Requirement for permits for hotel and guesthouse operations abolished

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate on the abolition of the requirement for permits for hotels and guesthouses will likely not go down in history as one of the most exciting and memorable debates of this year's parliamentary session, at least not if one looks at the number of reservations in the committee report or its content.

I can even go so far, Madam Speaker, as to say that the question regarding fire safety which the Left Party raises in its reservation – the only one – has good intentions and touches upon something important. I share, however, the committee majority's view that it can actually be assumed that the requirements for fire safety are known and taken into account by the person who intends to open a hotel or guesthouse.

The current Hotel Act was established in the 1960s. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that those who wish to conduct professional activities with the aim of providing temporary furnished accommodation possess the necessary personal prerequisites. The definition is that those who have at least nine guests or five rooms must be assessed as capable of running the business without danger to public order and safety. To put it bluntly, I think a Swedish equivalent to the choleric Basil Fawlty in the classic British TV series Fawlty Towers would be the type that Myndighetssverige would want to prevent from running a hotel.

What we are debating here today, namely the abolition of the so-called hotel permit, may not be a bombshell or something that will generate large media headlines, but it is nonetheless an important issue for the business owners the decision affects.

The Swedish tourism industry is an important industry for the country. It contributes to strengthening our fantastic country as a brand, and it creates jobs. The hotel and restaurant industry constitutes for very many the part of the business sector where they got their first real job. Furthermore, the industry is a significant integration engine – something Sweden truly needs after decades of an all-too-generous migration policy. It is an industry well worth protecting to such an extent that we give it good and healthy conditions to develop.

In the consideration, it appears that all parties in this chamber agree to this because the only reservation today does not oppose the abolition of the hotel permit but focuses on issues concerning fire safety.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am still somewhat puzzled. I am puzzled by the fact that although all of the Riksdag's parties today are in favor of abolishing the hotel permit, a change of government was required for it to become a reality. So here it is. The question is not new, and the debate on rule simplification is not new either. A long line of industry organizations, business owners, and companies have for many years pointed out that the regulatory burdens and the administrative work that is their consequence cost Swedish companies several billion annually in reduced productivity. But it is something that previous Social Democratic-led governments have chosen not to tackle.

This tells us something about previous S governments, and their coalition partners', view on entrepreneurship and respect for the work and effort people actually put into running businesses.

For this is the case, Madam Speaker. Companies are not anonymous colossi, except possibly in dystopian science fiction films where robots have run amok and taken over, but there are always hardworking and industrious people behind the corporate logos. It is a matter of people who build Sweden and deserve to be given good conditions to primarily devote themselves to their business rather than unnecessary and meaningless bureaucracy.

This also tells us something about the respect for our authorities, who have the task of handling all the bureaucracy or all the permit applications. In this case, it is the Swedish Police Authority. They already have enough to do with more important societal problems.

An excessive regulatory burden means that Sweden's authorities become burdened with all kinds of cases to process which, unfortunately, sometimes play no real role at all. In some cases, it concerns obsolete regulations, as in the case of the danstillstånd which, thankfully, is now abolished. And now it is the hotel permit's turn to be abolished.

Who is it then that pays for the excessive regulatory burden? I have mentioned that it costs Sweden's entrepreneurs several billion kronor in reduced productivity annually, but that the Swedish tax collective—that is, those of us here in the chamber today, our neighbors, parents, adult children, and so on—pays for the fact that "Authority Sweden" handles a mass of bureaucracy that we probably managed better without. We pay for it partly through increased costs, and partly through reduced efficiency in the agencies that exist to serve society. Ultimately, it is about respect for how we best utilize our common resources, but also for the people who try to create jobs and thereby tax revenues.

So, we naturally cannot have that. Do not misunderstand me. I am really not advocating for anarchy. It is clear that we shall have laws and rules. But they must be well-balanced and reasonable and not be counterproductive. Rules should not remain just because they have always been there. Even I, as a conservative, understand that. Why has it not been a self-evident matter for previous governments? The regulatory frameworks must also keep pace with the general sense of law for them to be perceived as relevant to comply with. This is something we in the Tidö parties have taken to heart, and the result can be seen, among other things, in this report. But you also see it in other related reports and not least in the fact that the government has now appointed both a regulatory simplification council and an implementation council. This reflects, in any case, our common view on the importance of addressing what is perceived as an unreasonable regulatory burden for the business sector and an inefficient use of resources at state agencies, which we believe should be given the opportunity to focus their efforts on more important matters.

Madam Speaker! As I now conclude this speech by moving for the approval of the proposal in report NU8 and the rejection of the sole reservation, I would like to take the opportunity to express a certain degree of pride. I am proud of the fact that our proposals to scrap obsolete and unnecessary regulations, which we pushed forward to deaf ears during previous parliamentary periods, are now beginning to become a reality. This is only the beginning. The Tidö parties take the work of regulatory simplification seriously for the sake of the companies, the authorities, and Sweden.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! It is often said that even a blind hen finds a grain sometimes.

The report concerns the abolition of the requirement for permits for hotel and guesthouse operations. This applies to smaller operations.

Vänsterpartiet stands behind the government's proposal in the bill. But in our view, the government should return to the Riksdag with a proposal that means that Section 7 in the proposed Act on Hotel and Guesthouse Establishments is supplemented so that it appears that reportable hotel and guesthouse establishments shall fulfill the requirements for fire safety in the Planning and Building Act and the Act on Protection Against Accidents. If the provisions are not supplemented in accordance with this, it is my opinion that it could be incorrectly perceived as that a requirement for marking of escape routes is the only requirement for fire safety that must be complied with to operate a hotel business.

I have, of course, some understanding of the government's objections, namely that it is reasonable to assume that the requirements for fire safety in other legislation are known by those who are responsible for hotel and guesthouse operations. Otherwise, they will be alerted to these requirements by the supervisory authorities.

Fire safety is an important issue. In light of the fact that there are actually 100 fires per year in hotels and guesthouses in Sweden, I believe there are good reasons to nevertheless propose that such a clarification should be introduced into the legislation.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of our reservation in the report.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Finally, there is a word I want to use to describe the decision that is to be made today.

Sometimes questions may seem small when they are to be decided, and they can be large for the one who is to live with the decisions and manage the effects of them in everyday life. Therefore, I am a bit surprised when Vänsterpartiet's Birger Lahti goes up to the rostrum and says that even a blind hen can find a grain. The decision has great significance even in the small parts.

After years of what is perceived as unnecessary bureaucracy and frustration, the announcement that the entire hotel and tourism industry has been waiting for is now here. The Government has presented a bill to abolish the permit requirement for hotel and guesthouse operations and instead have a notification procedure. And it is that proposal that we shall decide on today.

I am immensely proud and happy about this. Just as Eric Palmqvist has previously said, it is a new government now. This issue is being taken seriously. There is a great deal to do, but one must start tackling it somewhere. Regulatory simplifications such as these are a small step on the way in a larger perspective. It has also been mentioned that implementation councils and regulatory councils will be established to handle the issues, look at and decide on what comes to us in the future and take care of what already exists. The work is great, but it is ongoing. It feels really good.

What does this decision say then? Yes, that the person who intends to operate a hotel or guesthouse business that accommodates at least nine guests at the same time or that has at least five guest rooms shall report this to the Swedish Police Authority. That is where we come in on where this committee report comes from - it is from the Ministry of Justice. But I am also happy to be able to state that it is a collaboration between two departments. It is important when working with these issues to be able to sync the business perspective with the legislation that forms the basis.

What is it that is supposed to happen now? Well, it is that one is to make a report which shall be in writing and contain a few pieces of information compared to before, and then it shall be done.

What is the Police Authority doing? Well, it is to have a register for this so that it is noted who has it. To ensure that everyone is included and are decent companies, the police will also ensure that one registers. Otherwise, the police will be forced to do something, and that means to issue a summons to those who do not do so. They may also receive a fine. That is perfectly okay, I think, in a world where we must ensure that everything works.

There is also a part in this that concerns supervision and control. It concerns the obligation to operate a movement so that it does not pose a danger to the public. These parts are taken and transferred to the new legislation with only linguistic and editorial changes.

When will this law come? Well, it enters into force on 1 January 2025. It is soon.

The hotel and guesthouse operations that have been granted permits according to older regulations shall be considered notified. They do not need to take action forward, but they are included in the new law.

Now this industry can look forward to getting rid of a number of energy thieves. One can avoid the application procedure that has taken a long time, especially when the operation is to change managers. This has had consequences in the form of waiting time for approval and delayed operations. It has also been an uncertainty for the companies when they have tried to plan their operations.

We know that protracted processes at authorities lead to it being difficult to know when the permits will arrive. It creates uncertainty and ambiguities that affect everyday operations.

The type of application for permission from the Swedish Police Authority with requirements to attach documents that have created such bureaucracy will disappear. Now, all of this shall belong to the past.

The new procedure that we decide on later today also creates a more equal competitive situation between the industry's various actors.

For those of you who are listening or sitting on the benches up there and watching: This debate is also about you who travel and are interested in that part. As you know, there is now something called Airbnb, and they have not had the same requirements on them as others. Now it is becoming more equal.

Someone following the debate might wonder where this comes from and why this rule has been in place. That has been touched upon earlier in the debate. The historical explanation concerns rules from the 60s to protect the guests. Back then, the world and society looked different. Nowadays, we have authorities that have legislation to follow regarding fire protection, workplace safety rules, and the General Data Protection Regulation, and that is where this comes in. Consequently, it has been seen that these matters are handled by these authorities. Information/education is usually not included in legislation, and that is also a reasoning that has been presented in this underlying material.

As a Moderate, I am proud that we can now, with a Moderate-led government, take this step. For some, it is very small, and they wonder why there is such a large debate about this. But it is so important out there.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of the reservation.

(Applause)

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals also move for approval of the government's proposal to abolish the requirement for permits for hotel and guesthouse operations.

We see this proposal as an important part of the work that this government is doing to reduce the bureaucracy for Sweden's entrepreneurs and at the same time establish modern legislation that increases freedom for more.

For those entrepreneurs who today operate hotel and guesthouse businesses in Sweden, it is not enough to fulfill the standard requirements to have the right to run a business. An additional suitability assessment is also required, where the police assess whether one is suitable to run a hotel.

As has been noted here in the chamber, this law is a rather outdated relic from the time when hotels were to register their guests and then hand over the guest list to the police. Reality has long since outpaced the hotel law. Therefore, we think it is good that it has finally been reviewed and propose that it should be abolished. This will give the entrepreneurs who run hotel and guesthouse businesses in Sweden a chance to be treated in the same way as all other entrepreneurs.

Furthermore, we believe that the abolition will provide a relief for the police, who reasonably have better things to do than be forced to inspect business owners who want to open up their operations to guests.

In order to lower costs, increase competitiveness and increase the scope for action for Swedish companies and Swedish citizens, the regulatory burden needs to be reduced. This proposal is a step in that direction.

Abolished requirement for permits for hotel and pension operations

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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