Response to interpellation 2023/24:427 on the review of the ordinance on the management of state properties
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the review of the ordinance on the management of state properties. M believes that state funds should be used efficiently and that property management should be cost-effective 1. M argues that agencies are responsible for their own premises and that more agencies can have state premises without regulatory changes 2 3. M believes that agencies can be trusted to make independent decisions 3 and that the solution could be robust ownership through a professional state property management 4. M emphasizes that the investigation into municipal right of first refusal is part of the work against crime 3. S believes that the state has a responsibility to review the management to increase resilience against organized crime 5. S argues that vulnerabilities exist in lease agreements with private property owners 5 and that the government previously appointed several investigations into the area 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Ingela Nylund Watz has asked me if I consider there to be reason to conduct a review of the ordinance (1993:527) on the management of state properties, etc., in order to counter the risks of similar situations to that regarding Södertälje District Court occurring in the future.
Initially, I want to say that it is important that state funds are used in an efficient manner and that it is clear how the funds are distributed. The government's direction for the state property management is that it shall be cost-effective as well as provide equivalent return and service in comparison with other alternatives.
At the beginning of the 1990s, a new form of governance was introduced in the state administration, where detailed budget control was replaced by goal- and result-oriented management. Responsibility and authority were delegated to the agencies. In parallel, changes were carried out in the organization of the state's management of properties and premises. The changes aimed at more efficient resource utilization within the agencies and more efficient property and asset management for the state as a whole. The Riksdag decided on a number of guidelines that formed the basis for the changes, including that property management shall be separated from the use of premises. These guidelines are the starting point for the government's goals for the area.
State property management takes place partly in a number of agencies and partly in a number of wholly-owned limited companies. The Government decides which agencies shall manage properties and determines the scope of the management mandate for each property management agency.
Within the framework of the resources that an agency has at its disposal, the agency may enter into the lease and rental agreements it needs for its operations. This means that an agency is responsible for its own premises supply and can choose to enter into agreements with both state and non-state landlords. Naturally, a socially important activity should not end up in rental conditions that could pose risks to the operation. The agency's management is responsible to the government for the operation and shall, among other things, ensure that it is conducted efficiently and in accordance with applicable law and that the agency manages the state's funds prudently.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
The background to my interpellation is that Dagens Nyheter on January 29 presented an article about the ownership conditions in Södertälje District Court, which was previously owned by a fairly large listed company but was sold on to a significantly smaller, local company which turned out to have special connections to a corporate group. The newspaper could also report that this corporate group had a direct connection to a person who is identified as a key person in the so-called Södertälje network. The person in question is currently being investigated for extensive economic crime.
The DN article also describes what types of cases the district courts are now increasingly being asked to handle. It is more serious crimes, human trafficking, extortion, welfare crimes, and all possible types of heavy crime that the district courts now handle. In the case of Södertälje District Court, this is done with the knowledge that the property owner has access to facts regarding the condition of the premises, floor plans, technical installations, and so on. It is deeply unsatisfactory.
Domstolsverket, which has signed a lease agreement with the private property owner, has tried to get out of this but has not succeeded. To date, the company has received 45 million kronor in rent. Last year, the company made a profit withdrawal of 12 million.
It is against that background that Södertälje Municipality, among other things, strongly pushes the issue of reintroducing municipal right of first refusal. But let me leave that aside. That is not what the interpellation is about.
Just as the Minister describes, the rules for the state's real estate management were introduced in the early 90s, under the Bildt government. The major, underlying main principle in those changes was that a distinction should be made between the ownership of state real estate and the use of real estate, premises, and land. In practice, it is now only a few designated agencies that are allowed to own state real estate. This means that quite a lot of state activity is conducted in premises that are rented on the commercial, private real estate market.
I am not saying that it is always wrong. However, the recent developments show that economic crime is trying to take an increasingly clear grip on a long series of activities that are vital for society's functions. Against that background, I think there is reason to consider whether there is also reason to look at, for example, how the state manages its properties.
I have no desire to have any particularly heated or exhausting discussion about this here and now, but I think there is reason to consider whether the state cannot do something here. We can review our own responsibility for how we manage our properties.
I am a bit confused. I listened to the Minister for Justice on the same day the article in DN was published. At that time, I still thought the Minister for Justice was quite open to, for example, reintroducing some type of limited municipal right of first refusal in order to reduce, among other things, the risks of organized crime. If the government has that as an ambition, I imagine that it will also have effects on how one views the management of the state-owned properties.
I would like to get a clarification here. Does the government want to do anything about this field? Is there any plan for how we can counteract economic crime also entering the local real estate market across our country?
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ingela Nylund Watz, for the interpellation!
This is of course important. I believe that everyone who is not a criminal themselves is of the opinion that crime has bitten far too deep into the Swedish body of society.
I will not comment on individual cases and do not intend to do so. But it is clear that the question is raised among most of us; how could it become like this? Ingela Nylund Watz herself points out that something happened in 2016. It became a business, and the local authorities lease it. The owner was changed. What questions did the government at the time ask regarding that? How did one react to that type of information? Did one, for example, ask questions to the authority? Did anything happen?
Or was it like with so much else, that there wasn't really a particularly large reaction? We have had very many problems in Sweden, for example with the population registration and the coordination numbers. It was pointed out time and again that things were about to happen in Sweden that would harm Sweden. But so little happened generally.
Now, on the contrary, it has happened more and more all the time. We need to push back crime in Sweden. Investigation of local pre-emption rights is one thing that can be considered. It might not solve it. It is not actually what Ingela Nylund Watz has asked about either, but that concerned specifically the management of state properties. If one is to straighten things out a bit, I am not entirely sure that one, if one sat down and talked for a while, would come to the conclusion that it was the key. It is about somewhat different things, in fact.
There are many state actors that provide real estate. There are companies. As we have discussed, Specialfastigheter is one such example. There are also others. There are also state agencies whose main mission is to provide real estate. Statens fastighetsverk is the obvious example. And Fortifikationsverket exists for other types of needs.
It is the individual agency that decides which premises it chooses to rent. Just as Ingela Nylund Watz points out, some agencies may own their own premises, and others must rent their premises. However, it is not the same as saying that these may not be state-owned, municipal, regional, or otherwise owned by the public. They are very much allowed to do so.
Given the social development we have had, it could of course happen that several authorities would think that the state would be a good party for this. One could also think that other private actors would be better in different ways. That does not, however, mean that one should go from that to concluding that it would be best for them to own their own premises.
It is two slightly different questions. There are two different ordinances here. It is both 1993:527 and 1993:528 - it becomes a bit technical. Ingela Nylund Watz will probably conclude that perhaps a few more authorities should have a few more state premises. I interpret the interpellant's intention in that way. I am convinced that one can reach that conclusion without reaching the conclusion that precisely this ordinance should be changed.
One can still be of the opinion that it might be better if Statens fastighetsverk, Specialfastigheter, or some form of state body specialized in real estate operates the property while one rents space there. That conclusion can be reached without wanting to change the ordinance.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the comments to my questions!
We can have a different discussion regarding cause and effect in the matter of how we have received widespread organized economic crime in Sweden. That is a different debate.
What I am trying to do here is to raise a perspective where the state has a special responsibility by virtue of being the one responsible for the management of state properties. One possible entry point for the government is to look at whether there is reason to review how we manage our properties, whether something there allows us, from an administrative measure or change in a regulatory framework, to prevent and improve the resilience against such a thing happening again.
The Minister may interpret me however he wishes. I have no fixed opinion here. I have only noted that we have a regulatory framework for state properties that has existed since the beginning of the 90s. We have been in complete agreement on that. Over the last 30 years, we have also been in agreement on the few changes that have been made to that regulatory framework.
I do not want to blame any specific government for one thing or the other. I am only stating that when such a situation arises, it shows flagrantly that there are vulnerabilities in how our operations, for example through a lease agreement with a private, commercial property owner, can end up poorly. In that case, I feel that we as legislators, as those responsible for the regulatory frameworks, have an obligation to see if it is an entry point where we can tweak the system to increase our resilience.
After what happened with the District Court in Södertälje and it became public, some eyebrows have been raised regarding the fact that we have not had a better evaluation of both the economic and security aspects of how the state manages its properties. There is reason to take that criticism or those reflections seriously.
We can reflect on whether previous governments should have done things in a better way. But I think that, most of all, now that the example has been uncovered, there is every reason for the government to consider whether this is also an entry point that should be taken advantage of. Is there anything we can do here?
I have no fixed opinion on whether the state should own more or fewer properties. I just want us to look over if there is anything more we can do. We are completely in agreement that this type of crime is not only unpleasant, causes a lot of trouble, and drains welfare systems and other systems of money, but is also system-threatening. For that reason, I think there is reason to take this most seriously.
I must return to the minister's statement that Strömmer made in connection with the publication of this article. I am well aware that there are different approaches to this issue and I share the minister's view in that regard. But does it not still hang together? How does the minister view this? If the government moves forward with limited pre-emption rights for the state or the municipalities, or both, does that not also affect the need to review the management of the state's properties?
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! I am pleased by and welcome Ingela Nylund Watz's position that more should have been done earlier. I am convinced that it is a feeling that Ingela Nylund Watz and I share with large parts of the Swedish population. Something happened in Swedish society, the political system, or with the previous government – wherever one wants to place the responsibility. People did not wake up to this, but it continued for far too long before one began to take action on it.
Now we are taking on this. There is a very big difference compared to how it was a number of years ago. Back then, one tried to downplay the problems and did not want to be held accountable for the concerns. Now it is the opposite; one wants to put the spotlight on the concerns and problems that exist in order to then solve them. That does not mean that all problems will be able to be solved at once. Our procrastination in Sweden has caused some of these problems to be allowed to grow really large and penetrate deeply into society. It will take time to remedy them.
Regarding Ingela Nylund Watz's question, which I referred to the Minister for Justice's previous statements, my assessment is that it relates to the investigation we have commissioned regarding pre-emptive purchase opportunities for municipalities. That includes a mandate to review this in the context of organized crime. It is a part of this that one can work with.
I tried to answer Ingela Nylund Watz's concrete question about whether more agencies should be given the opportunity to own their premises and if that is the solution to this. My preliminary assessment could be that it might be taking a detour, because we already have many state actors - both companies and agencies - that manage properties. There is nothing preventing agencies today from being tenants of them. It is an option, and it would not require any such type of change.
One should not engage in government oversight, so that is of course not what I intend to do, but broadly in society, many of us probably need to think more about what we do and how we act in our daily lives. We see this, for example, when it comes to fraud which, in particular, affects the elderly. A different, new type of vigilance is needed - unfortunately. It is regrettable and sad.
If this then leads to a need to reduce the authorities' freedom of action, or if they can be entrusted with assessing and analyzing the new social climate that we unfortunately do have, and making independent decisions even in the future, it is in that case my main assessment that they can do the latter.
There is not just one regulation that governs all of this. We have the Budget Act regarding efficiency, the Government Agency Ordinance which governs how things should be managed, and the ordinances on the management of state properties and on government agencies' premises supply. They are precisely about how agencies should act. We also have the Security Protection Act, which specifies how one needs to behave in certain situations, and the Security Protection Ordinance. There are surely a number more laws and regulations. There is quite a lot here.
If what happened in 2016 had happened now, perhaps there would have been some response in the form of people starting to reflect or ask control questions to the authority or from the government's side, but for some reason, that was not done then. This insight was therefore needed broadly across the entire society - we can agree on that. But whether the solution to these problems is some form of regulatory change, or if it would even be necessary, is not obvious.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for further comments! We should be honest with each other and say that the Social Democratic government appointed a number of inquiries in this area. One of them concerns the municipal right of first refusal. There, the new government has issued a supplementary directive.
The Social Democratic government also appointed an inquiry concerning treating tenants in a fairer way during property transfers. We also appointed an inquiry on confidentiality provisions and other matters. The Minister is trying to paint a picture that no actions have been taken previously, but that is not true. Let us be honest and sincere about that! Much of what has been decided on in recent years is such that there has been broad agreement in this chamber.
The Minister has not taken my question in the interpellation in quite the right way, I believe. It is very specific. It concerns the management of state properties, and I point to a certain regulation. I respect that the Minister says that perhaps that specific regulation is not the most important thing to look at, but now I am trying to broaden the discussion to mean that there are several entry points into the issue. I hope that we can reach an agreement on that.
I am completely certain that regardless of whether one wants to make changes to this regulation or not, a discussion was needed to review the state's role as a property owner and how we should create resilience against economic crime. Whether it should happen in a context like this or in connection with something else, I will leave unsaid – but I do not believe the Minister can escape the question. We need to review how the operations are faring and what risks there are with the properties that the state is responsible for. I do not think the Minister will be able to escape that.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Mr. Speaker! Since I took office as Minister, I have tried to work with the state's real estate holdings. There are more examples than this where there are, or were, significant question marks surrounding a number of things. Regiments are an example where large parts under previous governments could be in commercial properties or rented premises. I quickly took the initiative that state regiments should have state premises. It is my assessment that it is a self-evident matter that one should do so in a country. Other governments may have reasoned differently on that point.
I agree with Ingela Nylund Watz regarding the direction of this. Fundamentally, I believe there is a great consensus that something needs to be done. The question is whether it is a task that needs to take place within the agencies in the same way as it needs to take place broadly in society, where one reviews their security and their routines given the social climate, or if there is any limitation in the legislation.
What Ingela Nylund Watz points out in her question, as I understand it, is whether more state agencies should be allowed to own and operate their own premises. I do not mean that this is a necessary change. We could very well have robust ownership and provision of premises via a state, professional property management, such as Statens fastighetsverk. State agencies can then rent, and at the same time, the dividing line between operations and premises ownership and premises management is maintained.
It is not certain that the solution is that all government agencies are also property managers. That is my point with this. Furthermore, I am completely convinced that we can reach a broad consensus on how this should roughly look. Then there will surely always be exceptions and deviations when one, for example, temporarily needs larger premises. It will probably never be an exact science, but that we are to work in that direction, I believe we agree on, and I am glad about that.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.