Right of association

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats support the committee report and move for the rejection of all reservations.

Tonight we are debating the Committee on Civil Affairs' report CU16 on association rights. Several areas have been touched upon in the report, but since time is limited, I will try to stick to four areas.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs more companies, not more obstacles to entrepreneurship. In times of economic uncertainty and recession, it is the companies that create jobs and innovation and which, in the long run, finance our common welfare. Therefore, the legislation within association law must be designed with a clear goal of creating good and stable conditions for companies to start, grow, and operate in Sweden.

A first area I want to address is the requirement for share capital in limited companies. The reduction of the capital requirement from 50,000 kronor to 25,000 kronor has fundamentally been positive. It has made the limited company form more accessible to more entrepreneurs and lowered the thresholds for starting companies. At the same time, however, there are reasons to continue analyzing what is an optimal level for the share capital.

We in the Sweden Democrats believe that the issue is not only about lowering thresholds but also about ensuring stability and responsibility in the corporate form. The limited company is an important and serious corporate form that should not be diluted. Therefore, one should consider systems where a lower starting capital can be combined with requirements for higher capital after a certain period. This exists, for example, in other European countries. In this way, we can promote entrepreneurship and simultaneously strengthen the companies' economic resilience.

Madam Speaker! A second area concerns the audit requirement. It is important that we maintain a reasonable balance. Auditing can be an important tool for control and transparency, but it also entails costs and an administrative burden for companies. The Sweden Democrats are therefore negative towards proposals to reintroduce an audit requirement for all smaller companies. Especially sole proprietorships and very small companies should not be forced to bear additional costs and bureaucracy.

Most small business owners run serious businesses and should not be treated as potential criminals. At the same time, economic crime must, of course, be combated forcefully, but the solution is not to place increased burdens on all small businesses but to target efforts towards the unserious actors. The Government and Sverigedemokraterna have therefore strengthened the justice system and improved cooperation between authorities in the fight against money laundering and economic crime.

Madam Speaker! A third area is the work against corporate keepers and corporate hijackings. That type of crime creates great insecurity for entrepreneurs and can cause very serious economic damage. Sometimes forged documents are sufficient to attempt to take control of a company or replace its representatives. Therefore, it was very important that the Riksdag recently adopted the government's proposition 2024/25:8 Companies and Crime. Through these reforms, among other things, corporate hijacking has been criminalized, the penalties for crimes against the keeper prohibition have been tightened, and Bolagsverket has been given a clear role in the work against this type of crime.

These are important steps in the right direction, but the work must continue. We need to follow up on the effects of the new rules and ensure that the authorities have the tools required to counter corporate gatekeepers and economic crime in the business sector.

Madam Speaker! The fourth and final area I wish to address concerns companies' reporting on sustainability and quotas and on so-called diversity reporting. In recent years, the regulatory burden for companies has increased significantly, not least as a result of extensive reporting requirements linked to sustainability and various types of policy reporting. Sweden has, in several instances, chosen to go further than what the EU actually requires.

The result has been increased administrative costs and large amounts of reports whose actual utility is often difficult to see or understand. Many resources are spent on documentation instead of on actual development and innovation. It is therefore welcome that the Riksdag recently adopted Proposition 2025/26:21 regarding the postponed requirements for sustainability reporting for certain companies. It clearly shows that even the legislature is beginning to realize how extensive and sometimes ill-considered these requirements can be, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.

The goal must be clear: less red tape and a lower administrative burden so that companies can focus on what they are best at, namely creating value, jobs, and growth.

In the same way, we oppose mandatory quotas and detailed diversity reporting in corporate boards. It is the owners who should have the responsibility to appoint the most competent board members – not politicians or bureaucrats. Competence and accountability must carry more weight than symbolic politics.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' starting point in these issues is simple. Sweden needs a strong business sector. To achieve that, clear rules, legal certainty, and powerful measures against crime are required. It also requires a clear effort to reduce bureaucracy and unnecessary administration. When entrepreneurs can focus on developing their businesses, the entire Swedish economy is also strengthened.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move again for the approval of the committee's proposal and the rejection of all reservations.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! This round we shall stick strictly to the committee report.

I want to ask a very straightforward question to Rashid Farivar, given his party's sharp profile regarding the fight against crime and the lack of order and discipline in various ways. We Social Democrats believe, in line with many referral bodies, that a phased reintroduction of the audit obligation would be the right way to go.

It is about balancing different legitimate societal interests where we sometimes have to participate and collectively bear certain burdens in order to jointly solve important societal problems. It is a classic social democratic principle.

I wonder how the Sweden Democrats and Rashid Farivar view the fact that he and his party have so clearly rejected a concrete proposal with a clear crime-preventing and crime-preventive purpose. The proposal's purpose and intended effect is that it should benefit and promote serious entrepreneurs who follow all the rules and who should then avoid competing with those who do not.

This is an opinion that Skatteverket, Åklagarmyndigheten, Ekobrottsmyndigheten, Polismyndigheten, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Brottsförebyggande rådet, Ekonomistyrningsverket, Juridiska fakultetsstyrelsen vid Lunds universitet, Svenska Bankföreningen, Svensk Inkasso and Svensk Försäkring have all held. Are they all wrong, Rashid Farivar?

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Markus Kallifatides, for the question! Now the Member did not state which proposal it is about.

(MARKUS KALLIFATIDES (S): Reintroduced audit obligation.)

Wait a moment. It is my turn to speak!

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: So it is. It is one who speaks.)

I do not think the member should interrupt me when I am speaking, Madam Speaker!

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I agree.)

I think it is important that the member first explains what the proposal is and then asks a question about the proposal. Now, the member has not done this, so I cannot answer the question.

I can however say that the Sweden Democrats have consistently been the party in the Riksdag that has been toughest against crime, regardless of whether it is economic crime or crime in our society against individuals.

We remember eight years of Social Democratic rule in Sweden, when crime took over the entire country. It was economic crime, rapes and shootings. I think the member should focus on their own party and ask important questions to the Social Democrats about fighting crime.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I apologize, but my patience has run out. I mentioned the step-by-step reintroduction of the audit obligation in my first reply and asked a simple question, I thought, namely how it is that the Sweden Democrats do not take a positive stance toward the proposal that a long row of state agencies and other heavy social actors have backed. I listed them in my first contribution.

It was, therefore, a clear question, and I have not received any clear answer to it. Does Rashid Farivar and the Sverigedemokraterna consider that Skatteverket, Åklagarmyndigheten, Ekobrottsmyndigheten, Polismyndigheten, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Brottsförebyggande rådet, Ekonomistyrningsverket, Juridiska fakultetsstyrelsen vid Lunds universitet, Svenska Bankföreningen, Svensk Inkasso and Svensk Försäkring are wrong when they advocate for the reintroduction of the audit obligation? Why does Rashid Farivar consider that they are wrong?

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Kallifatides!

In my speech, I clearly set out our position on the issue of the audit requirement. We believe that the audit requirement is a very important tool when it comes to control and transparency in companies, but it should not be the case that it creates an unnecessary burden for companies – especially not for small companies and sole proprietorships. Auditing should lead to better control over companies and also to reduced crime, because it allows us to detect crime. That is our position, and I stand by it.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Rashid Farivar! The Member addressed both the duty of reduction and sustainability reporting in his speech, and therefore I must, of course, request a reply.

I will begin with the reduction obligation. Now the member looks very questioning, but in any case: When it comes to the reduction obligation, it is very unfortunate that the Tidö government and the Sweden Democrats want to lock Sweden and people into a fossil dependency. This fact that it is to become cheaper at the pump indicates a kind of petrol populism, and we think that one really needs to ensure that electric cars become cheaper instead. We therefore question this. I wonder why the member is so eager to ensure that Sweden becomes very vulnerable in this way.

When it comes to sustainability reporting, the member raised that it becomes a very large administrative burden for companies. We think, however, that support can be provided to small and medium-sized enterprises regarding sustainability reporting, to make it easier for them to do this. It is to support the companies' competitiveness in the long term to work with sustainability issues in a forward-looking and innovative way, and that is something that very many Swedish companies are good at doing. Why does the member want to make it harder for Swedish companies to have a modern competitiveness?

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Amanda Palmstierna for the questions.

I did not mention the reduction obligation with a single word in my speech. I did not mention it even once. I therefore do not know where the question comes from, but if it is okay for Madam Speaker, I shall answer it. Now, I have received the question, and therefore I shall answer it.

The reduction obligation is one of the most counterproductive political measures that the former red-green government launched in Sweden. We have essentially vacuumed the world of biofuels – brought them to Sweden from countries far, far away – to fulfill some kind of emission requirement. It is also interesting that the most important part of the biofuel – that which is called HVO, which stands for hydrogenated vegetable oil – consisted of 60 percent animal oil. It was therefore not even vegetable oil, but it was animal oil from slaughterhouse waste.

In what way did they reason here? I don't know, but this has led to a shortage of biofuels not only in Sweden and Europe but in the whole world, just because of the government's requirement to bring in fuel from all over the world. I think it is quite positive that we lowered the reduction obligation to 6 percent. Now we have raised it to 10 percent, but I am for removing it completely – that is, lowering it to 0 percent – for both gasoline and diesel.

I thank you for the opportunity to answer the question, Madam Speaker, even though it was irrelevant.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I must nevertheless intervene because the member did not make the comment I almost expected to hear, namely that he spoke about the audit obligation and not about the reduction obligation. I therefore hope that the audit obligation is what is in focus now and that we do not continue with this debate. I let it continue because it landed that way, but now I hope that the debate returns to what is treated in the report.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! I apologize! It is perhaps a bit so that this has been a red herring and that I therefore actually happened to hear incorrectly when the member gave their speech. I will therefore drop that thread and instead bring up the sustainability reporting, where I actually heard correctly. I can also blame the late hour.

When it comes to sustainability reporting, small and medium-sized enterprises may, so to speak, need support and help to be able to introduce this in a good way. I really do not agree that this is just an administrative burden, but rather it is a way to develop one's business model and work innovatively with the issue as well as have a transparency. It is also a way to ensure that companies that actually do a good job are rewarded instead of companies that, so to speak, do not do their job being rewarded.

These are, so to speak, different ways of looking at competitiveness. Modern competitiveness is built on long-term value creation where there are many different products and services linked to the climate transition, to the environment, to diversity issues, and so on. It is also seen that companies that have diversity are many times much more profitable. My opinion is therefore that we should work much more with these issues, in order to strengthen the companies' competitiveness in the long term and not back out into the future.

My question to Member Rashid Farivar is therefore quite simply: Why are the Sweden Democrats so eager to lower the competitiveness of companies by preventing and making it difficult for them?

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Amanda Palmstierna for a relevant question.

Unnecessary regulatory burdens on companies do not create competitiveness. They create the opposite of competitiveness, when companies in the rest of the world do not focus on unnecessary administration. I think it is very clear.

The opposition is requesting help from us and the government for companies to be able to compete better internationally. That is exactly what these companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, have received through a postponed requirement for sustainability reporting. Through the legislative change that entered into force on 31 December 2025 – one can read about it in the report as well – we provide one extra year for companies with 500 employees or more and two extra years for companies with fewer employees to prepare for sustainability reporting.

I think this is a good help for companies, especially in these times when Europe and almost the entire world are in war and we have hyper-competition from China and the USA. We cannot continue to drown companies in unnecessary administration. They should focus on their core activities: to innovate, manufacture and help with growth in Sweden.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! It is fundamentally good for Sweden that there is broad consensus in the Riksdag that association law issues regarding corporate forms, corporate governance, accounting rules, etc. should be investigated and prepared carefully before decisions on new legislation are made. In the vast majority of cases, cautious reforming is taking place in this area in such a way that the sitting government continues the investigations initiated by previous governments. In this way, for example, a number of changes have been implemented during this mandate period. These concern digital company and association meetings, business prohibitions as a result of prohibitions to conduct business in another state, abolished requirements for keeping accounting information – receipts – in original, and a new bankruptcy proceeding. In addition, it should be noted that EU law has very great significance in this area.

We Social Democrats perceive that there is a broad consensus that the right of association must be designed with a number of legitimate purposes in mind. It is about the company's pursuit of competitiveness and its need for reasonably smooth administration, the state's interest in order and regularity, including in tax collection, and the public's opportunities to monitor their interests as employees, customers, or suppliers, for example to limited companies.

We Social Democrats have made a pledge to constructively and critically review proposals in the field of association law when they reach the Riksdag. In line with this pledge, we have welcomed and approved expanded powers for Bolagsverket as part of increasing the authority's controls of company registers and strengthening its role in the fight against crime in companies. We have welcomed measures that counter corporate hijacking, a tightening of the penalty for crimes against the goalkeeper prohibition, as well as a number of smaller tightenings of rules concerning annual reports and association law regulation of foundations.

We Social Democrats have also foreshadowed that we will put forward our own constructive proposals during this mandate period. We have done so, and we are doing so. In focus for our proposals is the broad societal interest in protection against the exploitation of corporate forms, such as limited companies, for criminal activity. It is necessary to ramp up efforts to combat economic crime, money laundering, and tax evasion, Madam Speaker. That crime undermines the welfare state, erodes trust, and threatens serious actors in the markets. These types of crimes are also closely linked to other crimes within both organized crime and – perhaps sometimes in slightly looser forms – labor market and business crime.

We Social Democrats believe that the government should take more measures to make it harder for, for example, gang criminals who currently use companies, such as limited companies, as criminal tools. We have therefore welcomed and constructively contributed to the fact that Bolagsverket now has an expanded mandate and tools to keep its registers in order. It is an important issue. But in addition, we Social Democrats believe that Bolagsverket's resources need to be strengthened in accordance with the expanded mandate.

We also mean, as previously mentioned, that the audit obligation for more – in the long run all – limited companies should be reintroduced in accordance with the opinion of a long series of referral bodies. We mean that it is necessary to review the possibility of issuing business prohibitions for more types of crimes, and we mean that it is time to raise the requirement for minimum share capital in limited companies.

We Social Democrats, therefore, support a significant number of the committee's proposals to reject motions in the area of association law, primarily with reference to the ongoing preparation of reform proposals in the Government Offices.

The Social Democratic government, against the background of what I have said regarding economic crime, gave a special investigator a mandate to consider and propose measures aimed at countering the use of limited companies and other companies to commit crimes and other irregularities. One of the issues raised in the investigation is the question of the minimum permitted share capital in limited companies. That question has not been taken further by this government. We have heard from the Sweden Democrats that they oppose an increase in the minimum share capital.

The investigation into companies as instruments of crime had, among other things, the task of analyzing the rules on compulsory liquidation in the event of capital deficiency in limited companies as part of the creditor protection system. In the investigation's report, Companies and Crime, it was stated that "the successive reductions of the requirement for minimum permitted share capital have resulted in the rules no longer being expedient." The Government stated in the subsequent Council of State referral that the investigation report's proposals for reformed rules on compulsory liquidation of limited companies were being further prepared in the Government Offices.

We Social Democrats believe, against the background of the solid knowledge base that the investigation report provides regarding the size of a limited company, that the government should promptly return to the Riksdag with a proposition on an increase of the minimum permitted share capital in a limited company. I therefore move for the approval of our reservation number 2. For the sake of time, I move for the approval of only that reservation.

Madam Speaker! I hope that the Civil Affairs Committee's important work with the law of associations will also in the future be characterized by the seriousness that issues regarding the conditions for business and civil society, the functioning of the tax system, and the fight against economic and other crime deserve.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! It is a strange evening. I had promised not to take replies, but it is difficult.

In Sweden, we have a million companies, Markus Kallifatides. Of these companies and entrepreneurs, 99.9 percent are honest. The vast majority are small companies that take risks so that we can receive tax revenues and money for the welfare system. That is what the member feels very strongly about. It is not sufficient to, sentence after sentence, point out a million companies and entrepreneurs as potential villains.

The Center Party is running for election on the basis that jobs should increase and emissions should decrease. If there is something that should be crystal clear for all intended prime ministerial candidates, it is that companies and entrepreneurship lie extremely close to the Center Party's heart.

Then one should seriously consider whether worsening the business conditions in Sweden is the right way to charm us Center Party members. I would like to argue that it is a completely wrong entry point into this.

Freedom of association is extremely important. It sets the framework for business. Entrepreneurs are not villains but enablers.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Alireza Akhondi for the comments rather than the questions and the demands to us Social Democrats – not least to Magdalena Andersson, as I understand it.

I mean that the member's comments in connection with my speech go very far off track. At no point during my speech did I point out a million entrepreneurs as villains.

I have advocated for a number of many referral bodies that have advocated for reforms that increase the possibilities to identify serious problems with economic crime, money laundering, and tax evasion.

It increases the probability that all diligent, risk-taking entrepreneurial entrepreneurs do not face unserious and, in the worst case, criminal competition. It is a protection for the 99.9 percent, or however many they are, diligent ones like me and we Social Democrats offer.

But protection also comes with some kind of cost. One may need to chip in something together to get something together. We Social Democrats often call it solidarity. It is a very good thing.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Solidarity is to take risks, to work 50, 60 hours per week and to create jobs that generate tax revenues that generate more welfare. Social Democrats forget this time and again.

They propose more control and more administration. It is a cost that the companies have to swallow. I am sorry, Markus Kallifatides. The companies in Sweden carry a large regulatory burden and a large administration. They are so large that we, newly awakened in the European context, speak of our competitiveness.

To come in in that situation and want to impose a grid where, at best, one sieves mosquitoes and swallows elephants, is not to create opportunities for small companies to employ any of the half million people who today stand outside the labor market.

The member attempted to make a point that it was rather a comment than a question. But there is a great seriousness in the comment. These are crucial questions for both this generation's and future generations' opportunities to share in the same welfare that the member says they want to safeguard.

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

Markus Kallifatides (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Alireza Akhondi, for further comments and the serious question!

I take the liberty of presenting the Social Democratic path to economic prosperity, good economic development in Sweden and growth moving forward.

We Social Democrats want to see an economic policy aimed at the possibility of achieving full employment. This can, among other things, be achieved by maintaining a sufficiently effective demand in the economy.

This can be done, among other things, by ensuring that public measures via taxes and transfers go to those households that have a high marginal propensity to consume rather than doing as the Tidögänget: putting money in the pockets of those who, like the Finance Minister, do not know what to do with their additional tax cuts.

We want to see a growth pact. We want to do as the Center Party and Social Democrats have done throughout Swedish history. We want to go arm in arm and, together with business owners, build the strategic business sectors in the Swedish economy.

This shall also occur through public initiatives that provide momentum in the private investment calculations and which change the risk appetite and the willingness to take that extra risk that creates not just 1 or 2 but 2,000 or 20,000 new jobs and new life throughout the entire country.

We Social Democrats want it to be easy to do right for small, medium-sized, and large companies. We see that investments, job creation, and welfare depend on so much more than exactly how many forms one needs to fill out and whether one carries some small administrative burden along with everyone else to protect us against other serious societal problems.

We make different trade-offs in these specific issues. But let us not dramatize too much.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety, so that I do not forget it when the clock is ticking.

When we debate the law on associations today, it is fundamentally about creating the conditions for starting and operating companies. It concerns rules for limited companies, economic associations, foundations, and other legal entities. It is the very infrastructure for our business life and, in the long run, for our social construction.

Sweden is a country that largely rests on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship creates jobs, development, and resources for our welfare. But the same structures, Madam Speaker, that make entrepreneurship possible are also exploited by individuals who have no ambitions whatsoever to contribute to society, but instead use companies as tools to commit crimes. That is why the law of associations is not just a matter of industrial policy. It is to the highest degree a matter of criminal policy.

Madam Speaker! For several years, we have seen how organized crime more and more frequently uses companies as criminal tools. Figures indicate that as many as one in five people involved in organized crime has a corporate involvement. Companies are used to launder money, to commit welfare crimes, to hide economic flows, or to engage in labor market crime.

In some cases, it is about so-called straw men – persons who act as representatives for a company but who in practice lack control over the operations. In other cases, it is about company hijackings, where criminal actors take over control of an existing company in order to be able to carry out fraud or other economic crimes. It can also be about companies used to cheat on taxes, to bypass regulations on the labor market, or to exploit our welfare systems.

When companies are used in this way, Madam Speaker, society is affected on several levels. Firstly, those people who are exploited in this activity and are led into work-related crime are affected. Secondly, the state and the taxpayers are affected when their money goes to things it is not intended for. Thirdly, the serious companies that try to do the right thing but are forced to compete with actors who break the law are affected. It is therefore the fight against the criminal economy that is such a central part of the justice policy.

Madam Speaker! During the mandate period, the Government has implemented a number of concrete reforms to stop the phenomenon of companies being used as criminal tools. A central example is the legislative work regarding companies and crime, which there has been a broad consensus on here in the Chamber. It is positive regarding the fact that we shall be able to have perseverance and a long-term perspective.

In the legislation, the protection against economic crime has been strengthened in several important ways. Corporate hijacking has been criminalized. The penalties for crimes against the guardian prohibition have been toughened, and the prohibition has also been expanded. Bolagsverket has received strengthened control possibilities, including the possibility to demand personal appearance in case of suspicion of incorrect information, and a more crime-preventive mandate. Additionally, transparency in certain corporate forms has been strengthened through increased requirements for annual reports for economic associations.

These are important steps, Madam Speaker, to close gaps that criminal actors have been able to exploit for a long time.

Madam Speaker! To tackle the criminal economy, it is not enough to merely close loopholes in company law; we must also target those who exploit companies as criminal tools to earn large sums of money. One must trace the money, stop the money, and seize the money.

That is why the government has also tasked the Police Authority with establishing a financial intelligence center where the Police Authority, the Economic Crime Authority, and the Swedish Tax Agency, together with banks and other financial actors, shall be able to more quickly identify suspected financial flows and stop money originating from crime.

This is a concrete way to make it more difficult for criminals to exploit both companies and our financial systems. Ultimately, Madam Speaker, much of organized crime is about exactly that: money. If we can trace the money and follow the money, we can also stop the crimes.

Madam Speaker! Another important step is the expanded possibilities for business prohibitions which came into force at the turn of the year. Since January 1st of this year, business prohibitions can be issued in significantly more situations, and the maximum duration has been extended so that the business prohibition does not expire just in time for a person who has committed serious crimes to be released from prison. We make it a rule that the person who is a gang criminal shall also not be able to operate a business, and that person shall receive a business prohibition.

The purpose is clear: persons who systematically abuse companies for crime shall not be able to conduct business activities. It is an important step to protect both society and serious business.

Madam Speaker! We must also adhere to another fundamental principle. While we must see how criminals exploit companies, we must also adhere to the principle that it should be easy to start and run companies in Sweden.

The vast majority of entrepreneurs in our country are honest people who want to develop their businesses, create jobs, and contribute to society by developing their passion and making society better. The people who do this should not be met with unnecessary red tape or administrative burdens. That is why we need to pursue an offensive simplification agenda.

The Government has, during the mandate period, established a simplification council and an implementation council for EU regulations and tasked about thirty agencies with reducing the regulatory burden for companies.

Let me give a concrete example, namely the change in the Accounting Act which means that companies no longer need to keep paper originals of receipts if the material is digitized. It is a reform that entails significant time and cost savings for many companies – a reform that makes a difference in everyday life.

Madam Speaker! The Government's work in this area is about a balance. On the one hand, it should be easy to start and run companies, and on the other hand, it should be difficult to use companies as tools for crime. It requires both regulatory simplifications and sharpened control mechanisms. It requires both better agency cooperation and modern legislation.

Madam Speaker! In the report we are now debating, a number of motion proposals within association law are addressed, including those concerning the Accounting Act, share capital, audit requirements, and business prohibitions. Some of the proposals have already been handled through recently implemented reforms, and some are included in various ongoing investigations, while others are not.

Madam Speaker! The fight against the criminal economy is one of our major law enforcement challenges. That fight must be waged in a way that both protects companies and the economic dynamics in our country. Companies shall create jobs, innovations, and prosperity; they shall not be used as tools for organized crime.

With this, Madam Speaker, I wish to conclude by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report. I did so at the beginning of my speech, but I remembered it even now.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Tax evasion is a major societal problem. It drains large resources from society and harms free and fair competition. Tax evasion also increases inequality when the tax collection is shifted onto other groups with lower incomes. It is also serious because it reduces trust, cohesion, and confidence in our society.

Vänsterpartiet has submitted a motion on measures against tax evasion, and one of our proposals is being addressed in the report. It concerns better control of foundations, which have been shown to be used for tax evasion. Recently, the Swedish Tax Agency, for example, taxed several Swedes who had hidden money in foundations outside of Sweden.

A foundation is a form of legal entity which, unlike associations and companies, has neither members nor owners. The foundation essentially owns itself, as it is often said. The organization Tax Justice Network has identified that foundations are frequently used for tax evasion and money laundering.

There are many different types of foundations, and they function in different ways. One way to understand foundations is to think of the structure as a promise to give something to someone in the future by having someone else manage the asset in the meantime. The consequence is that, on paper, no one completely owns the asset. This leads in practice to the asset ending up in a kind of ownerless limbo, inaccessible to creditors, beneficiaries, and tax authorities.

The original owner of the asset can claim: I no longer own the asset, but I have given it away to a foundation. Representatives for the foundation can in turn claim: I only manage the asset on behalf of the beneficiaries. The beneficiary can, on their part, claim: I do not own the asset, but it becomes mine first when it is transferred to me from the foundation.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party believes that transparency regarding foundations must increase. All persons and assets linked to the foundation should be registered with authorities. Registration should be a condition for being allowed to create a foundation.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! One million companies – taste that! That is many. That is where the value is created. That is where the jobs are created. That is where the future is created.

I mean that one should consider how one can facilitate for these companies to do right and do what they were created for: to produce goods or services. When one places a proposal on the floor of the Riksdag, one should think: Does this change help, or does it hinder? I mean that we almost always submit proposals that hinder the companies.

We Christian Democrats say no to the opposition's demands for higher minimum capital in limited companies and reintroduced audit requirements for more companies. Such changes would hinder new entrepreneurship without providing sufficient benefit – in other words, hinder business.

We are good at imposing new rules on companies. Almost everything we come up with to change involves a regulatory burden for companies. We sometimes forget to remove what exists and what might be unnecessary, and so we add more, then a little more, and then a little more again.

There should be a small thought among us: When you introduce a rule, you remove two. It would make things easier for those who actually create jobs and value in Sweden.

It is not only we in Sweden who are good at imposing regulatory burdens. The EU is also very good at it. Taken together, it becomes quite difficult to run a business in Sweden when this is constantly being added.

In the report, which is a motion report, 22 motions are addressed. I move for the rejection of all reservations. What is proposed would be not only an administrative burden but also a major economic burden for the small companies involved. Do the proposals help the companies or do they hinder the companies? I mean that most actually hinder the companies.

We have discussed crime prevention measures and crime within companies. The government has actually done some things regarding that part, for example, introduced an expanded business ban from January 1, 2026, and strengthened Bolagsverket's role in this. There are quite a few measures that the government has taken to reduce crime in companies. But new regulatory burdens and obligations on companies, I do not believe, help them but rather hinder them.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! The colleagues are giving very short speeches. I, who would have written an essay – just joking.

Sweden is a country built by entrepreneurs. I would like to assert that the vast majority on this planet can name at least one or a couple of brands that Sweden has produced over the years. These are companies started by people who have dared to break new ground, who have taken risks, and who have created jobs not only for themselves but also for others.

All these companies started at some point with an idea – perhaps in a garage, at a kitchen table, or in a small premises somewhere in the country. But for an idea that emerges to be able to grow, more than courage is required. Rules that work are required.

It is easy to say that we should choke the criminal economy by making it harder for new businesses to start. However, I want to assert with all determination that we would then be shooting ourselves in the foot and, in principle, doing nothing to address the problems that the Centre Party also wants to address.

We must also be honest: Many entrepreneurs experience today that the regulatory burden is growing. It is not I who is saying it, but this comes directly from the entrepreneurs themselves. Despite all politicians saying that the regulatory burden should decrease, the reporting requirements, administration, and bureaucracy are increasing. Every new requirement may sound very reasonable on paper, but for the small business owner who sits in the evening and tries to get the accounting, reports, and regulations together, it is often something completely different. It is about time taken away from the core business, that is, the actual entrepreneurship – not to mention all the other things surrounding the poor entrepreneur.

The small business owner carries Sweden, Madam Speaker. It is easy in this chamber to speak of companies as abstract structures, but behind every company there are also people. I mentioned that we have a million companies. The vast majority are small. They are family businesses, sole proprietorships, and local operations. They create jobs across the entire country.

The land stewards in the countryside also perform community service. Without their risk-taking and will to do good, large parts of Sweden would grow over again.

There is a view of companies that is problematic and which worries me, Madam Speaker – a view where companies are primarily seen as something to be regulated, controlled, restricted, and in some cases almost viewed with suspicion. It is a strange stance in a country where almost every welfare initiative is ultimately financed by entrepreneurship.

Without companies – no tax revenues, dear Social Democrats and now also Moderates. Without companies – no jobs. Without companies – no welfare.

Regulations should protect, not stifle. Of course, rules are needed to protect employees, customers, and society, but they must be balanced. When they become too complex, it does not hit the largest companies first. They have employees who can handle it. It hits the smallest, where the new jobs are de facto created. It hits the local entrepreneur who sits alone and tries to understand and do the right thing.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must, once again, be a country where companies can grow. We do not only compete with our own rules. We live in a global world where we compete with the entire world, where entrepreneurs can start companies in many different countries and where capital and innovations are equally mobile. Then this assembly must ask itself: Shall Sweden be a country where it is possible to go from idea to global consortium that contributes several billions to our welfare, or shall we stifle entrepreneurship already at the idea stage?

What the Center Party's view is can hardly have escaped anyone. We clearly stand on the side of the companies. We want to simplify the regulations, reduce the bureaucracy and continue to ensure that there are reasonable conditions when starting a company.

Entrepreneurship is not a special interest, but it is the engine of the entire Swedish economy. When we discuss the right of association, we are actually discussing something much larger. We are discussing what kind of country Sweden shall be, and for us Center Party members, it is crystal clear that strong entrepreneurship means a strong Sweden.

I vote in favor of reservation 6.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Alireza Akhondi for the speech.

I like much of what Alireza Akhondi said from the rostrum about safeguarding the companies. The member has the right. It is the companies that essentially finance a large part of our welfare, jobs, and growth.

I understand that Member Alireza Akhondi is not standing for re-election to the Riksdag, but I hope that we can have a dialogue about a future government.

What signal are we sending today to the companies? On the side I stand on, with four parties, we agree on combating corporate crime. We are going to make it easier to start and run companies. We are going to minimize costs for companies, and we are going to ensure that companies are internationally competitive.

On the other side, there are four parties. Centerpartiet wants to protect companies. That is very good, and I stand behind it. Miljöpartiet wants to drown companies in sustainability reporting, diversity reporting, and so on. Socialdemokraterna suspects companies of crime. Then there is Vänsterpartiet. We don't even know what Vänsterpartiet thinks about corporate crime or business bans.

What signal does Member Akhondi believe his side is sending to the companies – if they were to win the election?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rashid Farivar for the question.

I believe the signal should be crystal clear. The Centre Party has always stood, and will continue to stand, on the side of the companies and the job creators.

Let us nuance the picture of reality. Today's Moderates sound like Social Democrats on steroids. The Moderate People's Party, for which I once held enormous respect when it comes to business issues, seems to have slipped out the back door. It is important that there are also parties in Sweden's Riksdag, strong voices, that continue to stand on the side of the individual entrepreneur. That responsibility, that mission, we in the Center Party have shouldered for over 110 years, and we will continue to do so long after this member has had their last working day in this chamber.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, Alireza Akhondi.

It is very good that the Center Party safeguards the conditions for companies to start and grow in Sweden. That is what we need. But my question concerns a compromise. If the left side, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Center Party, win the election, what should the entrepreneurs look forward to? Different signals are sent from these parties that run directly against each other.

Just as I mentioned, we agree on most things. I accept that the Social Democrats, during their eight years, did a lot to combat crime. They laid the administrative foundation to combat corporate crime, but now it is we who are tackling crime for real. It is we who are tightening the labor immigration, which leads to slave labor.

What can companies look forward to if the member's party, together with the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party, takes power after the election? We see different signals. From some parties, we receive no signals at all regarding business in Sweden.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Business issues touch many policy areas far beyond the framework of this debate. One should not send out people who could solve the companies' skills supply problems. That is probably a good start.

Four years ago, the Center Party had the opportunity to influence the government and the government power. We made the largest reform on the labor market since the Saltsjöbad Agreement in 1938 regarding the rules for employment protection. Everyone said it was impossible, but it was done.

We abolished the wealth tax, which is directly harmful. It was said that it was impossible, but it was done. Most of the JÖK:en that the right-wing gang scoffed at was done.

The companies' conditions were maintained. We protected the labor immigration, which contributes enormous sums, billions, in tax revenues. We have continued to do that.

It must be crystal clear even for a Sweden Democrat that with a strong Centre Party, we both hold the banner of decency high and understand and protect the individual entrepreneur who takes risks, who struggles, who sacrifices. We stand on his side.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! I was not quite prepared for that apostrophe! I am a Moderate who has long fought for the conditions of entrepreneurs, and it came as a surprise. It became clear but also strange.

Let me start at one end. People who run businesses in Sweden contribute to making Sweden better. People put their soul, their life, and many times their free time into their companies every day. Small businesses, family businesses, and sole proprietorships make Sweden better. They employ people, contribute tax revenue, contribute to community services, make Sweden more fun, and make Sweden a better country. If this is to be, there must be no doubt whatsoever. Entrepreneurs in Sweden need to be appreciated more than they are taxed.

That is why it becomes a bit suffocating that when I say that gang criminals should not be allowed to run companies in Sweden, Member Akhondi says that I am pushing company policy the wrong way. When I say that one should not be able to hijack companies, I am apparently casting suspicion on entrepreneurs in Sweden. When I say that the ban on criminals using "målvakter" [goal keepers/fronts] should be extended and that the penalties should be toughened, the Moderaterna suddenly become an anti-entrepreneurial party.

That image is very strange. It is distressing that MP Akhondi chooses that path.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! Let us break through this spectacle. The member requested a reply long before I called the Moderaterna social democrats on steroids. This is not a reaction to what I said in the speech.

It is no secret that the Moderates and the Centre Party have historically stood very close to each other when it comes to understanding the value of enabling companies to thrive and develop.

It is about being able to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. We are to fight crime – period. We are to put a stop to gang criminals' opportunities to launder money – period. But we shall simultaneously strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish companies. The Moderates seem to have very great difficulty holding that mathematics in their heads at one and the same time. It is this that I, as a member of the Center Party, as a true friend of the companies and the job creators, oppose.

It is very important that one, with surgical precision, strikes down the gangs' opportunities to launder money without introducing general rules that simultaneously strike down the opportunities for budding companies to develop.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! Now it became even stranger. I requested a reply when Member Akhondi addressed me in the speaker's chair. Then he did it once more in the debate chair. Therefore, it becomes even stranger. But we can leave that there.

I still cannot help but be amazed by the speech that was just delivered. We are in agreement. We are in agreement that it should be easy to run businesses in Sweden. We need to reduce the administrative burdens. We need to reduce the regulatory burden. We need to appreciate entrepreneurs in Sweden. On that, we are in agreement.

I have never said anything else. The Moderates have never said anything else, regardless of what Member Akhondi claims. What I said in my speech was that gang criminals should not be able to run businesses in Sweden. To say that gang criminals should not be allowed to run businesses is not to make it difficult for entrepreneurs to create growth. On that, we agree.

It is not to make it difficult for serious entrepreneurs to say that corporate gatekeepers should be able to be punished to a greater extent and that we should be able to prosecute that cheating. On that, we agree.

What are the actual burdens that Member Akhondi claims I would want to place on the companies? We are in agreement. Nevertheless, one tries to cast some smokescreens about that we Moderates would not see entrepreneurs as an important part of Sweden. They contribute to Swedish prosperity and are a completely central part of the Swedish social construction.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Madam Speaker! When one has the last word in an exchange of remarks, one must be extra careful so as not to say something that the other side cannot counter. Therefore, I weigh my words a little extra carefully, out of consideration for my colleague.

You only have to look at the report. Where do the Moderates stand regarding share capital? Where do the Moderates stand regarding auditing? Where do the Moderates stand regarding the view on new entrepreneurship? That is where the words and the actions do not quite match.

I find it difficult to see that even Vänsterpartiet would ever intend to say that they want criminals to run businesses. There is no one in this chamber who is in favor of criminals exploiting the welfare system, avoiding paying taxes, or cheating. I find it difficult to see that. The member has, therefore, a point. There is a basic consensus on the fundamentals.

The question arises and is brought to a head when we see problems with something specific. Do we then bring out the surgical tools? Or do we bring out the sledgehammer? Principally, I have always been in favor of addressing the societal challenges we are tasked to solve with precision. I do not believe in moving forward with the sledgehammer and thereby also taking with it seeds that it would be better to let grow.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker and members! The view on competitiveness has evolved over time. Old-fashioned competitiveness focuses solely on low costs, volumes, and production efficiency and has a one-sided focus on regulatory simplification, while modern competitiveness focuses on high competence, innovation, and creating unique values and the ability to manage complex global value chains in an uncertain world.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö government has missed unique opportunities to strengthen Sweden's modern competitiveness. When the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Act, sometimes called the corporate law for human rights, climate, and environment, was negotiated in the EU, a group of Swedish companies argued that Sweden, i.e., the Tidö government, risked undermining the development that has occurred regarding companies taking responsibility for climate and environment and human rights.

The companies wrote a public letter to Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch. Behind the letter stood, among others, Ericsson, Ica, Ikea, and Volvo Cars. They pleaded with the Minister for Enterprise not to lobby for these drastic deteriorations. But, Madam Speaker, the Minister for Enterprise did not listen. The Tidö government succeeded with its lobbying for drastic ambition reductions.

Similarly, this was done with the law on sustainability reporting. The Tidö government has also lobbied for the law to be postponed, a so-called "stop the clock," so that drastic deteriorations can be made. In the EU, the level of ambition has also been rolled back regarding many different sustainability laws.

The current government shows no leadership in the EU for climate and environment or for human rights. They water down and delay both in the EU and at home. It becomes a race to the bottom.

During the previous parliamentary term, the red-green government showed leadership and pushed forward in the EU for strong legislation for human rights, climate and environment, and strong legislation for sustainability reporting.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet believe that Sweden should take the lead and push forward in the EU and not accept a drastic reduction of sustainability ambitions that is called regulatory simplification. Regulatory simplification is okay if one can maintain quality and climate and environmental requirements. But here, it is not about that. It is called regulatory simplification, but in reality, it is drastic ambition reductions.

Industry accounts for a large part of Sweden's territorial greenhouse gas emissions and needs to transition to fossil-free. The climate transition in Sweden is beneficial for both the climate as well as Swedish competitiveness and the Swedish economy. But long-term rules of the game are needed that make the climate transition possible and predictable.

Sweden should therefore be a strong voice in the EU and work for an EU regulatory framework that strengthens companies' sustainability reporting and for a corporate law for climate, environment, and human rights. Small businesses naturally need to be supported in the work of transitioning, not by completely removing this, but through various types of competence initiatives. Sweden has a history of working in this way, so it is nothing strange. The government should therefore take necessary initiatives to provide companies with such competence support.

Madam Speaker! Long-term rules of the game for the climate transition in Sweden and the EU, combined with skills support for small companies, could have strengthened Sweden's long-term competitiveness, reduced climate emissions, and reduced our vulnerability and exposure to events in the outside world. We are living in a restless time. But the Tidö government has missed this chance.

I therefore move for the approval of reservation 7.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Amanda Palmstierna for the presentation.

I will not ask any question about the reduction obligation, but I will ask a question about sustainability reporting. Miljöpartiet wants stricter rules for companies regarding sustainability reporting. They want a stricter interpretation of the EU's directives on sustainability reporting and due diligence. Miljöpartiet wants all companies, regardless of size, to report their climate impact. They want to expand and tighten the requirements for sustainability reporting.

Today we find ourselves in hyper-competition with China and the USA. They have no respect for these rules, and our companies will not be able to compete with international actors if we burden them with a multitude of administrative burdens. How does the member intend for these administrative burdens to benefit the companies' competitiveness internationally against China and the USA? It is about the EU against China and the USA. Regionalization has also become very tangible since Donald Trump took over in the White House.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was unfortunate that we could not continue to debate the reduction obligation, so we will simply talk about the other sustainability laws.

When it comes to the small companies, I thought I was clear in my speech. Different types of competence support were needed so that it is possible to do this in a simple way. Nuances and scales were also needed in the regulatory framework. We do not want super-hard requirements on the really small companies, but here, "rubber bands" are needed in the regulatory framework.

How does this strengthen the competitiveness of large companies? That question could have been asked to the companies themselves, or at least one could have listened to the companies when they turned to the Minister for Enterprise. They did not want the due diligence proposal to be weakened because they were far ahead in this work, which strengthened their competitiveness. If one does not want to listen to Miljöpartiet on this issue, why not listen to the companies instead and hear their view on it? It is sad that the Tidö Government does not listen to these proactive, heavy, and well-known Swedish companies.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Amanda Palmstierna for the answer.

The difference between the Green Party's view and Tidösidan's view is that we do not want to impose impossible tasks on the companies. We give those companies that have not managed to catch up with others the opportunity to catch up. Otherwise, the regulatory burden will cause them to go bankrupt.

So to another area, namely quotas for corporate boards and diversity reporting. The red-green government wanted to force companies to quota in 40 percent women in their boards, and an ultimatum was issued: if the companies did not reach this level, it would be legislated. They wanted to micro-manage which individuals should sit on the board, not only regarding gender but also regarding education and background.

In what way do factors that a person has not chosen themselves, for example gender, ethnicity, background, skin color and hair color, signal their competence and skills to sit on a board or be employed in a company? For me, meritocracy and personality are most important. How do factors such as gender, ethnicity etc. govern a person's suitability to sit on a board or be employed in a company?

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Farivar for the new question.

When it comes to quotas, we are still in agreement on this regarding meritocracy. Miljöpartiet sees structural problems, and reports and investigations show that despite high competence, not enough women sit on boards. Men with lower competence are therefore indirectly quoted in. What we want to achieve is, therefore, true meritocracy. Discrimination occurs due to gender, age, and diversity. Many investigations show this.

The very best thing is if the companies themselves can resolve this and work structurally to move away from discrimination. But if year after year we see that it is not working and that qualified women do not enter boards because of their gender, something must be done. We see that there is a structural discrimination, and we want to address that so that it becomes a real meritocracy.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 12.)

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