Response to interpellations 2024/25:281 and 296 on the sell-off of state-owned companies

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked me which state-owned companies I assess should be sold during the current mandate period. Isak From has posed two questions to me: firstly, whether I have initiated an analysis of how the strengthening of the state treasury after the sale of Svensk Bilprovning AB will improve the availability of registration inspections in rural areas and if I can, in that case, report the results of the analysis; secondly, whether I have initiated an analysis of how the sale will affect the price structure for vehicle inspections in rural counties and if I can, in that case, report the results of the analysis.

I want to start by correcting an inaccuracy in Linus Sköld's background description. That I was supposed to have said that the government intends to sell more state-owned companies is not correct.

For the state as an active and professional owner, it involves continuously reviewing the reasons for continued state ownership as well as considering the companies' various missions and directions. To sell state-owned companies, the Riksdag's authorization is required. It is only when the government assesses that there are conditions for a sale of all or parts of the state's holdings of shares in a state-owned company that the government would, in that case, return to the Riksdag on the issue.

Regarding the vehicle inspection market, it has been a competitive market with a number of large actors for several years now. The sale is therefore assessed to have no impact on the availability of inspections in rural areas.

Accessibility to inspection is an ongoing supervisory task for the Transport Agency within the framework of its mandate to exercise supervision over the vehicle inspection market. In its report on the vehicle inspection market 2023, the agency assesses that the Swedish vehicle inspection market as a whole functions well regarding accessibility.

In 2010, the then-incumbent Alliance government opened up the market for vehicle inspection. The criticism was extensive, but the alleged negative effects of the reform did not materialize. The biggest change was that the number of stations increased significantly and accessibility improved. In other words, state ownership is obviously not required to ensure a well-functioning vehicle inspection market.

The Swedish vehicle inspection market will even after the sale consist of five actors: Opus, Besikta, Carspect, Dekra and Bilprovningen/TÜV Rheinland. TÜV Rheinland is, just like Bilprovningen before the sale and other actors on the vehicle inspection market, a commercial actor that operates on market terms in a fully competitive market. The competition situation is therefore not expected to be affected by the transaction.

Regarding the price structure, there are several market mechanisms that affect inspection prices, for example, the companies' historical interest in expansion, the occupancy at the stations, and the customer's possibility to travel outside their local area for inspection. Market mechanisms can mean that it becomes more expensive or cheaper to inspect one's car. As I just said, however, the competitive situation is not expected to be affected by the transaction.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would begin by outlining the background to my interpellation. The background is that the state owns a number of companies, specifically 43 after the government sold Bilprovningen. In 2023, they turned over approximately 500 billion together. The estimated value of the state's corporate portfolio was then 800 billion, and the companies distributed approximately 22.5 billion in profit to the state.

Why should the state own companies at all? One obvious reason to own together is that one profits from the ownership together. That we together own companies that provide services and control natural resources means that we can share in the returns on those resources together.

The second reason is that state-owned companies can operate in the service of society. Systembolaget is a good example of a state-owned company that definitely has a social mandate, as it is called. Other companies could also have one. For example, SBAB could have played a role when the Finance Minister himself said during the years of inflation that the banking market obviously was not functioning. A social mandate for SBAB to ensure that competition in the banking market becomes better could have solved the issue of the profits that the banks took from the difference between deposits and lending.

Well! Let's go back to the last time the Moderaterna were in government. During their eight years in power, the Alliance government sold state-owned companies to a value of 164 billion kronor. Then the Socialdemokraterna won power. When the Moderaterna tried to regain it, Lars Hjälmered, who is now responsible state secretary to the Minister for Finance, said in Aftonbladet in May 2018 that Telia and SBAB would be sold upon an election victory. In August 2022, that is before this election period, the current Prime Minister said in Dagens industri that the state will, of course, own as few companies as possible.

In November, Bilprovningen was sold. Shortly after that, Dagens ETC reported from a MUF meeting and reproduced what the Finance Minister had said as follows: During a question period, a MUF representative asks which state-owned company is next in line after the billion-kronor sale of Bilprovningen, a deal that the opposition has criticized. Svantesson hesitates to answer concretely, as she does not want to influence the market, but says that the government is now reviewing more state-owned companies that may come to be sold. I do not think, for example, that it is obvious that the state should own a bank, says the Finance Minister.

This prompted my written question, which is also the origin of this interpellation. The Minister for Finance has now twice dismissed my description, having stated that more state-owned companies are to be sold. Does the reporting in Dagens ETC not correspond with what the Minister for Finance said?

The central question is: Which state-owned companies shall be sold during the current mandate period?

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

Isak From (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer.

The government has sold out Bilprovningen. The Social Democrats deplore this. It is a central service for the citizens that stems from society's requirements. We fundamentally do not think it is appropriate for private companies to operate it. But ever since 2008, it has been a reality. Now the government chooses to sell out the remaining parts.

Just as the National Audit Office reported in 2021, the price picture after the sales that took place has turned out to have increased. It is also reported that the differences between the establishments when it comes to where new car inspections have established themselves are large. More inspection stations have established themselves in larger central locations. This has increased the availability, primarily for ordinary car inspections.

My question also originated from the registration inspection. When one looks at that, one sees that for the more costly parts of an inspection, the accessibility has not increased to any significant extent at all across the country.

My question was based on the 1.2 billion that the state is now collecting from the sale of Bilprovningen to the German TÜV Rheinland. How will the Swedish car owners and vehicle owners share in this?

Will it mean that the stations where Bilprovningen has been alone, including five stations in the interior of Västerbotten, will face further increased competition? It has not increased the competition so far. It has not increased the availability of, for example, registration inspections so far.

I understand that one sells such a well-managed company. Svensk Bilprovning had the strongest Sustainable Brand Index in 2023. Of all companies in Sweden, it ranked at number 67. It was overwhelmingly the best among all inspection companies. It is clear that it perhaps resulted in getting paid a bit better. But again: How does it benefit Swedish vehicle owners living in the inland of Norrland?

I see what the Minister for Finance said in his response: "Regarding the price structure, there are several market mechanisms that affect the inspection prices, for example, the companies' historical interest in expansion." It has not been particularly large. The expansion has been carried out in larger urban areas.

The Minister also mentioned "occupancy at the stations and the customer's opportunity to travel outside their local area." This means that in his answer, the Minister for Finance says that in the interior of Norrland, one can expect to travel even further to have their vehicle inspected.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to pause a little extra on just SBAB. It is one of the companies that has been singled out a bit extra as interesting to sell. It is also a company that is extra interesting for the Swedish people to own.

SBAB helps to press down interest costs for Swedish homeowners. It has done so during its existence since it was started in 1985 and then in the 90s when it entered the open market.

We all know what enormous profits the banks are making. Without that price pressure, there is actually no reason to believe that they would not increase [them] at the expense of Swedish homeowners.

It also naturally brings in some crowns to the state, because SBAB, despite being able to press down interest costs, also makes a profit of approximately 1 billion per year. It is not small change.

We have known from before what happens when the state sells companies. This applies, for example, to when Vin & Sprit AB was sold. What a bad deal that became for the Swedish state! The buyers could pick out the finest pieces from Vin & Sprit AB and sell them for more than what they had bought the entire company for. Those risks are imminent when we talk about such profitable activities as a bank. Here we have the chance to support the whole society by continuing to own a bank instead of constantly worrying both homeowners and others that this will disappear.

Large loans and borrowing costs are often pointed out as one of the major problems for Swedish growth. When interest rates rose now in the fight against inflation, it hit Swedish citizens who have loans enormously hard. Many have variable-rate loans and are therefore affected very directly. This is news to no one.

Here we have a company that we own together which can counteract this without actually disturbing the market. We can all in Sweden benefit from keeping the interest rates down and perhaps also, in the best case, keep the tax down a bit by continuing to own the company and receiving the profits from it.

That the Minister for Finance has previously been out and campaigning to sell it is why it is extremely distressing. I hope that today we could receive a reassuring answer to all those who are dependent on and affected by the interest costs in Sweden. It is an answer that it is not current, but that we want to continue to have a common bank for mortgage loans and ensure that we improve the mortgage market with what we can.

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to my colleagues who have taken the initiative for this very important debate!

I might have, in my simplicity, thought that we in Sweden had learned from the historical mistakes we have made. It has been sell-off after sell-off and deregulation after deregulation. I would have thought that we had learned that we need a strong society where people's best interests come first. But time and again, I am nevertheless surprised by the government's actions.

Most recently, it concerns the decision regarding the sale of Svensk Bilprovning AB. It is a company that has been in the state portfolio for many decades. It is a decision that can have major consequences for ordinary people's wallets and the accessibility of vehicle inspections.

It is for this reason that I have been able to read with some horror that the Minister has expressed that the government intends to sell off more state-owned companies in the coming period. This naturally creates some concern. Which state-owned companies does the Minister intend, and when will the next sale come like a bolt from the blue?

A company that is in the state's corporate portfolio and that could be considered for sale is Samhall AB. It is also a company that has been in the state's corporate portfolio for quite many years.

Samhall has a mandate to promote employment and development for persons with disabilities that entail a reduced capacity to work. The company also has an important role in promoting social inclusion and diversity in the labor market. One could describe the company as a key actor when it comes to promoting meaningful and developing work for persons with disabilities that entail a reduced capacity to work.

People with disabilities are a group in the labor market that quite often is more vulnerable than the rest of the population. They have a harder time getting a foot in the door of the labor market, and they also have a harder time keeping that foot there. People with disabilities that entail a reduced work capacity are a relatively large group in the labor market that must be taken seriously. It is as many as 11 percent of all people in the age category 16-65 years who have a disability, while approximately 8 percent in the same age category have a disability that involves a reduction of work capacity.

Among people with a disability, the labor force participation is as low as 55 percent. It is clearly a failing grade for society. More needs to be done to include these people in the labor market.

It is here that the state-owned company Samhall AB plays a completely central role. Through Samhall, we can likely ensure that more people are given a decent living situation, with a livelihood through meaningful and developing work. To then choose to get rid of the company would be deeply unfortunate.

I understand that a sale of Samhall AB will not take place tomorrow, but when one becomes aware of these potential statements, one actually becomes a little worried. I did not experience the Minister of State in the statement she just gave here in the chamber answering my colleague Linus Sköld's question regarding which companies would be divested during the coming period. I would therefore like to ask: Which state-owned companies are to be sold? Is Samhall AB one of them?

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind you that a debate is ongoing in the chamber. If one wishes to speak with colleagues, it must therefore be done very quietly.

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates have for a long time dreamed of selling out. At the beginning of the 2000s, a list was drafted with over 30 companies that they wanted to get rid of. These included, among others, Apoteket, Samhall, Svenska Spel, Bilprovningen, Telia and SJ. At that time, they even wanted to sell out the Öresund Bridge.

When the Moderates took power in 2006, they turned their plans into reality. Together with the other parties in the alliance government, they made a joint list of a number of state-owned companies that were to be sold off.

Several companies were also sold. In some cases, entire companies were sold and in other cases parts of companies. State property was sold, in several cases at below-market prices. These were companies that had played an important role in the market where they had been active and which at the same time had delivered good revenues to the state treasury.

Since 2006, the state's revenues from the corporate portfolio have more than halved due to divestments. The state's main purpose in owning and operating companies is perhaps not, as said, to make money. But it cannot be ignored that the dividends to the state have significantly decreased due to divestments.

There must, of course, be good reasons for state ownership of companies. I can mention a few examples. It is about guaranteeing important public services throughout the country, securing important infrastructure, breaking up dominance in the market, and countering unhealthy competition. In the business description for state-owned companies, the Minister for Finance himself writes that the state-owned companies contribute to stability in crises, counter unhealthy competition, and deliver to all of Sweden.

We have jointly owned companies to safeguard common interests. But with the Moderaternas previous eagerness to sell off in mind, it is natural to wonder which companies they want to sell now that they have regained government power. On that list, there are a number of companies remaining that are not sold.

Now the Minister for Finance claims that there is no plan for divestment, but it is difficult to see that this is true. Recently, the last share of Bilprovningen was sold. There is an authorization to sell, for example, Lernia AB. And the old idea of selling SBAB seems to live on.

Overall, this raises a number of questions. Are there more companies that the Minister for Finance believes do not belong in the state corporate portfolio? Is the list as long now as it was previously? How many companies does one want to sell off?

In what way does the Minister for Finance mean that the societal interests that can no longer be met through state ownership can be met after a sale of a state-owned company? How should one act to safeguard the common interests? How does one imagine, for example, that competition on the mortgage market will be increased if SBAB is sold?

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden finds itself in a situation where we have the highest unemployment in ten years. Sweden is among the countries in Europe that have the absolute worst growth. At the same time, many companies testify that they have difficulty finding the right competence for their growing and developing companies.

In such a situation, the state-owned company Lernia AB can play an important role by helping with skills exchange, education, and matching in the labor market, so that we get more people into jobs and achieve increased growth in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance initially mentioned that an authorization from the Riksdag is required for the government to be able to sell a state-owned company. Currently, such an authorization exists, and it concerns Lernia AB.

My question to the Minister for Finance is, of course: Is there any work currently underway at the Ministry of Finance so that a decision can be made to sell Lernia AB?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first say that it is a somewhat scattered debate, but it is always pleasant to be able to include many different subjects in one and the same debate.

One can look at the question of state ownership a bit more generally. There can be many reasons why the state owns companies. There can be a history behind the state having an ownership. There can therefore also be many reasons why one sells companies or chooses not to sell companies. Sometimes it is about the advantage of being able to reduce the national debt.

One can develop the business with private ownership - I will come back to that. It has actually made a very big difference. But the one who always thinks that the state is the best owner will never think that it is better for private actors to develop the business.

My and many others' perception in this chamber has historically been and is today that the state can very well reach the important goals that several have spoken about from the rostrum. Let me say that I agree with some of the things that the Social Democrats have said from the rostrum. Much of this we do through laws and regulations of different markets. I believe that is a much, much better arrangement than the state owning everything.

One can then go into the different parts of the debate. There is something that can be mentioned in this context. When it comes to SBAB, from a Social Democratic perspective here in the rostrum, one speaks about the concern for the mortgage customers. At the same time, nothing is mentioned about the mortgage tax, Madam Speaker. It may be good for those listening to the debate to know that the Social Democrats, budget after budget, propose a mortgage tax, that is to say a tax on the banks that will be passed on to the mortgage customers.

We inherited the high inflation from the previous Social Democratic government. This led to very high interest rates for everyone who has a mortgage. Now, from this government's side, we have pushed this down. It has made a big difference for people.

There are, therefore, things to be done, both through regulations and through political decisions, to ensure that mortgage customers get a more manageable existence.

Madam Speaker! We can talk about car owners and delve into Bilprovningen, which the debate began with. Let us look at the different parts. It is actually in such a way that this has led to us more than tripling the number of stations.

Isak From mentions rural areas and the countryside. I think these are important issues, Madam Speaker. It is something that I have worked with during all my years in this chamber. It is about standing up for the countryside, the rural areas, and Norrland, and about ensuring that everyone who is dependent on a car every day has reasonable opportunities.

There have been more stations. It is three times as many as before the deregulation. 97 percent of the citizens have received closer access to an inspection than they had before. When it comes to the sparsely populated rural municipalities, the distance to the nearest station has actually decreased. It has become better in the rural areas.

What has truly made a big difference for the car owners here in our constituency, mine and Isak From's, is that they actually can afford to fuel the car, Madam Speaker. When the Social Democrats handed over government power, a liter of diesel cost 28 kronor. Now we are down to 18 kronor. That is 10 kronor cheaper per liter. I believe that more people care about that. But let us continue to have that debate.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that I may return. I will not have time to raise all the arguments now. Therefore, I will return in the next round.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! The interpellants have raised an important issue regarding the state-owned companies, and I also, by reason of the discussion and debate here in the chamber, wish to ask the Minister for Finance what the situation is regarding the state-owned companies. There seems to be an ideological will to sell off right now, probably contrary to the will of the people, which rather concerns ensuring that order and clarity are established in operations all around Sweden.

One of the issues that many in Sweden hold close to their hearts is that we should continue to be a leading nation in the green transition. In that regard, we have state-owned companies that have been hubs in this important transition. I am thinking, among other things, of Vattenfall, which together with SSAB and LKAB has established the HYBRIT collaboration, the first initiative for fossil-free steel production, something that I believe everyone in Sweden is very proud of. It is one of the major, revolutionary industrial developments that has occurred in recent years and also something of a flagship for Sweden.

My question to the Minister for Finance is, of course, whether there is an interest in selling off this important state-owned company that makes important contributions both for fossil-free electricity and when it comes to leading the green transition – both for the sake of the Swedish people and in a leadership that matters globally.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats sold off four companies during the last two parliamentary terms. So far, the government has sold one. The score is therefore 4-1. Perhaps one can sometimes try to present a picture that corresponds a bit more with reality.

I believe and think that it was done because it was not obvious that precisely these four companies should be in state ownership. It is not a completely unreasonable thought that there is some activity that others can do just as well or better. That is my basic attitude and has been for a long time.

Mr. Speaker! I have the pleasure of being responsible for the state-owned companies. It is a fantastic portfolio with a breadth of activities that provide great benefit to people. Samhall has a special social mission and provides very great benefit both for the people who get their employment there and through the services that are provided. The list can be long of companies that are fantastic.

My colleague Edward Riedl has mentioned the arguments regarding Bilprovningen. I have mentioned them here before. With that deregulation, we suddenly got better accessibility. It was the Social Democrats who were against it. The Social Democrats were also against it, Mr. Speaker, when it became a bit easier to get hold of a headache tablet, that is to say, that there wasn't just one pharmacy somewhere far away. We deregulated, and now there are many more pharmacies.

Some think it is good; others seem to think it is bad. Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages to both, and I have great respect for that. But that I, as a Moderate at a Moderate Youth League meeting, have said what is no secret at all, namely that I fundamentally do not think the state should own a bank, is no surprise. I have thought that for a very long time. I also thought that before the financial crisis. At that time, SBAB was very aggressive in its marketing of loans. I was very provoked by how aggressive they were. Now I have the privilege of also having this bank in the corporate portfolio and have a closer collaboration with them.

What do I want to say with this, Mr. Speaker? Yes, that we have sold a company. The Social Democrats have sold four. For me, it is not self-evident that all companies should be owned by the state, but many are, and so they will continue to be. It is quite self-evident.

And to say the obvious: Do not frighten people who are employed at Samhall! I think even bringing up that question shows a certain immaturity. There are over 20,000 people employed there who do a fantastic job. I was responsible for the operations when I was Minister for Employment, and now I am responsible for the company itself. I believe we have a responsibility together.

It is of course fun that we get to have some ideological debates about state ownership. The challenge for you is just that, so far, you have actually sold more than I have.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! If we start where the Finance Minister finished, sales totaling 164 billion were carried out, as stated, during the Alliance government on no fewer than nine occasions over eight years. If one is to compare, perhaps one should compare in a fair way.

Well! If we look at the situation we find ourselves in now, it is, I think, quite obvious to everyone listening to the debate that there are ideological reasons for the contradictions between Edward Riedl and the Finance Minister on one hand and the Social Democratic group here in the chamber on the other.

Before the 2022 election, the Christian Democrats told Dagens industri that during the coming four years, one should sell Svevia, Infranord, SBAB, Green Cargo and Jernhusen. The Liberals said that one should sell Lernia, Svevia and Telia and that one should also be able to sell parts of Svenska Spel. The Prime Minister said, as I mentioned in my opening statement, that the state should own as few companies as possible.

There is, therefore, for this government a self-serving goal to sell off our common assets. It is not necessarily because they are evil, but it is because, ideologically speaking, they are convinced liberals who think it is better for individuals to make a fortune than for us to make money together from ownership.

Since then, it has been a mystery to me that the Minister for Finance cannot even answer the question. During this parliamentary term, as recently as last autumn, Bilprovningen was sold. After that, I have tried to ask the question in writing, but since I received no answer to it, I have submitted an interpellation.

It is obvious that the government parties together, possibly with the exception of the Sweden Democrats, want to sell off more state-owned companies. Doesn't the Finance Minister think that the voters and the opposition deserve to know which companies it concerns? How difficult can it be to answer the question: Which companies does the Finance Minister assess should be sold during the current mandate period?

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker! Edward Riedl, my colleague from Västerbotten, thought from the speaker's chair that the debate was a bit muddled. Let me then remind you that it is the Finance Minister who has chosen to merge two interpellations that deal with somewhat different matters. Then it can easily become a bit muddled.

My entry point is primarily vehicle inspection, but I cannot help but mention the pharmacy. It is quite important what the pharmacy contains. Does that pharmacy have medicine? Can one get prescription medicines, or is there only cosmetics and sunscreen? Most pharmacies probably try to get hold of the medicines they can.

It is a different debate, but it still relates quite a bit to vehicle testing. What is there at these inspection stations?

Edward Riedl is from Umeå, and there one has - if I have counted correctly - at least six stations that inspect passenger cars. One has one or two that perform registration inspections for heavy vehicles.

There is no vehicle testing in Dorotea or Malå. In the interior of Västerbotten, this therefore becomes even more important. Will the stations that have been sold off in Vilhelmina and Lycksele offer registration inspection, so that the sole trader who builds truck trailers in Norsjö can drive to Lycksele and have them inspected – or for that matter, the father or the family who are going to have an A-tractor registration inspected? Can they still drive to Lycksele, eight miles from Norsjö, or do they have to travel much further? The parts that cost a little extra and require larger investments are to inspect heavy vehicles and to have a registration inspection.

I have had the Riksdag's investigation service conduct an investigation, and they referred large parts of my questions to the published Swedish National Audit Office report. In it, one can read, for example, that in Södermanland there were 5 inspection stations in 2010, and in 2023 there were 20. In Uppsala there were 5, and now there are 19. In Jämtland there were 8, and now there are 7. There it became a bit worse.

When it comes to inspection stations in the same county that inspect heavy vehicles and perform registration inspections, there were 5 stations in Södermanland in 2010. In 2023, there were 6. In Uppsala, there were 4, and now there are 5. In Västerbotten, there were actually 7, and now there are still 7. Most of them have been maintained by Svensk Bilprovning, which has now been sold.

It is therefore not particularly strange that we are a bit worried. Will these functions remain? They are still quite important for much of the business sector, for example the agricultural sector, and for ordinary people who want to have an A-tractor registered. This is about the more expensive parts that the private companies in many areas have opted out of, even in the metropolitan areas.

Mr. Speaker! It is not strange that people are worried.

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

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the Minister for Finance, for being here and answering the questions - to the best of her ability, I hope!

The Minister for Finance concluded by saying that one should not scare people who work in these companies. But that is exactly what is being done! People are being scared by hinting and whispering about the sale of various companies and not speaking plainly, as it is so nicely put. What we would need is for someone to be open and clear instead of, in some instances, saying that one thinks that, for example, SBAB is not worth keeping without saying that it could be sold. Well, yes. But is that what is wanted? It does not sound like we are going to get a straight answer today, and that is clearly worrying in itself – not only for those who work in the companies but also for those who actually benefit from the state-owned companies.

There is a common denominator for all the divestments that have occurred, whether it concerns four during the Socialdemokraternas time or one under the current Finance Minister. It is that things in general become more expensive. This applies to medicine, which we spoke about just now. It has become more expensive. Sure, it is available at Ica instead of at the pharmacy, but it is more expensive. These trade-offs, one does not seem interested in looking at or considering, but companies shall be sold off because they shall be sold off and not be owned by the state.

We can probably guess that even mortgage loans would very likely become much more expensive if SBAB were sold. Mortgage loans are one of Swedish households' largest expenses. It would therefore hit very hard if that were the case.

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

Jonathan Svensson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! The Minister said that it is not self-evident that the state should own everything, and that is indeed not the case. There are absolutely areas where the state should not be an owner. But this debate stems fundamentally from a statement that the Minister himself has made, and that we members choose to raise our concerns with the Minister, I do not think is strange.

It is a bit unfortunate that the Minister calls it immature for Members of Parliament from the largest opposition party to highlight, for example, Samhall. It is not we who have proposed that it should be sold. The Moderates proposed many years ago, in order to win the election, that Samhall AB should be sold. I still think it is worth mentioning.

It is not strange that we, as members of the Swedish Parliament and belonging to the largest opposition party, ask the Minister questions about statements she has reportedly made in the media at a national convention of the Moderate Youth League. A natural part of the Parliament's oversight power is that we, as members, can ask representatives of the government which proposals they intend to proceed with and which they do not.

Based on what the State Council said in its response, I interpret that she currently does not intend to sell Samhall AB. This is obviously reassuring for the over 20,000 employees who are there and for very many people in our country who have a disability and who may be in need of a job.

It feels reassuring that it sounds as if the state will continue to be a central actor when it comes to achieving a decent livelihood for many people through, for example, Samhall. But I must still ask the Minister if she considers that we should not use our power of control here in the Swedish Parliament. Is it simply immature?

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

Johanna Haraldsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that the Minister for Finance does not want to answer our questions regarding which companies are conceivable to sell, but she also said in her answer here in the chamber that the reasons for continued state ownership are being continuously reviewed. Therefore, I shall perhaps reformulate my question. Which companies does the Minister for Finance intend to review the reasons for continued ownership for during the current parliamentary term? Which aspects does the Minister for Finance consider important to highlight during such a review?

It is not certain that the state should have any ownership in certain industries, just as the Minister for Finance also said. One needs to examine it, therefore. But which aspects are important to look at when making an assessment of whether one should have continued ownership?

What I find a bit interesting about this debate is that our Moderate Finance Minister is pushing back and denying that one wants to sell any state-owned company at all. In that case, it is news, because it sounds as if the Moderates have left the privatization fever behind. Then one can perhaps rephrase the question like this: Can the Finance Minister promise that no more sell-offs will be carried out during this mandate period?

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Finance himself pointed out that there are private companies that can do the job better than some of the state-owned companies have done historically and that it can be a reason to sell off state-owned companies. In the next sentence, the Minister for Finance said that the pharmacies are a good example. I would like the Minister for Finance to say that to the people all around our country who either cannot get hold of their life-saving medicine at all or need to travel five, ten, fifteen, or twenty miles to get hold of their life-saving medicines.

Mr. Speaker! I am truly concerned if that is the logic behind it when the government makes an argument about which companies one might consider selling out. In that case, there is no stop and no end to which of the companies one might consider selling out.

Mr. Speaker! The last time I stood here, I asked a direct question to the Minister for Finance as to whether any work is being undertaken at the Ministry of Finance to sell off Lernia AB. It is the only state-owned company for which there is an authorization from the Riksdag for the government to sell off. The Minister for Finance ducked the question and did not answer it. A simple no or a simple yes could have been said. But, Mr. Speaker, I interpret it so that if a clear no is not said, work is simply being undertaken.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! I intend to begin my speech from another end. One can write interpellations and have debates together in the chamber, but I think the tone has much to be desired. One of the members from the Social Democrats said here from the rostrum in all seriousness: I do not believe that you are evil. Others are making foul interpretations that are completely unreasonable. I think one should be ashamed if one behaves in that way. It is not a behavior that is worthy of the voters you represent. Try to remain a bit more sensible and reasonable in the debate!

Both red and blue governments, Mr. Speaker, have made different assessments regarding whether one should have state-owned companies or whether one should sell them. The most important tool we have is, after all, still the possibility to enact laws and regulate different markets for the benefit of the citizens. We will have to do that in the future, completely regardless of whether we have state-owned companies in different markets or not.

It is good to have the concern, Mr. Speaker. But as I told the Member Isak From, the vehicle testing has not deteriorated in the way described here. I believe that the transport companies, which we are talking about, and everyone who needs to use the car were more concerned when they paid 28 kronor per liter for diesel at the time we took over government power. Now they only pay just over 18 kronor. That makes a significantly bigger difference than the few occasions when one needs to go and have the car inspected. The vast majority - 97 percent - have indeed received shorter distances to a vehicle inspection. Those who live in rural areas have received closer access to a vehicle inspection. These things simply do not add up.

Please contribute to the debate a bit!

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the debate and for being in the chamber to discuss these important issues.

Like my colleagues, I would have wished for more concrete answers on what plans exist and what wishes the Finance Minister and/or the government have. It creates insecurity and anxiety when neoliberal ideas are aired in a time that in many ways is also uncertain for the Swedish people. Many of us, when we speak with people, feel that there is a weariness regarding the sell-offs that the Moderates have made. This applies not only to the will to act in that way at the state level, but also at the municipal level. One often wants to sell off what the Swedish people have jointly invested in and cared for so that someone can quickly make a bargain. Such politics ultimately leads to Sweden becoming poorer. A few become richer and can benefit at the expense of the public.

We Social Democrats do not want to see this. We want the Swedish people's endeavor to build up successful operations and companies, but also a general welfare throughout our country, to come to them.

I took the example of Vattenfall to illustrate how important a state-owned company can be for a green transition - not to spread anxiety or fear regarding Vattenfall.

With that said, I am, just like my colleagues, very curious to hear the Finance Minister's answer.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Who is creating unrest right now?

When the Social Democrats sold four companies during the two previous terms when they were in power, it was completely obvious that we were not standing here talking about it, but it happened through a process in the Riksdag. One receives a mandate, and one discusses it. There are processes for this.

If it were the case that there was a list of ten companies that were now to be sold - which does not exist; now I do not want anyone to put such words in my mouth, for you have done so very many times - the members here in the chamber also know that we would of course speak with each other, even if not just here. I think that most of you are wise and understand this.

I mean that there is an immaturity when one spreads the image that there is a proposal to sell Samhall. Such a proposal has never existed. In that case, one has to go back to when it started, and at that time I was not even a politician. This is an example of how one creates anxiety.

For me, this is something self-evident. I speak with these fine companies every day. Yesterday, I met chairmen and CEOs. They do a fantastic job of creating prosperity and added value in different ways. This applies to everything from Göta kanalbolag to Vattenfall or Samhall. One can calmly say that it is a great breadth. We own them together, and we do so in the very best way.

It is, moreover, very flattering that all members seem to think that I am best suited to take responsibility for all of this and that it cannot be owned by anyone else. No company shall be owned by anyone other than the state.

I believe there are cases where it is not obvious, which I have mentioned previously. But just because I am moderate does not mean I think all companies should be sold. I have many times said that I do not think it is obvious that the state should own a bank; it is no secret. But that means nothing other than that I think so. One must be able to be open and transparent in that way, while at the same time, of course, one must take responsibility for these values. It is about 800 billion, which is the largest portfolio in Sweden. One cannot just slack off and lose that.

It should of course be open processes, but one must do this with caution.

I waive my final contribution. I have said what I need to say. I am happy to speak with the members over a cup of coffee if they want to know more. But right here and now, I have been clear. What happened with Bilprovningen, I believe was good – very good indeed. There are processes for how one should sell companies. If that happens, we will return to it.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Mr. Speaker! If there is anyone here who is misinterpreting, it is Edward Riedl. I in no way committed an attack on either him and his character or on the Minister for Finance and her character. On the contrary, it was an expression of an understanding that this has ideological grounds. The idea that neoliberal ideology aims to minimize the state and that the rich should be able to enrich themselves is no secret, and this was not an attack on Edward Riedl's character. So if someone is guilty of misinterpretation, it is Edward Riedl.

It is still fascinating. There is a long list of companies that the liberal and conservative parties have campaigned on selling. I mentioned them in my previous post, but I will take them again: Lernia, Svevia, Telia, Infranord, SBAB, Green Cargo, Jernhusen, Svenska Spel - yes, as many companies as possible, if one is to rephrase the Prime Minister's opening that the state should own as few companies as possible.

The Minister for Finance should acknowledge that among the united right, there is an ideological conviction that the state should own as little as possible. She has shown that she is prepared to sell companies during this mandate period. She has said at a Moderate Youth League meeting that more will come, and she has said that the state, for example, should not own banks. This should mean that SBAB is next in line. This is a simple question: Which other companies will be sold during the mandate period?

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

Isak From (S)

Mr. Speaker and the Minister for Finance! I believe that for everyone watching this debate, there are more questions to ask. I will not ask them here, but it is clear that we will return and have debates here about several of the companies with public mandates, which we do not think are functioning fully. But that, Mr. Speaker, is actually another debate.

My interpellation concerned accessibility to vehicle inspections in rural areas. Svensk Bilprovning had the highest reputation of all existing inspection companies operating in Sweden and ranked in 67th place among companies in Sweden overall. It is clear that residents in Lycksele and Vilhelmina, for example, become a bit worried. We have this high level of service here today, but will it be the same with the new German company? It is not strange that the question is asked.

It is also posed from a different context. Here we have a government that in various ways is reducing support to small rural municipalities and to regional development, worsening the conditions, centralizing and moving more state jobs here to Stockholm. It is clear that overall, more people are becoming worried. Will this service remain?

As I previously said, Mr. Speaker, Svensk Bilprovning has had a high reputation, especially when it comes to vehicle inspection for heavy traffic and registration inspection. Many questions remain, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the debate!

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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