Fee for the examination of a dispute at the National Advertising Board

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the Committee on Civil Affairs' report 2023/24:CU7.

The proposal means, in short, that the government shall issue regulations on fees in cases at the National Board for Consumer Disputes. The origin of this bill was the dispute resolution directive adopted by the European Parliament in 2013. The directive states that the Member States have an obligation to establish a system for alternative dispute resolution in consumer relations.

What has Sweden then done to fulfill the requirements in the EU's directive? Sweden has enacted two laws, 2015:671 and 2015:739, which give the government the right to designate an administrative authority for alternative dispute resolution. The government has done this, and the National Board for Consumer Disputes, abbreviated Arn, is precisely such an authority.

What is the purpose of the National Board for Consumer Disputes? There is a sea of goods on the market that for various reasons are substandard or simply, to use another word, rubbish. Such goods make the customer feel cheated. To avoid hassle with courts and the like, consumers can turn to ARN. On ARN's own website, it states that the authority decides disputes in a fast and simple but still legally secure manner, as well as that they offer an alternative to having a dispute examined in court.

Why does the government want to introduce a fee? Is it not good as it is today?

Firstly: There has been more to do. The cases are becoming more and more - despite efficiencies, the cases are piling up.

Secondly: Arn has a strained economic situation. The economic frameworks do not allow for a larger staff.

For the third: The Government considers that a fee would reduce the number of so-called frivolous reports, which take time and resources from Arn.

For the fourth: A fee would likely reduce the proportion of rejected cases. A case is rejected if incorrect documents have not been submitted. Today, approximately 33 percent of the cases are rejected, and this obviously takes resources from Arn.

Madam Speaker! I find no reason to question that the law will fulfill its purpose, namely that Arn shall shorten its processing times and that the proportion of rejected cases shall decrease drastically. Both consumers and taxpayers will benefit from the introduction of a fee.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The Member described very well what the matter is about. He thinks that a fee would serve its purpose.

If a notification fee is introduced, according to the proposal, it is incredibly important that consumers receive clear information about the fee and what it means. What, for example, applies regarding any compensation from the counterparty for the notification fee? What does it look like regarding the possibility of reconsideration? What applies when a case is dismissed? How shall the concept of dispute be assessed? Will there be an additional fee depending on whether one pays with, for example, Swish, invoice, or bank transfer?

Madam Speaker! My question to Member Björn Tidland is whether he considers this proposal to be clear for Sweden's consumers.

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I will address the workload and the administrative costs. In the 70s, 80s, or 90s, there would have been much more administration, with forms and bureaucracy, but now it is the 2000s. A form is filled out quickly on the web. One identifies oneself with BankID and pays quickly with, for example, Swish - then it is finished. What is the problem?

I do not see the problem. I only see advantages. A hundred or two is surely not a problem. One avoids having to travel, take a receipt, and be confronted by a bureaucrat. One sits at home and fills out an application and then supplements the application if anything should be missing. I think it is simple and understandable. There are already many such administrative systems today; one just has to copy them.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Björn Tidland for the answer.

I can state that the member was unable to explain to Sweden's consumers whether this is clear or not. It is not uncommon for a report from a consumer to contain demands directed at several businesses or several demands against one and the same. Let me take an example.

If a consumer has been subjected to fraud where they have been deceived out of money from accounts in three different banks and the consumer, in one and the same report, directs claims against all three banks, is it then one dispute or three disputes? Should one pay 150 kronor, as is proposed here, or three times this amount?

Madam Speaker! My question to the member is whether he still thinks it is clear to Sweden's consumers what this proposal actually means.

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

Björn Tidland (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anna-Belle Strömberg for the question.

Whether it is more or less clear is a matter of detail. I have no simple and straightforward answer to that.

If one is correct in a dispute, the fee will be charged to the company. In response to the argument that it will become more expensive, I can say that it is the company that will bear the fee.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We fully understand that the influx of cases to the National Board for Consumer Disputes has increased, not least due to the pandemic. The number of cancelled trips and events as well as frauds has increased, which has contributed to many consumers turning to the National Board for Consumer Disputes when disputes have arisen. It is also not strange that the number of cases has increased significantly because the possibilities for reporting have been digitized, e-commerce has increased, the market has become more complex and consumers' awareness of the alternative dispute resolution has increased as traders have, by law, become obliged to inform about precisely this possibility.

We Social Democrats, however, do not believe that the introduction of a fee is the right way to go to reduce the number of reports that will not be examined on their merits. This risks instead leading to a situation where economically vulnerable consumers must refrain from having their case examined because the fee becomes yet another expense in the households' already difficult economic situation. The Consumer Agency is also against the introduction of a fee. They also highlight the group of economically vulnerable elderly who to a large extent are targets for unscrupulous companies, and many of them have a strained economy.

That the fee is not refunded if the report is dismissed or because the value limit is not reached is something that risks affecting all reporters and is particularly unfortunate for economically weak consumers. It can be difficult for the person reporting to understand and fulfill the requirements set for a report in order for it not to be dismissed. For example, it can be difficult to determine if the case falls outside the time limits that have been set. That the fee is then not refunded is unfortunate.

The proposed fee and the fact that fewer cases are expected to be examined is hardly what will deter unhealthy business operators. Instead, such activities risk being able to continue for longer as fewer business operators will be reported. The fee only determines who can afford to report and not what or how they report, so even cases that are incomplete or unreasonable will continue to occur.

The National Board for Consumer Disputes makes the assessment in its opinion that the number of paper complaints will double if a fee is introduced. This means that an additional approximately 2,000 complaints will be handled manually, and the average working time to handle paper complaints is clearly longer than for electronic complaints.

It is important that it is as easy as possible for a consumer to make a report and have their case reviewed. A fee, regardless of how low it may be, constitutes a barrier for consumers to uphold their rights. If the fee is combined with the fact that the decisions of the National Board for Consumer Disputes are not binding for the parties but are only recommendations, the risk becomes obvious that more consumers will make the assessment that it is not even worth trying to have their case reviewed. At the same time, the reviews by the National Board for Consumer Disputes are becoming increasingly important, especially as more and more purchases are made online and fraud is increasing.

That services such as Blocket require businesses to follow recommendations from the National Advertising Review Board in order to remain on the service represents a major step forward for consumer protection. To then, as proposed in the report, make it harder for a consumer to assert their right goes completely against the purpose of consumer legislation.

Madam Speaker! We believe that there are other solutions to handle the increased workload of the National Board for Consumer Disputes. One solution is to request all the information required for a complaint to be processed and proceed in the system during digital submissions. This would reduce the number of cases that must be supplemented one or more times because they are incomplete, with the resulting waste of time.

The primary thing is still the preventive work, that is to say, trying to ensure that a report never needs to be made.

Another solution is stronger and more comprehensive consumer guidance in all our municipalities. With a locally anchored consumer guidance, one can visit their municipal consumer advisor to get help in gathering information, filling out a report correctly, and even before making a report, receive information about what can and what cannot be examined in the simplified procedure that the committee offers.

The municipal consumer guidance service, in many cases, contacts companies, mediates between consumers and companies, and reviews agreements, and can thereby prevent a report to the National Board for Consumer Disputes. They can also help consumers make a good and complete report and assist with advice before, during, and after the review and interpret the decisions of the National Board for Consumer Disputes.

In the Annual Statistics of the National Board for Consumer Disputes, there is a diagram showing the correlation between dismissals in the National Board for Consumer Disputes and missing consumer guidance. Over 30 percent are dismissed. This means that if the consumer had received help from a municipal consumer advisor, the consumer would have had better conditions to have the case reviewed and perhaps would not have had it dismissed. It has also been shown to result in less processing for the National Board for Consumer Disputes.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that the introduction of a fee should be rejected on the grounds that the legislative change means that it is the government that decides on the size of the fee. It is also not clear what applies when a report contains demands against several businesses or several demands against one and the same. Is it then a dispute with a fee, or must the consumer pay for several disputes? And will a fee be charged upon a request for review? There are several question marks here.

We also lack a reasoning regarding whether there will be an additional fee based on how one chooses to pay, for example via invoice, Swish, or bankgiro. We also lack reasoning regarding the risks that vulnerable groups may not be able to report disputes since 150 kronor can be too high a threshold and if the vulnerable group is the elderly who are to a greater extent exposed to fraud.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I move for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservation.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anna-Belle Strömberg for the presentation.

As emerged from Björn Tidland's excellent account, it is approximately one-third of the cases that come to the National Board for Consumer Disputes, ARN, that are dismissed. An idea that the government and the Tidö parties in the Riksdag have is that the cases that are truly to be handled by ARN, that is, the two-thirds that remain, will now receive increased resources.

Madam Speaker! Together with the Tidö parties in the Riksdag, the government is improving things for consumers. Already in this year's budget, we have allocated economic resources to Arn, and with the symbolic fee in the proposal, we will allocate even more resources so that Arn can devote itself to the two-thirds of the cases that are actually to be handled.

Socialdemokrater in opposition have a tendency to become very populist. That they now do not want to introduce this symbolic fee is, of course, part of the populism the Socialdemokrater engage in. Last week, a Socialdemokratisk Member of Parliament made a move about working four days a week – at the same time as there is a staff shortage in the public sector. The Socialdemokrater are thus populists when they are in opposition.

Anna-Belle Strömberg can explain in detail how we are to remove that one-third of the reports to Arn that are not so well-considered, for example that report of someone who received bad drugs. It is precisely such a report that should not be examined in Arn. It would be interesting to know how the Social Democrats have planned to remove one-third of the reports so that the resources can go to the two-thirds that actually should be examined.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We believe that both SD and the government have worsened consumers' rights. The introduction of a fee means that a threshold is created and a risk that consumers choose not to request that their case be reviewed. It also means a shift of power from the consumers to the businesses.

The Speaker mentioned that the government would provide additional resources. That is indeed grateful, but where are you taking them from? Now you added resources through the money that you have taken from the civil organizations that will now be completely slaughtered. They make a fantastic contribution for our consumers by providing support and advice.

The Chairman also asked a question about the details of how we are to deal with the notifications. It should actually be a very simple IT technical measure without needing to charge any fee. Today, one can utilize the digitized services very well and take advantage of the digitalization possibilities. It should be a simple IT technical measure at a cost of a small number of hours for programming work to create an automated routine that, in connection with incoming cases, reviews the amount limit and date fields in the application, sends automatic rejections, and logs the cases directly to the diary, with clear information in the digital application process. It can provide an opportunity to submit a notification directly, and if the criteria are not met, it will be rejected immediately.

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! It is quite fascinating that Member Anna-Belle Strömberg stands here and tells how Arn shall construct its IT systems. For my part, I have full confidence in Arn and other authorities when it comes to how they shall operate their activities in detail. It is not something we usually legislate on here.

Madam Speaker! The populists in the Social Democrats are now trying to come up with fake arguments to avoid doing the only reasonable thing: to have a small symbolic fee. It is entirely correct as the member says, that the threshold should be a bit higher when one is sitting there and perhaps wants to make a report, so that one thinks one step further. That ensures that ARN's resources can be allocated to the two-thirds that actually need to be examined, while the one-third that is rejected today on many good grounds simply shall not be examined.

When it comes to the shift in power, it is pure nonsense. As stated – I assume that Anna-Belle Strömberg has read the government's bill – and just as Björn Tidland said, the one who has paid the symbolic fee and is granted the right in Arn has the possibility to request that the symbolic fee be reimbursed by the company, which becomes a step in following Arn's decision.

The Social Democrats' entire populist argumentation falls flat on the ground. One can be against fees in publicly run systems for ideological reasons, of course, but say that then! Don't come here with populist made-up arguments.

I believe that this is a very good decision. I think it is a step in the right direction. The Government and the Tidö parties in the Riksdag have seriously improved consumer protection when we have strengthened the economic resources to Arn, which are overloaded, and it is good for the consumers. The symbolic fee that the government may eventually introduce, which the government makes it possible to introduce, will furthermore provide even more economic resources. It is wise and good of the government.

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

Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is not a small symbolic sum, I would like to answer Lars Beckman.

Arn addresses disputes on amounts up to 500 kronor. A review fee of 150 kronor, which is now being discussed, then corresponds to 30 percent of the disputed amount. It can be considered unreasonably high to demand from a consumer who, due to a difficult financial situation, cannot put 150 kronor into a dispute when it actually concerns 30 percent of a sum that may amount to 500 kronor. Furthermore, one has to bear that cost if the case is dismissed.

I think there are far too many question marks in this proposal. I submitted a written question to the Minister for Civil Affairs regarding whether the fee can be appealed or reviewed and how a dispute is assessed. Is it a symbolic sum, as Lars Beckman says, of 150 kronor, or is it perhaps three times that amount that one is supposed to pay? I received the answer that it is incredibly important for consumers that it is clear how large a fee should be. But that is not the case in this proposal. The answer I received is that the government is authorized to set and introduce a fee.

(Applause)

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to move for the approval of the Committee on Civil Affairs' report 2023/24:CU7, where the Riksdag will give the government an opportunity to introduce a fee for the review of a dispute at the National Advertising Review Board.

Madam Speaker! Step by step, the Moderate-led government and the Tidö parties are also improving consumer policy. We have added resources to the National Advertising Board. We have redistributed resources from certain organizations that stand close to certain parties in order to instead give these to Arn, and now we are thus providing the opportunity to introduce a symbolic fee, as appears from the report.

Madam Speaker! Approximately one-third of the cases that come to the National Board for Consumer Disputes are dismissed for various reasons. The Tidö parties in the Riksdag want the resources to be used for the two-thirds that are actually to be handled in ARN. It will be a powerful reinforcement for the National Board for Consumer Disputes. The symbolic fee will also go to ARN. This means, therefore, that it will be a double reinforcement, which is wise and good.

We have previously heard the populists from the Socialdemokraterna here in the speaker's chair explain why they do not want fees, but they are completely unable to answer the question of how they will solve the volume of cases instead. They stand here and talk about that municipal consumer advisors should be reinforced. But the Socialdemokraterna had the opportunity for eight years to reinforce the consumer guidance - there are two announcements from the Riksdag on that very issue - but they did nothing.

The difference is that this government and the Riksdag deliver. We make a real difference. We do not just stand here and say things without delivering. This government does exactly the opposite: We take a societal problem seriously, namely that today there are very long processing times at Arn. We want to shorten the processing times for the consumers who need help. Arn is a very good tool. The vast majority of companies follow Arn's decisions; Arn's own statistics show that. We are therefore making a real difference. The socialist government, instead, let the queues grow. Resources were not added to Arn, and many consumers were caught in the crossfire. But with this proposal, we are now making real improvements.

Will it be solved overnight? No. Will the fee solve all problems? No. But hopefully, it will become a slightly higher threshold that gives the consumer an extra moment to think about whether they really should make a report. Just as has emerged from the debate here, it is the case that if a consumer has been proven right in ARN, ARN will likely say that the consumer gets back the symbolic fee.

Of course, one can come up with 50, 100, or 500 different reasons not to do this if one is a populist, and unfortunately, that is where the Social Democrats have ended up in opposition. They have become pure populists. All the social problems that they did not solve while in government, they have now invented solutions for. Last week we heard that they were going to introduce both increased vacation and reductions in working hours. So does a populist party.

We Moderates, the Tidö parties and the government are taking real responsibility. This is wise, right and proper consumer policy that makes a difference.

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

Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Left Party's reservation.

We in Vänsterpartiet do not believe that the fee that the government now wants to introduce for the review of disputes at the National Advertising Board is the right way to go, but rather we see, like the Consumer Agency, a risk that a fee will make it more inaccessible to submit a complaint and have one's case reviewed, not least for those with lower income.

Madam Speaker! Instead of introducing a fee, the Left Party wants that investment be made in municipal consumer guidance. For several years, the municipalities have gradually cut back on their consumer guidance. Today, 168 municipalities have some form of consumer guidance, which is 102 fewer than in 2015. This is regrettable, not least because much can be resolved already at the municipal consumer guidance, without it needing to proceed to the General Recommendation Board.

If one is going to submit a report anyway, one can also get help from the municipal consumer advisory service so that the report is correct and complete and thus does not take up time in the form of supplements when it is eventually handled by Arn. We therefore believe that investments in the municipal consumer advisory service are a better way to regulate which reports come into the board than to introduce a fee.

(Applause)

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Our authorities, and especially the National Board for Consumer Disputes, have an important task for us citizens. Our collective resources are limited, and we must try to use every krona as effectively as possible for the benefit and advantage of the citizens.

Arn is the authority that citizens can report companies to if they consider themselves unfairly treated. We have probably all felt that way at times as citizens. Unfortunately, I have never reported anything to Arn, but I have people in my vicinity who have done so. It works perfectly well.

In recent years, the flow of cases to the National Board for Consumer Disputes has increased increasingly. In 2022, there were approximately 30,000 cases. In this context, it should be noted that ARN has streamlined its work quite significantly in recent years, and despite a sharp increase in cases, they have managed to handle it very well. But at some point, there is a limit even for ARN to cope with this, and it is important to provide a resource reinforcement in one way or another.

The consumer was correct in whole or in part in 44 percent of the cases that Arn examined during 2022, which I think is a high percentage. Arn's decisions are recommendations and are not binding, but 79 percent of the companies follow the decisions.

I think these figures primarily show that the complete reports that exist are relevant, that is to say that those who report also have a good basis for doing so, and that we should use the resources in the best way to handle the cases that are actually complete.

Today, approximately one-third of the cases that come into Arn are rejected, just as we heard earlier. The most common reason for a case being rejected is that a supplement that Arn has requested from the complainant is not submitted within the specified time. In such cases, resources are spent processing cases that will not be examined on the merits but are simply a waste of the resources we have.

For these reasons, we Christian Democrats believe it is both justified and right to introduce a fee for reporting to the National Board for Consumer Disputes, in order to provide an incentive so that one as a consumer thinks one extra time about whether it is the right path to report to ARN. It also becomes an incentive to ensure that the reports are as complete as possible so that ARN can do its work. They must be able to spend the time on the cases that are complete.

Then it is hardly a wild guess that there could be a dip in the number of cases when the fee is introduced, as some have said here. I believe, however, that the volume of cases will increase again further ahead, and then we will have to handle it in one way or another.

I also want, just as some have done, to highlight the local consumer advisors, who I believe are very important. For a time, we have reduced local consumer guidance, but I believe that is the wrong way to go. I believe we must invest in municipal consumer guidance as a complement and a help for the consumer. Even if one does not want to take the full step of reporting to ARN, one should receive help on site.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

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

On the website of the National Board for Consumer Disputes, there is a section with frequently asked questions, meaning cases and questions that are recurring at the Board. It can be about so-called negligent investment advice, where the person who has purchased the service has not understood how great the risk for an investment actually is. It can be about insufficient information when one has purchased a home insurance, where the insurance may not apply when something happens. It can be about having purchased a product that was broken or did not work, or about a company not wanting to grant a right of withdrawal when one has purchased something from a telephone salesperson.

Many of us sitting here today might feel that it would be possible to end up in one of these situations. First, one might be a bit surprised that the company does not want to admit that they have made a mistake. Then one argues a bit with the company itself, if one has the energy and time. Then one might simply just clench one's fist in one's pocket, feel cheated, and let the matter be.

One can also reflect an extra time on whether one should have spent time reporting the matter or the company in these situations. Or do many of us think that time is money and disregard reporting? What is a bit foolish about this behavior is that it actually becomes profitable for both ignorant and unprofessional actors. Perhaps a seller of a substandard product earns money by being able to continue selling it, if no one reports it.

A telemarketer might learn how the right of withdrawal works if Arn gave them in black and white what applies. That is why it is not only the individual affected who can be protected by Arn's activities, but also a larger number of people who can avoid being affected after a report. It is simply good if more people report when they are affected by incorrect advice, bad products, or are simply deceived. One can see it as an extra control station organized by citizens.

Madam Speaker! The matter we are dealing with here today concerns the fact that there has been an increase in reports to Arn after it became easier to report through a digital solution. Today it is free, but the proposal means that they now want to introduce a fee, partly in order to be able to keep down the number of reports. Miljöpartiet does not believe that it is the right way to go, not least because there are probably already many today who do not report, simply to avoid hassle.

We also consider that the proposal implies a deterioration of consumer protection if a fee is introduced, and that there is a risk that more people will stop reporting. This may apply especially to economically vulnerable consumers or consumers with low trust in authorities, groups who perhaps have the greatest need of help today.

As we have discussed previously, a problem that is particularly highlighted is that many do not follow up their digital report with the requested documentation. In that regard, we agree that a solution could be that it is not possible to complete a report until all information has been submitted. In this way, the workload can be reduced and at the same time ensure that the reports can be handled correctly from the very beginning.

Madam Speaker! We believe it is important that everyone who does not succeed in resolving a dispute with a business operator easily themselves receives the right help. We therefore consider that the process should also continue to be free of charge.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! I agree with much of what the Green Party said, but I have a reflection. That we have such an influx of cases to the National Advertising Board means that it goes so far in the handling of cases that some of them become so old that one cannot do anything about them at all when the decision arrives. The measure, with the fee that we are now introducing, means that the cases can be handled at a faster pace so that they do not become so old that they expire.

Doesn't Miljöpartiet think it is still a fairly good idea to ensure that cases where there is complete case management and the case has been well-prepared can be decided in good time, so that people get their money back, get a new product, or whatever it is that Arn decides? I think a central point in this is that people do the right thing and fix all the documents, but the cases become too old because Arn has too much to do. It also becomes strange. And it is not consumer-friendly.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

Larry Söder raises an important aspect. But we have proposed a different type of threshold: that one must submit the correct information from the start.

With a fee, I can imagine that quite a few will back out. If you buy a product, for example a steamer for your clothes, for 699 kronor that stops working after you have used it three times, you would then have to pay 150 kronor to possibly get your money back. But you could also go and buy something even cheaper somewhere else.

I believe that there will be a threshold when one wants to report. It could mean that the products can continue to be sold for quite a long time, because no one speaks up. It is a problem.

When it comes to the fee, it has actually been tested to introduce a fee previously. Then it was seen that the administration of the fee was quite burdensome and cost more than it yielded. I also think that one should take that into consideration.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Time works for us sometimes. Today, there are therefore other ways to collect a fee that ensure the administration does not become so burdensome. The National Board for Consumer Disputes has itself worked for quite some time on being able to introduce a fee and is probably quite well prepared. They are also positive about introducing a fee.

Even if one creates a system with certain criteria for a report, the problem usually does not lie there but in the supplementation of the cases. When Arn discovers that something needs to be supplemented in a case, we as reporters or citizens ignore handling it altogether. This means that the report does not become complete and that nothing can be done about it.

I do not believe that a digital system will solve it, but it is the manual handling by the staff that makes cases complete and can be decided. Therefore, I believe in a report where one gets to think once more about whether it really feels important. If one pays 150 kronor, I also believe that one can place higher demands on it being efficient, that is, that the case is decided in time.

We receive reports that Arn has so many cases that they are being decided far too late for me, as a citizen, to be able to get a new product, get a refund, or whatever it may be. The company may have even gone bankrupt in the meantime.

I think too much effort and commitment is being placed on digitalization solving it. We are still talking about manual labor by staff. Staff costs money, and therefore a fee is needed.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have a different solution to the issue that Larry Söder raises. One problem within consumer policy that we also discuss in other matters is, however, that if something costs a little too little, it takes quite a lot for one to proceed with a case. That means those who sell cheap products that perhaps are not good or functional have a fairly large chance of continuing to sell them. Few protest when a cheap product perhaps breaks or does not meet the requirements.

Introducing a fee will only further complicate getting people to report so that the problems can be identified. We simply believe that it is the wrong type of threshold.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

I want to encourage everyone who has not been on the National Board for Consumer Disputes' website to go there to see how it is structured, how it functions, and how to proceed when making a complaint. Many authorities' websites can be complex and complicated to navigate and understand. But it is a true joy to go to ARN's website. It is simple and pedagogical. It is explained in a clear way what one needs to do.

This authority has succeeded well with its website. It is important. When one is going to report a matter or complain about something, it is because something has gone wrong, because the purchase has not turned out as one intended. At that point, there is a lot spinning in one's head. Therefore, the simple instructions on the website and the description of how it proceeds are extremely valuable.

Mr. Speaker! It is completely natural that Arn has received the award Sweden's most modern authority. It is beautiful that one of our authorities receives such a mention, that it is modern and keeps up with the times. We can be proud of it. In another measurement, Arn received a very good grade when it comes to, for example, overall reputation and standing, personal impression as well as trust and quality in its services.

It is interesting to see who sits in the committee of the National Board for Consumer Disputes. They are people with titles such as Court of Appeal Judge, Justice of the Supreme Court, Chief Legal Counsel, Chief Legal Advisor, Court of Appeal Clerk, and Professor. They are very competent people who help and guide our consumers and citizens correctly in a dispute.

Fee for the examination of a dispute at the National Advertising Board

The fact that the number of reports to Arn increased by approximately 24 percent during the last year means that we must review how it functions. It should be easy to do the right thing at Arn. This agency, Sweden's most modern agency, has received good reviews and endorsements, does everything they can, is skilled at streamlining and is an example. Still, there is a problem.

The solution could be a low fee. The money could be a minor supplement. But that is perhaps not the main point when it comes to making Arn work even better. Instead, it is about how we as citizens can improve how we use Arn and how we exert ourselves, i.e., a counter-performance.

The smaller fee as a prerequisite for the processing to begin would likely mean that a larger proportion of those who report a dispute and pay the fee also follow up with the supplements that may be needed. Despite having filled in, clicked, submitted, and done what is required on the fine website, one sometimes needs to provide supplements. It is clear what needs to be done, but one still chooses not to do it. Then perhaps a fee can make one sharpen up a bit, Mr. Speaker. It makes it easier to do the right thing, and one gets a push to make it work better.

It is also obviously important that there is municipal consumer guidance, which we have touched upon, which can provide support during an application.

We shall help to improve such a competent, modern and good authority. This is a clear improvement measure. For cases involving 500 SEK and upwards and for gambling and other matters from 1,000 SEK and upwards, one shall be able to make a report to Arn.

We will, of course, follow the developments regarding this fee.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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