. In the long run, these actors also play a very important role, not least for civil defense and preparedness. We would also have liked to see national guidelines that ensure public procurement can be steered more towards Swedish-produced goods.

An important part of the procurements is precisely the purchase of food. Sweden has clear requirements on animal husbandry and animal welfare, and the use of, for example, antibiotics is relatively low. Stunning before slaughter is, in our opinion, a must, but it is not abroad. The meat that is sometimes imported and served comes from countries that do not have as strict laws and regulations as Sweden. Therefore, we believe that all food procured publicly shall be produced in accordance with Swedish environmental and animal welfare legislation when possible. There should be no doubt that the food served in our schools, in hospitals, or in elderly care homes meets the same tough requirements as if it were Swedish. It is naturally up to each municipality to set this type of requirement today, but we believe that it should be mandatory.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we promote small businesses throughout Sweden. If we can get more entrepreneurs to enter into procurements and submit bids, the competition will lead to a more cost-effective product, more jobs, and opportunities for entrepreneurship, and hopefully less waste when it is done right.

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

Gunilla Carlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I pointed out in my speech that we see an ever-increasing problem with welfare crime, companies that enter the welfare sector and use our common tax money to conduct illegal activities. Companies start and conduct operations, but they do not pay taxes and social security contributions. They send the money abroad. They shut down the companies when some authority begins to discover that they are conducting improper operations or engaging in fraud in various ways. They shut them down and start new companies. Sometimes they use different front men to be able to carry out these transactions. Consequently, many billions disappear out of Sweden. These are funds that could be used for our common welfare. Not least, the problem of secrecy between authorities is highlighted – that one cannot hand over information between the authorities.

My question to the member is partly about the possibility of abolishing secrecy between authorities, and partly about the Supplier Control Investigation. The investigation has now presented a proposal that Bolagsverket should be tasked with responsibility for coordinated register control to make it easier to go in and see whether a company submitting a tender has conducted a good business or not, and whether they have paid the taxes and the VAT that they are supposed to pay in Sweden, for example.

How does the member view the proposal put forward by the Supplier Control Inquiry and the welfare crime which, in many cases, thrives on this type of procurement?

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gunilla Carlsson, for the question!

Welfare crime is extremely serious. It concerns very large tax funds that disappear into the wrong things. We know that criminals exploit municipalities and regions in the wrong ways. This is a development that has escalated, not least when the member's party was in government.

I still think it is reasonable that the question is raised. The investigation into the payment authority that today has the mandate to ensure that payments are made in the correct way was one that you appointed, and now we have the Utbetalningsmyndigheten in place. I think it is doing a great job.

Naturally, the work to crack down on both crime and fraud must be intensified. Illegal activity in the public sector must be curbed. We must never lose our will to stand up against those who do wrong and commit criminal acts regarding the public sector.

The supplier control investigation sounds interesting, and the government will certainly look closer into this. Hopefully, we can improve the system compared to how it functions today.

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

Gunilla Carlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The previous Social Democratic government decided to appoint the Payment Authority. I am pleased that the government has moved forward in this, because we must truly use our common tax money in as wise a way as possible. The companies that choose to exploit the systems should not be able to take part of our common tax money.

The report of the Supplier Control Investigation is on the government's desk today. It would be good if the Sweden Democrats also joined in pushing for that issue so that a government bill is actually submitted to make this decision. Not least, the authorities are requesting the possibility to offer register control to all those who procure for nearly 900 billion. In that way, one could actually stop many of the criminal companies from entering the procurement system.

Another part concerns the long supply chains - supplier after supplier performing the work. It has turned out that this causes problems, because ultimately the main supplier has no control over what the subcontractors are doing or whether they are conducting a decent business. Sometimes they even disappear and go bankrupt. One has no control.

What is Member David Perez's view on limiting the possibilities in the subcontracting chain? Would the Sweden Democrats be prepared to vote here in the chamber to reduce the number of subcontractors in procurements?

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again for the questions, Gunilla Carlsson!

When it comes to the supplier side and the supply chains, I believe it is very difficult to limit it to a certain number. All industries have different conditions and different possibilities to carry out their operations, and I do not think we politicians should say that they shall work in a certain way.

Naturally, we shall establish the right conditions so that mistakes are not made, regardless of whether it concerns 10, 20 or 30 suppliers. The important thing in this case is that it is done correctly, not how many are utilized. The Social Democrats are also interested in the job opportunities and that more people should be able to go to a job and work, preferably in the public sector.

I also think we have heard good arguments from other parties here today as to why exactly this can be problematic. We will, of course, have reason to return to that question. You are driving it, and consequently, we will debate it.

The question of register checks is naturally interesting, and we will have to discuss it if a government bill is submitted. I cannot say here and now how we in Sverigedemokraterna stand on such a proposal, but as mentioned, we will have a reason to return to it.

I still think that what is important when it comes to public procurement, as we have discussed here today, is precisely that one must keep track of what is being procured. Jens Nylander has, with the help of artificial intelligence, revealed that there are weaknesses today, so that just register checks would be the solution to all errors is not certain. But I still think there is reason to discuss the issue further, because we have today a welfare crime that is beyond the control of the public sector, and we must do more.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet believes that there should be order and clarity in public procurement. Workers who work within publicly funded operations that are procured shall be guaranteed fair wages and conditions. Tax money shall not go to companies that dump wages and working conditions.

Today, there are major problems with how public procurement is applied. All too often, the lowest price is guiding, which leads to unserious companies winning procurements by keeping prices down at the expense of a good working environment and reasonable working conditions. The requirements that are set are all too rarely met.

Mr. Speaker! After the 2014 election, the Left Party entered into an agreement with the Social Democrats and the Green Party. One of the points concerned removing social dumping in public procurement. That part of the agreement resulted in the bill New regulatory framework for procurement, which was adopted by the Riksdag with certain amendments. The decision means that the contracting authorities, in procurements above the threshold value, shall set specific labor law conditions, such as requirements for conditions in accordance with collective agreements regarding wages, working hours, and vacation. It was necessary. Thus, workers are guaranteed fair wages and conditions.

It is now high time to fully implement the proposals in this bill. The bill also proposed that contracting authorities, in addition to the possibility of demanding conditions in accordance with collective agreements regarding wages and holidays, should also be allowed to demand requirements on insurance, pensions, and other leave other than holidays. This part of the bill was rejected by the bourgeois parties and the Sverigedemokraterna. Furthermore, the possibility to demand requirements on wages, working hours, and holidays was limited to procurements above the threshold values, which corresponds to approximately one-third of the procurements. For a large proportion of the procurements, there is therefore no possibility to demand such requirements, which clearly creates room for undercutting competition and social dumping in connection with public procurement.

Mr. Speaker! A problem that has not been addressed through the new regulatory framework is precisely the long subcontracting chains that several of us have spoken about here today and which often characterize publicly procured projects, especially within the construction and civil engineering industry. Main contractors often bring in several layers of subcontractors. This leads to long chains, which of course implies deficiencies in coordination and control. The further down the chains one goes, the less oversight there is regarding the work environment and working conditions. Shadow work, tax evasion, and low-wage competition are commonly occurring.

Vänsterpartiet considers that, as a general rule, requirements should be set that there are a maximum of two levels of subcontractors in public procurement. This would strengthen the possibilities for coordination and control.

The problem with long subcontracting chains in public procurement is acute and needs to be addressed now. It became extremely clear during 2023, when we could observe that many of the tragic workplace accidents with fatal outcomes occurred at workplaces with an uncontrollable number of subcontractors.

Another problem with the current procurement legislation is when a new contractor takes over the operation of an activity that was initially run by, for example, a municipality or an authority. In connection with the transition to the new contractor, one can indeed let all those who were employed there previously apply for their positions again under a significantly worse collective agreement and thus a considerably lower salary.

This is a recurring problem in public procurement. The fundamental problem is that it is possible for the contracting authority to accept the tender that is the most economically advantageous for the contracting authority, that is, the lowest possible cost within the framework of the legislation's requirements.

This means that companies covered by collective agreements with lower wages and often worse conditions, of course, win the procurements. For the employees, this means a successive wage reduction in connection with each new procurement. This, my friends, is a form of state-sanctioned wage-cutting policy.

To address this, the procurement legislation must be reviewed. It should not be possible for the contracting authority, in connection with a new procurement, to accept bids that involve reduced wages for the employees. It is reasonable that the employees, when there is a new contractor, stay on and are guaranteed exactly the same wages and conditions as they had previously.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is also a lack of national coordination between the contracting authorities. The lack of national coordination means that unscrupulous companies that are detected in one municipality or region can continue to conduct their business and win contracts in other parts of the country. We must address this.

Vänsterpartiet believes that the government should both investigate the possibility of establishing systems where all procuring authorities and state and municipal companies must participate, and establish a blacklist of unscrupulous companies.

Vänsterpartiet considers that there should be order and clarity in the Swedish labor market in general and within the public sector in particular. With this, I thank you for the floor and for the visit to the Committee on Finance and move for approval of reservation number 8.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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