Special debate on ownership of socially important properties

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden I grew up in was in most ways a safe, caring, and reliable country. The 30 years that have passed since then have been characterized by cuts in schools and healthcare and the erosion of our common safety systems. We see the effects of this around us every day. Today we are going to talk about one of the worst aberrations of this neoliberal development.

In recent years, many municipalities and regions have sold off community properties to finance ongoing operations. Our shared properties were bought up by unscrupulous property speculators such as SBB and ended up outside our democratic control. We have known for a long time that these were short-sighted and bad deals, but today we are debating something more acute. What is to happen with all these critical community properties when SBB is forced to sell?

Market fundamentalism has made our society weaker. It is high time to stop playing business with healthcare facilities, schools, and regiments.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! The economy is in a normalization process. Interest rates are rising as a result of an inflation that is far too high. We have a worrying world around us, and this is something the government and the Riksdag have to handle. Households and companies are having a tough time. For many households, the price increases mean serious problems in their finances. For many companies, they mean a need for major adjustments or perhaps even insurmountable problems.

In this situation, politics needs to be prepared to act. It must also be noted that politics does have that, and from a strong position. The Swedish national debt is very low. There are margins in the public finances. This government has acted and has the opportunity to act in a secure, calm, and orderly manner for Sweden's best.

Madam Speaker! Many companies are struggling as interest rates rise because financing becomes more expensive. Businesses that were previously profitable are no longer profitable. One sector that has significant problems is commercial real estate – but not all companies in the commercial real estate sector. There is a great breadth of companies here.

There are very many who own real estate in Sweden. Some of them have taken on too high loans and thus too much risk in their operations. They now need to acquire more capital, reduce their indebtedness, and mitigate their risks. Those who have a lot of equity, or at least relatively much equity, should have good conditions to manage the situation. But those who have too little capital need to make share issues or sell assets to strengthen their capacity.

It is important to state what this market looks like. According to the best available assessments, there are buyers in the market. It will therefore be possible to sell. There are also banks that are not part of the problem but part of the solution. They are well-capitalized, have margins, and can both increase their lending and enable deals.

Then, of course, there is a risk of contagion in this sector if some or any companies need to sell and need to sell very quickly. It can affect the valuations of properties also at other companies, and one can get a more widespread problem - a contagion. That it would tip over into a full-scale economic crisis in the sense that it spreads to the financial system and that one would have major problems with banks and payments is not the main assessment for the Swedish economy. But one must be clear that this government is always ready to act for financial stability, for the taxpayers' money, and of course also for Sweden's security.

The main assessment is that this can be resolved in the usual way, but it is also the case that should it not, there is a government that is prepared to act for financial stability, for the taxpayers' money, and for Sweden's security.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Left Party for the initiative to this important debate.

We can observe that reality can change quickly. In a very short time, we have moved from a situation of peace, security, and stability to a world where war and unrest characterize our immediate surroundings, and from an economy with low inflation and low interest rates to a recession where prices for electricity and food have skyrocketed. The interest rate is at a level that the younger generation has never experienced. In that context, it is also worth pointing out that we have moved from a record-high housing construction during the Social Democrats' time in government to a complete standstill in the production of new housing, something that came to have a strongly negative impact on jobs and growth.

What was accepted truth previously has been replaced by another reality, a new era, which has overturned previously given facts. Quite recently, it was attractive for municipalities and regions to sell properties and then rent them for their own use. It was sometimes a way to release investment capital for new projects. Sometimes it has been done for purely ideologically motivated reasons. Regardless, in the long run, it is at least questionable whether it is a good deal.

Kommuninvest has looked closer at the issue and points out in a report from last year that in the long run it is less costly to own one's properties compared to renting them. Today we see that the sell-offs are not uncomplicated and that they can become costly for the taxpayers.

To the economic realities, the security policy situation must be added. We have now lived with Russia's war of invasion against Ukraine for almost 16 months. We also see how a China with stated great power ambitions is actively seeking its way into the Swedish market.

In this situation, one must see reality for what it is. One must understand that changed times require changed approaches. It is very reasonable to have as a basic principle that society should have control over and own society-critical buildings and areas. This can involve prisons, municipal buildings, hospitals, and so on. In addition, there are security and defense policy interests. There must be a public control over these types of activities. There should be no security risks. Fundamentally, it is absurd that we have a situation where we can let in interests that are not compatible with Swedish security policy. We must, of course, put a stop to that.

The Social Democrats therefore see a need to quickly establish a modern pre-emption law that gives both the municipalities, the regions, and the state the opportunity to acquire key properties and secure strategically important defense interests.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now we have yet another debate about why the new government has not already restored the damage that the previous government has caused.

What has happened is the following: A social democrat has created a company that, through high leverage, has bought up socially important properties, largely from the social democratic government. According to Dagens industri, SBB bought its first property in my home municipality, Örkelljunga. It was a senior housing facility that was acquired in 2016. After that, the expansion proceeded very quickly. I see no reason whatsoever why the state should be forced to buy the property in Örkelljunga.

The high leverage and the inflated values of the holdings of SBB have been a known fact all along. The previous government continued to sell properties and to enter into long-term contracts with the company throughout its entire time in power, despite the risks. As recently as May last year, for example, they signed a 20-year contract with the police and the Prison and Probation Service, that is to say, exactly the kind of activity that Jennie Nilsson just mentioned as an example of activities that one should have control over. And that happened long after Russia's invasion and illegal warfare in Ukraine.

Now it has been realized that this was not so good. In an opinion piece in Svenska Dagbladet, reference is made to a report from Kommuninvest, which confirms that it is better to own than to rent. The report was released an entire year before the government signed the 20-year contracts. There is also a report from Kommuninvest that was released two years before. It is somewhat unclear in the opinion piece which one is meant, as both state that it is better to own than to rent.

The State and the government obviously have a responsibility for state buildings. It is remarkable that a company such as SBB has been given the opportunity to own such buildings. SBB has indeed been clear that it is a company that expands through high risk-taking. High leverage, expansion, and inflated values should actually have made the previous government significantly more skeptical about selling to SBB or having long-term business dealings with the company.

It is the left-wing government that resigned in the autumn that can now possibly be blamed for poor judgment. Now, fortunately, there is an opportunity for the state to act if properties risk falling into the wrong hands. That is what I am glad about.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is no longer possible to turn a blind eye to the damage that market fundamentalism has caused Swedish society. Vänsterpartiet has warned of the consequences of this for decades but has rarely been heard by the other parties. On the contrary, we have been met with mockery and various reproaches. But with each passing day, it becomes more and more apparent that schools and healthcare are not suitable as business activities, if the best interests of the students and patients are the goal. Now, thankfully, the political support for our side is becoming stronger with each passing day.

Hand in hand with market fundamentalism, there has been a misconception across the entire political field to the right of the Vänsterpartiet: that it would be possible to improve schools and healthcare through cuts. If welfare had had the same resource allocation today as it did 30 years ago, there would be nearly 500 billion kronor more in the public sector.

Regardless of whether what has occurred over the last decades is rewritten as efficiencies, it has obviously had catastrophic consequences. One of these consequences is what we have to discuss today.

One way to solve the lack of resources can be understood as raising taxes, but another is to sell real estate. Companies like SBB have had as a business idea to buy public properties and then rent them out to the person they just bought them from. But selling your house to be able to pay running expenses with the purchase price and then renting back the same house to live in it does not sound like a particularly good deal? It is not.

Let me quote the municipalities' own bank, Kommuninvest, which is hardly a socialist struggle organization: "Strong reasons speak for the fact that it will become cheaper for the citizens if the state, the regions and the municipalities themselves own the properties in which they operate."

Of course, the deal becomes even worse if the company that buys up the properties, as in the case of SBB, turns out to be unserious speculators. Promises that they would retain, develop, and fund long-term investments in the properties they took over have turned out to be pure lies. Today, instead, the entire company and everything it owns is for sale, and neither the state, municipalities nor regions have the slightest influence over what happens with what was our common property.

It is high time that the government acts to reverse the development. We need to quickly agree on how we are to regain control over our welfare and our country. This time, it is probably best to listen to Vänsterpartiet right from the beginning. That the days of market fundamentalism are numbered is, in any case, one thing that is certain.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! When I saw the heading for the debate, I became curious. I honestly did not understand what the debate was going to be about. Now I have realized that it is SBB we are debating and nothing else.

When it comes to socially important properties, a variety of companies are active in that sector, and there are no signs that they would be poorly positioned there. On the other hand, we have other concerns that affect the sector very much. The commercial real estate sector accounts for approximately 50 percent of the total indebtedness among corporate loans. With such figures, we are at the top in Europe, which is alarming in itself.

One must not forget that our own Riksbank has exacerbated the situation by issuing housing bonds, which are to be realized in the near future. It is a concern in light of the high interest rates, even if they are not historically high, which exacerbates the alarming situation.

I hope that the remaining part of the debate focuses on the problems in the sector instead of us talking about the war in Ukraine or that we should introduce communism in Sweden and start bringing everything into public ownership.

When the order books in the construction sector dry up this autumn, we will see a wave of warnings. We will also experience that the costs for an already strained sector will increase. In this situation, we have a government hiding behind the ghost of inflation and claiming that everything that can be done would fuel inflation, which is not true. Svenskt Näringsliv and others have calculated that there are effective measures to help sectors that have problems. One example that does not fuel inflationary pressure is lowered employer contributions.

I hope that the debate returns to being about the issues and not about things that have nothing to do with the matter, for example, if a Social Democrat has played property king and caused a lot of problems in a sector.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! When the Swedish people in the autumn chose to hand over the responsibility to govern Sweden to the current government, it was a very complicated situation. The challenges we face are great, partly due to many years of neglect from the previous government, which did not implement necessary reforms. These challenges concern both the citizens' personal safety and the nation's security in a world where we have war and also a greater political uncertainty.

Furthermore, we have the economic situation, with high inflation and sharply rising interest rates, which has subjected households and some companies to great economic pressures. This economic situation has also affected the commercial real estate sector, which has expanded very much over many years with low interest rates and high leverage. This applies, among other things, to community properties owned and financed by private actors but conducting public activities. Some of these real estate companies have ended up in a difficult economic situation with more expensive refinancing, which has made today's debate relevant.

The question is important from two perspectives, one regarding security and one more strategic. As the Minister stated, the government has already submitted a bill concerning a screening system for foreign direct investments to protect Swedish security interests. I will return to the strategic aspect, but we must remember that this development, with public activities and properties financed by the private sector, occurred during the previous government's time with the support of Vänstern.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the initiative for the debate. The debate we have here today is not just about a company having taken on very large loans and hoped that the low interest rates would be forever. The situation that SBB finds itself in is a symptom of a much broader problem, where from a political standpoint there has been an ideologically based over-reliance on privatizations. The dogma has been that that which is privatized in some way automatically also becomes more efficient. We know now that it does not always become so.

SBB's former CEO promised not very long ago that SBB's dividend would increase over the next 100 years. Now, instead, the dividend has been suspended. This is, of course, unwelcome news for the hundreds of thousands of savers who have invested in SBB, but it is not only for many stock savers that SBB has proven to be a bad deal. The entire idea of buying up public properties to then rent them out has proven to be a bad deal for the public sector.

Madam Speaker! It has not been a good deal for the municipalities to sell off public properties and then lease them back. Municipalities have lower borrowing costs than private companies, and there is nothing that suggests that private companies are always much better at taking care of a property. It is not only politicians and representatives for the public sector who have said this. A few weeks ago, several business figures lined up in the business press and said that this matter of selling off properties to then lease them back is not a good idea but leads to higher costs over time.

I hope that this is a reasoning that more people can listen to. Those who have placed their trust in the magic of privatization should now have woken up from their dogmatic slumber and realized that it does not always work that way. Things do not automatically become better because they are privatized. I hope that we can look more soberly at whether activities should be privatized or not in the future. The story of SBB should undeniably give cause for reflection.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! Many and sometimes also large companies going into bankruptcy hardly threaten the stability of the Swedish economy. The assessment of whether the company is important for economic stability depends on whether the company is large or small. In this context, SBB is quite small. That is what it is about, just as has been said earlier.

This also does not concern the large banks. I think there are reasons to remind that the banks apparently have not been included in the type of reasoning that SBB has had regarding borrowing cheaply and placing the money in a way that is hoped to yield high returns but which is very risky. Precisely because the large banks are not involved, there is no reason for Swedish taxpayers to step in with the citizens' money to save individual private shareholders from losses. There is also no reason to be worried about the financial sector or the banking sector in Sweden if SBB or a company like SBB were to go bankrupt.

An important explanation for SBB's precarious situation is undoubtedly the speculation that has occurred with extremely low interest rates. There, the situation has changed quite rapidly. The question for investors, among others, has changed from "whose money should we take" to "where should we take the money". I shall have to return to this later. But I believe there is a much more important aspect to this development, namely the risk of cronyism.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! In my previous contribution, I briefly described the situation and the challenges that exist in the Swedish economy and in the market for commercial real estate. There is a need to always be ready to act for the benefit of the taxpayers, for financial stability, and also for the security of our country. As Minister for Financial Markets, I am, of course, responsible for financial market issues, but also for large parts of the state ownership of real estate, including the military ones. It is not just about what has been sold under previous governments and out in the municipalities. It is also about what kind of responsibility one takes for that which is actually supposed to be state-owned.

In May 2019, two new basic organizational units within the defense were proposed. On December 15, 2020, the Riksdag decided that new regiments should be built. Nevertheless, we have now been able to read in the media that temporary rentals are being used, which creates uncertainty and a discussion. But with a new government, there have been new developments regarding how we manage the country. Now in May, I, as the responsible minister, have made a decision on the design of new regiments in Falun, Sollefteå, Östersund, and so on.

Madam Speaker! So there is a difference. We have taken a responsibility. We are now working on having this under state administration. We have made those decisions.

It is about always acting for Sweden's security. Here, one should also note before shifting all the gears in the gearbox that SBB itself has announced that it does not intend to sell properties to any property owner who is unacceptable to the tenants. The company that many have mentioned in the debate has thus itself announced that it does not intend to act in that way. It does not intend to sell to companies that the tenants cannot accept.

With that said, it is clear that the government and the coalition parties on which it rests here in the Riksdag are prepared to act for financial stability, Sweden's security, and the taxpayers' money.

But it should not be done in such a way that safety and stability risk adding risk in this situation. Proposals regarding the perception of forced purchases are not in Sweden's interest.

This market now needs as much calm and peace as possible in order to be able to solve the problems that exist. In that, politics should reduce risk and not add risk.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Minister, for the opening remarks!

I believe we are quite in agreement that it is important that we have solutions in place that can handle various different challenges.

Now we are discussing in the chamber the challenges linked to owning socially important premises, what applies today and what will apply in the future. Here, the government has taken a number of initiatives that have been accounted for. Some are good, and some are less good.

I consider, for example, that important grounds for pre-emption are to facilitate the acquisition of key properties, to facilitate social transformation as a result of larger company establishments and company expansions, to facilitate the reconstruction and development of the civil defense, and to facilitate land access for socially important climate adaptation measures.

There are examples in a part of the directive for a modern pre-emption law that the government has completely deleted. I want to ask why the Minister and the government have deleted these important grounds for pre-emption.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! This government will always act for financial stability, for the taxpayers' money, and to safeguard important interests, for example, Sweden's security.

Jennie Nilsson and the Social Democrats have three significant problems here. The first is the question: Why did you do what you did? That question has been asked here in the debate. Jennie Nilsson should take the chance to answer it.

The second problem is: Why was the decision made in this chamber that we should have new regiments, and why did it not happen under previous governments? Now we have made decisions on designs to build new regiments. Why did it not happen?

The third thing that Jennie Nilsson needs to answer is the following. Now the government has placed a proposal before the Riksdag that we should conduct security screenings in the case of foreign acquisitions. Why was this not done for eight years?

Jennie Nilsson and the Social Democrats have significant, perhaps historical, credibility problems. But now we have a government that takes responsibility.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Social Democratic governments have led virtually all reconstruction and expansion of the defense in modern times. All parties in the Swedish Riksdag have participated in the dismantling of the defense in various rounds.

What the Moderates have contributed to is extra unforgettable in the process. The Moderate-led government, for example, abolished the general conscription with only a three-vote majority in the Riksdag. A Moderate defense minister resigned.

Everything reached some kind of bizarre level when Prime Minister Reinfeldt, at Folk och Försvar in Sälen in 2014, called the Armed Forces a special interest.

Since then, all parties have noted what is happening in the world around us. Through discussions, it has been agreed that the defense should be increased. This has been done in different stages.

It is somewhat distressing that the Moderaterna do not take responsibility either for their history or for their shortcomings here and now.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! This government is always ready to act for financial stability, Sweden's security, and the taxpayers' money.

The Social Democrats' historical credibility problem in this issue is underscored by Jennie Nilsson's answer. Jennie Nilsson receives concrete questions about why the previous government acted as it did.

Why was it not planned for the new regiments as was decided? Why was a law not introduced that could screen foreign investments? In response to these questions, Jennie Nilsson begins to speak about universal conscription. We have universal conscription in Sweden.

We are now strengthening Sweden's defense in a historic way. But we are also taking a great responsibility for what should be in state ownership, how markets should function, how stability should be safeguarded, how taxpayers' money should be protected, and how we can live safely, securely, and successfully in Sweden.

The Social Democrats' historical problems in these issues were underscored by Jennie Nilsson's answer.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is very pleasing that the Minister and the Moderates have come to their senses and started listening to the Left Party. A few weeks ago, when we raised this issue, the initial answer was: No, no, no, nothing needs to be done about this.

Then, overnight, they pivoted and said: Oh dear, it turns out it is a regiment owned by private interests. That was not so good. We need to do something about this. It is good, but that is not the only thing that needs to be done.

There are many other parts of our society that are an important part of our common defense. This includes, among other things, that we have a well-functioning school system, elderly care, and healthcare.

Is it not then a bit difficult to trust SBB again when it says: We absolutely do not intend to sell anything to any foreign interests or to anyone whom none of the tenants want to own it? It has already from the beginning broken the promise not to sell at all.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, for your contribution!

I agree with most of what Samuel Gonzalez Westling says. The government is prepared to act. Should it turn out that problems arise and that companies act in a way that contravenes Swedish security, the government will, of course, act.

We have added tools to the toolbox. I am somewhat surprised that this has not been done earlier. But it is good that it is being done now. I share Samuel Gonzalez Westling's analysis that the functionality of the entire society is, of course, central for us to have a good defense.

Not least, all those parts will be tested mostly under a military attack. Samuel Gonzalez Westling and the government seem to be making very similar analyses here. Possibly Samuel Gonzalez Westling would need to discuss with the Socialdemokraterna why it turned out the way it did and so on.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! It sounds like we are in agreement here. We should ensure that the state acts to regain control over outsourced schools, healthcare facilities, nursing homes and so on. It is an important part of the total defense that we have them under our own control.

We cannot trust companies like SBB. It has clearly shown that there is no reliability whatsoever in what it says. Therefore, the government must act quickly so that we can secure a right of first refusal for the state so that it cannot proceed and sell to someone else.

It is quite urgent now. The Riksdag closes for the summer in a week. But China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, I don't think, intend to take a vacation during the time that the Riksdag does.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first state that there seems to be a broad consensus in this chamber for a different line than the one that Samuel Gonzalez Westling and the Social Democrats advocate. We seem to be in agreement by a broad majority here that one must now act for calm and for the opportunity for the market to make the adjustments that are needed.

There is, as I can judge, a broad consensus here regarding not acting in such a way that we would nationalize for the sake of nationalization or acquire tools for the state so that it can intervene and further disturb and add risk to the processes. It is important to send that signal so that the market does not become more worried now. We shall not add risk in this.

Madam Speaker! When it comes, however, to us acting as needed for the taxpayers' money, for Sweden's security and for financial stability, I am completely convinced that all Members of Parliament, should such a situation arise, are prepared to come to Stockholm and make the decisions that are required. It does not worry me particularly much, because I believe that we have hard-working Members of Parliament.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! It is always exciting with a defense policy debate that stems from a regiment happening to have private ownership. But that is set aside.

I have a question for Niklas Wykman. The lessons from the 90s led to us cleaning up the banking sector and introducing a number of regulations to increase stability in the sector. What happened thereafter is not just the socialists' fault, although I would personally have liked to blame them. It has thus become a cross-cutting issue in the commercial real estate sector to such an extent that there is no overview.

What does the government intend to do to reduce the risks in the sector given the cross-ownership?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by welcoming and praising Alireza Akhondi and the Center Party's announcement that large nationalization programs are no longer relevant. Thus, Alireza Akhondi and the Center Party contribute to a security and stability that is good for the market. This ensures that it can adjust so that those who have taken on too much risk can reduce their risk and so that those who need to sell to strengthen their own capital can do so.

It is unfortunate if we spread an image in Sweden that we would now be adding risk to the market. It is a very good message from Alireza Akhondi that this is not the Center Party's position. It contributes to sending a strong signal from here, which in turn contributes to the markets being able to adjust in a good way.

Madam Speaker! Then Alireza Akhondi asked a rather complicated question about how this entire market works and about ownership structures. It concerns articles of association and a number of other rules. It is a good and justified question, but it is somewhat difficult to address in this short format. If it were to turn out that there are significant problems, we will have to enter an evaluation phase and address them.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Niklas Wykman for the answer, and I understand that this is a very complicated issue. But this is the core of the debate: the high indebtedness and the cross-ownership in the commercial real estate sector. These are two issues that need to be addressed correctly immediately so that we can reduce the risk and the ripple effects in various sectors, which also affects the taxpayers and ordinary Swedes who are sitting with very high loans for their homes.

I sincerely hope that the Minister will soon return with concrete answers to the two questions. When we have housing policy debates in this chamber, the only thing I hear is inflation, inflation, inflation – we can't do anything, instead we blow up the ship and build a Sverigehus on it.

I hope that the Moderate government will rise above this and return with concrete proposals that the Chamber can take a position on.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that the two significant risks that can be identified are, however, inflation and what it does to interest rates in a society. If we have high interest rates for a long time, it naturally puts more pressure on this sector. It is one of the reasons why the government is so clear that a very important thing for fiscal policy is not to hinder the Riksbank's mandate to return to price stability.

The second is precisely what Alireza Akhondi is pointing out, namely contagion risks. Cross-ownership can increase them, but a significant contagion risk is much more straightforward than that: Many companies need to sell at the same time, and then many need to write down the valuations of their assets. This triggers a series of problems.

On the other hand, there is, as Carl B Hamilton among others has underlined in the debate, a strong and resilient financial system. One can never rule out accidents, but the possibility of handling this is good.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The previous pre-emption law was abolished by the Moderate-led Alliance government in 2010. There were flaws in the law, and we Social Democrats wanted to make necessary changes in accordance with what Boverket and several referral bodies suggested. The right-wing government of that time abolished the law entirely instead.

Since then, there have been many situations where a pre-emption right would have been needed. Last year, the Social Democratic government therefore commissioned an inquiry into a new, modern pre-emption right. It was to be completed in December this year. But a month ago, the current right-wing government suddenly changed the directive. And these were no small changes; they struck out exactly everything concerning municipal grounds for pre-emption, and they extended the inquiry period to April next year. Thus, we lost both the entire municipal perspective and valuable time.

There are three unfortunate things that characterize this right-wing government and its steering force in the form of the Sverigedemokraterna. The first is that they are ideologically blinded. The second is that they have poor judgment. The third is that they consistently have bad timing. This is a completely devastating combination that becomes a mix of shortcomings that leads Sweden in a completely wrong direction.

A concrete example is that the investment support for the construction of affordable rental apartments was removed while control over inflation was lost, and housing construction plummeted. We now face a long-term housing crisis, and the only thing the government achieves is a free lunch for the construction industry. The government's Karlsson on the roof must stop closing its eyes to reality, roll up its sleeves, and start delivering!

If we are to secure society-critical properties, a modern pre-emption law must be urgently developed—a law that gives opportunities for the municipalities, for the regions, and for the state to act for our common good.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! One can hide a lot in rhetoric if one wants to. But in the end, it was actually the Social Democratic-led government that sold off these properties. It was the Social Democratic government that signed the long contracts with a risk company such as SBB. The government sold off the properties despite knowing that there was no right of first refusal.

One could have wished that the government had read Kommuninvest's reports before it sold off the state's holdings. Several of the sales have indeed occurred long after the reports were released.

My question is: Why did the Social Democrats act so irresponsibly during the time they sat in government?

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Eskilandersson, for the question! This is a question that concerns the ability of municipalities, regions, and the state to manage their real estate holdings. One must be able to plan for the needs one has and for those one sees in the future. Over time, how one has assessed the needs has shifted, but fundamentally, it is important that there is legislation in place that ensures one can act if needed. In that case, a modern pre-emption law is important.

It is something distressing to listen to the Sweden Democrats in the debate. They are trying to make this an issue that is about SBB and the Social Democrats. They do not seem to have any problems at all with cronyism at a buddy price in the Moderate-led Stockholm. There are examples where one sold for 70 million to a friend who then sold it on for 20 million. It is completely unreasonable, and there are plenty of such examples.

But I don't actually think this debate should be about that. There are bad examples, and they need to be removed. Our responsibility here and now is to ensure that we have what is needed for the future.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I understand if Jennie Nilsson does not want the debate to be about buddy prices and buddy agreements given who started and owned SBB - a previously known Social Democrat. Now the Social Democrats want to step in and save their Social Democratic buddy, who is still the largest shareholder in SBB, by simply buying up the entire company, as I understand it.

I do not think this is a good solution at all. Very few of the properties actually concern the state. Most are such as the property that was purchased in Örkelljunga, which was an elderly housing facility. I see no reason for the state to own an elderly housing facility in Örkelljunga.

The question, however, is still why this sale was made when it was known that there was no right of first refusal, and then afterwards, one wants to try to fix this by arranging a right of first refusal. The sale was a bit unnecessary from the beginning, wasn't it?

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! One must assume that Mikael Eskilandersson is deliberately misunderstanding. The Social Democrats are not proposing that one should go in and buy the entire SBB. We propose that one should ensure that there is legislation in place, the legislation that the government—a Moderate-led government, just like the one that the Sweden Democrats are now cooperating with—removed in 2010. It was a problem, and this needs to be solved.

Without having studied the elderly housing in Örkelljunga in detail, I still strongly doubt that it is the state that owns it. I guess it is the municipality that does.

An investigation is currently sitting and working on how we should get modern pre-emption rules in place for the municipality, for the region, and for the state. The problematic thing is that the government is now stepping in and removing the entire part that deals with municipal pre-emption grounds, and it apparently supports the Sweden Democrats. At the same time, they are trying to mix the cards regarding such an important issue and make it about – actually, just like with everything else – a party or a person instead of what is the real problem.

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Own or rent? I do not want to say that one is always better than the other. However, I want to be very clear that I absolutely do not want any coercive laws for our municipalities. The state should not own our elderly care home in Örkelljunga, which we were discussing here earlier. What I meant by that was, of course, that SBB should not be bought up by the state.

Local self-government is extremely important to me. I believe that the municipalities must have the opportunity to make the assessments that are needed regarding which activities they want to have and in which premises they should have them. The government should give the municipalities room for maneuver, not decide how each municipality organizes its finances. I am completely convinced that the municipalities are capable of weighing the advantages of owning against the advantages of renting against each other.

Real estate is also significantly safer than services, as real estate does not disappear in a bankruptcy but actually just changes owners. It can be compared to the ambulance operations in Region Skåne. The region faced very great problems when this went into bankruptcy. There, the operations disappeared overnight. Sure, the cars remained, but there was no one to drive them. It was a service that had been purchased.

I am very pleased that the Left Party in this situation has begun to speak warmly for us to own. Ownership is often good, especially if one intends to stay for a long time, and I believe that applies regardless of whether it is a municipal house or an apartment. I look forward to upcoming debates with the Left Party regarding more owned housing.

It is usually safer to own. It is better economically in the long run, and it provides greater opportunities. Renting, on the other hand, is good if one has a temporary operation, as one has lower initial costs and it becomes easier to divest. Which one is chosen must be up to each municipality.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I am not quite clear on what Mikael Eskilandersson is saying from the rostrum. Does Mikael Eskilandersson really think that it is better for a Chinese-owned company or Russia to own a nursing home in a municipality than for the state to do so?

It is a bit strange. The Sweden Democrats time and again talk about how important it is to take care of Sweden and to protect and safeguard that which is Swedish. At the same time, it is obviously no problem to sell out what we own collectively here and there to private business owners and robber barons, or for that matter to completely recklessly open up so that foreign powers can own what we use and manage collectively. Could I get an answer and an elaboration on that from Mikael Eskilandersson?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I doubt that either a Chinese or a Russian company is particularly interested in a nursing home or a school in a municipality. It is not directly about defense secrets in those types of buildings.

Now it is an extremely hypothetical question, but SBB has stated in its statement that they will contact the tenant, that is to say the municipality, and ask how it views a new owner of the property. As a tenant, one should be allowed to have an influence. That is very good, because in that situation, one can, if one wishes, choose instead to enter into negotiations with SBB about potentially buying out the property.

However, I wonder how the Left Party actually views this issue of ownership and owning one's home. The times I have had discussions in housing debates with the Left Party, you have been very critical of owner-occupied housing and argued that one is placed in a debt situation that is not reasonable. What distinguishes that from the municipal position?

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I truly understand that the Sweden Democrats do not have a problem with taking broken promises at their word, given the history of broken promises they themselves have delivered over the past year. SBB has already previously stated that they will not be selling at all. It becomes a bit difficult to make the equation add up when one then promises to contact the municipalities before selling to someone else, perhaps a foreign power.

I think Mikael Eskilandersson should contact Zelenskyy and ask what he thinks. How would he, when facing a full-scale invasion by a foreign power, view the matter if that very foreign power owned large parts of the country's real estate and for a long time had had the opportunity to make changes and whatever they wanted in that real estate? Isn't that a bit difficult? Should it not be the state's responsibility to ensure that such things do not occur?

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

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! If one is to guarantee that no one from China, Russia, or any other country owns anything in Sweden, one must, in principle, introduce a dictatorship where only the state is allowed to own. Why should a company not be allowed to own a school? Why should a company not be allowed to own a nursing home? That discussion is, however, somewhat ideologically interesting.

I do not, however, understand the fear that Russia specifically would be very interested in a nursing home in Örkelljunga. The issue is a bit strange. What would one use it as? Sure, one could use it as some kind of eavesdropping base or so, but in that case, there is actually legislation to resort to.

SBB has given a promise, and I have no reason to doubt it. I assume that SBB does not actually want to sell, but that their sales in that case are forced by too much speculation.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! We can state that it was a catastrophic mistake to sell off public properties to companies such as SBB.

It is worth pointing out that it is hardly only pure military interests that are worth highlighting in this context. From my previous role as vice chairman of the municipal executive board, I am well acquainted with the municipality's responsibility in total defense. It is all of us, not just the military, who shall together defend the country. In order for us to be able to do that, schools and healthcare facilities must function. That they now risk falling into the hands of foreign interests is unacceptable. It is not least for that reason that we demand the government act as soon as possible.

We do not have time to wait and see. Just last year, SBB sold community properties for a value of 16 billion, completely outside of our collective control. Today, the government also lacks the possibility to step in and act in the interest of the realm in similar upcoming deals.

Vänsterpartiet proposes that the state shall have a right of first refusal on properties that are of security policy interest. The model we propose is approximately the same as the one that applies for housing cooperatives. It applies in the event that the property owner wishes to sell their rental property further, i.e., a so-called right of first refusal. In that way, the state does not enter into a speculation carousel that risks driving up prices, but it simultaneously guarantees that market prices will apply if we choose to exercise our right of first refusal.

This needs to be done right now, to ensure that our community properties are not sold to foreign powers or to even more unserious speculators than SBB.

Having good schools, healthcare, and care in peacetime is a must in order to be able to meet the total defense's needs in times of crisis and war. If the government does not manage the task, it is time to submit its resignation and let others, who are better suited to manage the state's affairs, take over.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I was quite pleased to hear that Samuel Gonzalez Westling has worked in a municipality before. I have a direct question. How do you intend to finance the massive commitment that you want to impose on the public sector? If one is familiar with municipal finances, one knows that when municipalities divest properties, it is usually because they need to free up space in their income statement and balance sheet in order to be able to make new investments.

There is a regulatory framework that also surrounds the municipal economy. If you have not intended to raise taxes significantly for ordinary residents or create a Greek drama with very high debts, I wonder how you intend to solve it purely financially.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is quite simple to answer how we have intended to solve it in purely financial terms. Taxes have been cut radically over the last 30 years, not least as a result of Alireza Akhondis own party's actions. It has affected the municipalities. The reason they find themselves in this situation today is, as I began by saying earlier, neoliberal market fundamentalism. We must leave it. We must ensure that the welfare system works for everyone.

We heard the Minister say earlier that the national debt is at a record low, while at the same time households have record-high debts. That is something that does not correlate here. The state must take its responsibility. I can assure the Center Party that the Left Party has well-funded, well-founded, and feasible proposals in that area.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! The Left Party obviously has a copier or a printing press in its chamber and can print an unlimited number of banknotes to finance everything between heaven and earth. But we will not escape a fact. If the member has been outside the Stockholm region, he knows that there are municipal tax rates that are at 34-35 percent. So, no brutal tax cut has actually been a matter of discussion. Sweden is still one of the countries in the world with the highest taxation. The Left Party forgets all that most of the time.

I did not receive an answer to my question. Given the circumstances that exist, I wonder what concrete solutions Vänsterpartiet has, instead of just standing here and saying that everything will be fine with more communism in Sweden.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I live in the municipality that has the second highest tax in Sweden. I do not need to be given a lecture on how it works in a municipality. I have been involved in governing that municipality.

The reason it is the case is that taxes have been lowered at the state level for the very wealthiest. In a municipality, where we live together with and see people every day, we must hear the needs that they express and ensure that it works. Then we must raise the tax at the municipal level. It is not optimal. But when the state acts as it does, in the name of market fundamentalism and in the name of the Center Party, it becomes that way.

Vänsterpartiet has other proposals. I suggest that Alireza Akhondi reads our proposals instead of standing here and mocking strange occurrences. It is completely impossible to answer.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! It is quite simple to state problems. Finding solutions is considerably more difficult. In this speech, I therefore want to focus a little bit on what paths there are forward.

We know that every crisis is a unique opportunity for development. Let us seize it! We are quite in agreement on the problems surrounding the commercial real estate sector. The high level of indebtedness must be reduced. In that case, the Riksbank must be a serious partner instead of fueling and nurturing the problem, as was done previously.

But this situation also creates opportunities to solve other related problems. Climate adaptations of the properties ensure that operating costs are lowered. It is an example of a way forward. We shall also, given the demographic development in Sweden, ensure that we build and equip ourselves for the future.

I would like to take the opportunity to address Minister Niklas Wykman. When we have debates here in the chamber, there is a great deal of talk about inflation. I have all the respect for that. As an economist, I understand that there are enormous risks that this persists and creates new problems.

But there are serious problems both in the municipal sector, regarding its financing, and in the real estate sector, with high interest rates and so on. A solution that one could take is to significantly lower the employer contributions. It does not fuel inflation. And we actually solve the societal challenges that we have ahead of us in the near future. It also creates stability in the sector that we are now debating.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is important to emphasize that the responsibility to manage the situation that the real estate sector finds itself in lies primarily with the market, the companies operating there, and their owners. It is part of the conditions of business that when companies do well, they make good profits, but there are also risks to manage, and it is not the state's responsibility to primarily clean up the consequences of poorly functioning business models.

At the same time, and with knowledge of our historical experiences, it is however important that the government follows the developments closely and is ready to act to safeguard Swedish security interests, financial stability, and the taxpayers' money, which Minister Wykman also clarified.

Regarding the strategic aspect that I mentioned earlier, it is the Christian Democrats' position that properties where public activities are conducted still have a certain strategic importance, this for two reasons.

One thing is the flexibility, that is to say, being able to develop and adapt the premises to the operational needs that exist now and perhaps in the future.

The second is the economic stewardship where this may be necessary in the short term. In the longer term, as reports from Kommuninvest and others have shown, it is however usually cheaper to arrange financing oneself because one can borrow more cheaply and does not have return requirements.

This is also in good line with the Christian Democratic principle of a long-term and good stewardship of our common resources and assets that we hand over to future generations.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! There is another aspect that is important to highlight in the debate beyond the purely economic aspect that I raised in my previous speech and which several of the speakers before me have also touched upon, namely that we now lack control over who should take over socially important properties. These are the ones that are the focus for our part in this debate.

There has been speculation about all kinds of acquisitions by actors whom we perhaps would not primarily want to see as owners of these socially important buildings. Several municipalities are concerned about who has acquired the local school, perhaps how it will be managed going forward and how the rents will develop. In the end, it is actually not those who decide how it will turn out with that matter now that the properties must be sold off to save the companies.

SBB says that they want to sell to responsible actors. That sounds good. But it is actually completely unreasonable that we should rely on SBB's goodwill to ensure that we do not get unsuitable owners for our schools, municipal buildings, and even the defense regiments.

I really hope that the government realizes that action must be taken. One cannot be passive when it concerns this type of serious events. It is about our national interests and our public operations. They should not have to deal with unserious property owners, and it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the public interests are actually taken seriously in this situation.

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! I shall refer briefly to what Marielle Lahti was touching upon. It is not only these properties, a regiment, and so on, that we must discuss, but the question is why this could have happened – how a professional, incredibly driven, and certainly also media-wise unusually skilled investor travels around to municipalities and less professional property owners.

We cannot underestimate the risk of crony corruption. I am not talking about political crony corruption, because there is also other. I have served on the Finance Committee for many years, and for a politician, there are huge risks and temptations surrounding handling and making decisions if one is not careful. This applies especially now when there are so many EU issues that make it a bit tricky to be an amateur. It is difficult to always see through what is going on and act as both buyer and seller.

I believe there must be a discussion about, for example, local media. They are not managing this – it is quite obvious. How could SBB go around and buy properties in such a speculative manner in municipality after municipality, year after year, over a rather short period of time in and of itself, without anyone reacting? Dagens industri has huge articles, but they concern national interests. They concern Sweden, not parts of Sweden.

There is more to say; we may have to return.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has had years of deficient or poor policy. Now, we also have war in our vicinity. We have high inflation. This puts pressure on households and on companies. This is something we as a government have to manage.

When it comes to the commercial real estate sector, there are companies in great need of reducing debt and risk. There are tangible risks that this could spread to other real estate companies, but there are also stakeholders in the regular established market. For the process that now needs to take place, it is a welcome message from this debate that there is broad support for not adding risk or uncertainty.

This government is always ready to act for financial stability, for the taxpayers, and for Sweden's security. But it is also about acting preventatively. Now we have placed before the Riksdag that we shall examine foreign direct investments, and we have made decisions on new planning of new regiments under state authority. This government is always ready to act.

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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