Better conditions for the tourism industry regarding small-scale production of alcoholic beverages

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a fantastically beautiful country, not least so here in the spring or on warm summer days, when the sun shines over open landscapes, flowers bloom, and the lakes, forests, and the sea show themselves from their very best side. We Christian Democrats naturally want more people to open their eyes to Sweden. We want more people to come here and spend the summer and other leisure time here with us. It is naturally pleasant for those who choose to come, but it is also good for our economy and for the tax revenues. It is good for the image of Sweden and for our relations with the rest of the world.

Our Swedish entrepreneurs within the tourism industry therefore constitute a significant part of Swedish business. Creating better conditions for the tourism industry is part of the Christian Democrats' and the government's much larger work to create better conditions for entrepreneurship and growth in Sweden. We want more companies to be able to grow strong in Sweden so that more entrepreneurs can realize their dreams, but also so that more people get the opportunity to support themselves and provide security for their families by waking up every morning to go to work.

When it comes to the tourism industry, there are of course very many reasons to visit Sweden – our history and our nature, but also our culture. Something that can definitely attract people to Sweden is our food and drink culture. We can be proud of many of our Swedish food traditions, the raw materials that are found here, and our Swedish cuisine.

We also have a fantastic number of skilled local producers on farms all over Sweden. Some produce food, and others produce drinks – beer, wine, or the spirit that is served at the Easter table or with the herring at Midsummer. Some have been family business owners for generations, while others run newly started small businesses. Many of these people have left a secure job to be able to realize their idea or borrowed money to be able to live their dream on a farm in the countryside.

What is common among these people is that they share a passion for food and drink, have a great heart for their products, and are passionate about creating memories and taste experiences for others. These entrepreneurs, of course, already create a great added value today – for the people in the places where they operate and for Sweden. All around the country, visitors are welcomed to tastings, tours, and lectures. Proudly, they showcase the business and the craft tradition that they are a part of.

We Christian Democrats and the government now want to create better conditions for these entrepreneurs by also allowing small-scale farm sales of alcoholic beverages. We want you to be able to buy a bottle to take home from the brewery or the vineyard and enjoy it at a later time – perhaps over a meal together with family and friends to look back, remember the summer holiday, and relive the flavors. This will enhance the value of visiting a microbrewery or a vineyard in Sweden, and in this way, we create better conditions for these entrepreneurs and for the tourism industry.

This is a long-awaited announcement. The Christian Democrats have for many years now been pushing to allow farm sales, and when we are part of the government, this also becomes a reality. While others have mostly talked, we deliver. For us, this is about creating better conditions for entrepreneurship and tourism in Sweden and about strengthening the Swedish countryside.

At the same time, it must be said that the proposal to allow farm sales contains a number of limitations. For us Christian Democrats and the government, it has been important that Systembolaget's retail monopoly can be protected so that we can limit the availability of alcohol and in this way reduce the risk of abuse. It has therefore had to be ensured that the overall alcohol policy, even after the introduction of farm sales, continues to fulfill the purpose of reducing the harmful effects of alcohol.

It is against this background that a number of requirements are now being set, including that the beverages must be self-produced by small-scale, independent producers and that farm sales may only take place after a permit has been granted and to visitors who have participated in a knowledge-enhancing arrangement that the producer has organized and charged for on the farm. This could be a wine tasting or a guided tour. The sale to each individual visitor is also limited during a single visit.

I and with the limitations contained in the proposal, the government assesses that the proposal is proportionate and compatible with EU law. This means that the government has been able to move forward with the bill and that we in the Riksdag can finally make decisions on the legislative changes later today, which can begin to apply on 1 June 2025. This represents a major step forward for the tourism industry and for the Swedish countryside.

My hope is that we will now see a swift and smooth implementation of the new law starting from June 1, 2025. Both authorities and the country's municipalities now need to cooperate and contribute to this so that the farm sales can get started as early as this summer.

The introduction of farm sales will strengthen companies and the countryside and will make Sweden a freer country. Therefore, I move for approval of the Social Affairs Committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I was sitting in the Committee on Social Affairs, not the Committee on Industry.

I have a few questions. This has, of course, been subject to consultation, and several consulting bodies do not share the investigation's EU law assessment but believe it is uncertain whether farm sales can be combined with a preserved retail monopoly. Who has said that? It is the Children's Ombudsman, Cancer Fund, the Court of Appeal in Gothenburg, the Central Association for Alcohol and Drug Information, the Public Health Agency, the County Administrative Board in Västra Götaland County, and so on – quite heavy bodies. Those who say yes are not unexpectedly the market, which thinks this is a top-notch idea. It is the Swedish Wine Association, the Association of Sweden's Independent Small Breweries, the Food Industry, the Business Sweden Rules Committee, Svenskt Näringsliv, the Swedish Agency for Growth Promotion, Visit Sweden, and Visita.

The market, therefore, thinks this is a brilliant idea, while those who work with public health issues rather think it is a rather poor idea and that this cannot be combined. This is not about us believing that people will get drunk at the breweries or the farms, but it is about what will happen to Systembolaget, quite simply.

We will continue to debate this today. But have you considered this regarding the referral bodies and that you so willingly lean towards the alcohol market rather than towards those who represent knowledge and science? From one perspective, they can see that Systembolaget risks being in a difficult position. That was my first question.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We have considered the referral response very carefully. I must begin by agreeing with Karin Rågsjö that it is a complex legal assessment that we have had to make. That is why it has taken time, despite there having been a great desire to move forward with the proposal on farm sales. There have been difficult EU law considerations.

But we, as well as the investigator who has prepared the preliminary work for the proposal, assess that with the limitations that exist in the proposal, it is proportionate and fully compatible with EU law. It is also therefore that we can proceed with it.

In the same way as we gladly improve the conditions for small-scale businesses, which contribute greatly to the tourism industry in the Swedish countryside, it has been important for us to be able to retain Systembolaget, which we see as an important factor in being able to have a restrictive alcohol policy and reduce risky consumption. The referral response has therefore been considered, and the balanced assessment is that this is a proposal that is fully possible to introduce. It is therefore why we take a position on this today.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Council on Legislation was actually very hesitant, but the government nowadays tends to override the Council on Legislation in various matters.

Another question I have concerns the fact that there is a clause stating that the proposal shall be evaluated in six years. I wonder: Is it really possible to shut down this activity after six years, regardless of what happens – wouldn't that be very strange?

I have also not seen any demonstrations for this. It has not exactly been hordes of companies that have marched through Stockholm with banners about farm sales. Therefore, I wonder a bit who you have listened to.

There are very strong interests behind this. It is not just about those who want a vine on the farm or those who run breweries in the big city, but this is also an issue that has been pushed very hard by the alcohol industry, for example by the interests that want to deregulate alcohol. It is completely obvious. This is what I wonder about.

We also have an unemployment rate that is very high – almost Europe's highest unemployment. The member says that this can affect unemployment. Are there any calculations at all on how the labor market will be affected by the sale of farms and by breweries? I find it difficult to see that.

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Member of Parliament Rågsjö asks why we are presenting this proposal when we have not seen any demonstrations in Stockholm to introduce farm sales. I assume it may be that the small business owners in the countryside are fully occupied with the work on the farm. That is perhaps why they do not travel to Stockholm and demonstrate.

But this is an important proposal for many of the people affected, not least in the countryside. This type of activity is not only important for the entrepreneurs who have realized their own dream and their own idea, but also for the surrounding businesses. It attracts visitors to the area, which creates spillover effects for all the other companies that exist in the locality.

Regarding the fact that this is initially a time-limited reform of six years, I shall say that I really do not hope that the reform will be abolished after six years, but rather that it turns out to be successful and can be made permanent. The reason why a six-year limit has been chosen is that the investigator has suggested it to ensure that an evaluation can be made and to see how the whole thing might need to be adjusted if it were to have unforeseen effects. It is a precautionary measure from the legislator's side, quite simply. We also want to be sure that the proposal can gain traction and be approved in terms of EU law. That is the answer to the question.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! It feels fantastic to be able to stand here and debate and later today make decisions on that farm sales shall be introduced in Sweden. It is an issue that we in the Center Party have championed for more than 20 years. We have been proactive in the three investigations that have been conducted.

The basis for the decision being presented today is the investigation conducted during the previous mandate period within the framework of the January Agreement. Had that investigation not been carried out, no bill could have been submitted during this mandate period either. It is very good that it is that way.

Christian Carlsson of Kristdemokraterna says that Kristdemokraterna have been pushing for farm sales for many years. I would like to say that those years have been quite limited. Under the Alliance government, it was not Kristdemokraterna who were pushing, but rather they were opponents of the introduction of farm sales. Many of us were happy when Ebba Busch changed her stance during the 2022 election campaign and KD was suddenly in favor of farm sales.

It is pleasing, and it was also interesting to hear the member's contribution here regarding the significance that farm sales can have for our countryside, for the tourism industry, for the food industry, and especially for the beverage companies.

The members of the committee also pointed out that the proposal contains a number of limitations. That is how it is, to say the least. It is a restrictive and somewhat over-regulated proposal that is being presented.

In the investigation, it was proposed that the volume production limit for beer should be set at 500,000 liters. Then the government lowered it to 400,000 liters. They made the proposal even more restrictive than it already was. Why is that?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by thanking the member and the Center Party for having been persistent. You are one of many parties that have been persistent in introducing farm sales. We Kristdemokraterna cannot surpass the Center Party if you have now been persistent for 20 years, but I know that Kristdemokraterna have been for at least about ten years for introducing farm sales. There are many of us who have reason to rejoice that it can become a reality today.

Regarding the volume limitation and how much one may produce to be covered by the possibility of farm sales, the background is that we cannot have a proposal that covers too many actors, as that would be considered too great a barrier to competition within the EU. Therefore, there has been a desire to have very restrictive rules regarding this as we now implement it. It is about us wanting to be sure that we can actually carry it out and that we do not get caught out in terms of EU law.

The narrower the proposal is, the less intervention in the EU's free market it is. That is an important factor. I have no principled objections to larger producers also being covered by this. It is simply a matter of being cautious in relation to EU law and ensuring that we do not challenge EU law in a way that puts it in conflict with the possibility of retaining Systembolaget. That is the simple answer, I think.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! In the investigation, they have both tightened the belt and pulled the reins regarding the volume production ceilings. In the government's bill, they have tightened the belt even further, so that it really sits tight around the waist. It is difficult to understand the reduction from the investigation's proposal from 500,000 liters of beer to 400,000 liters, considering that Finland, which already has farm sales, has set the limit at 500,000 liters. But I think that this is an example of the restrictiveness and the anxiety that has characterized the government when it comes to this proposal.

We just heard the member speaking about the brandy served with herring in connection with Easter. But we all remember the debate last spring when the proposal that Jakob Forssmed, our Social Minister, had worked out was leaked. It had been intended to remove distilled drinks entirely from the proposal on farm sales. It caused two Moderate MPs to leak to Aftonbladet – in order to stop that proposal. That succeeded as well. The Centre Party offered to settle it directly in the Social Affairs Committee – there was quite a lot of internal criticism. Then a proposal came in June where even distilled drinks were included.

There is an anxiety that has characterized the government throughout this entire preparatory work. I have full respect for EU legislation. But that a government which should nevertheless retain some liberal traits and some business-friendliness makes it even more restrictive, even more controlled, and even more bureaucratic surprises me.

The Chairman may perhaps elaborate on this further. Why has there become such a very large restrictiveness and bureaucratization regarding this proposal?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would not say that anxiety has characterized the government's work, rather a great degree of precision and deliberation.

Of course, different types of proposals have been discussed between the Christian Democrats and the coalition parties. I don't think that is anything strange, and it is nothing to fuss about. We are in principle for farm sales, but we are also very careful that we do not rush ahead with a reform that would get us into trouble regarding EU law and that would force us to back down. Therefore, there have been different proposals. How permissive can one be? How generous can one be when it concerns many being able to be a part of this? How restrictive does one need to be?

The reason why we think this is important is, among other things, that we do not want to introduce farm sales and then have to roll back the reform when many entrepreneurs have invested in this. They may have started their business when they saw that this had become possible. We also do not want to end up in a situation where Sweden needs to choose between farm sales and maintaining Systembolaget.

This is the reason for our careful work and why it has taken time.

But let us rejoice that we now have a proposal. I see it as a good first step. We implement this. Then we can evaluate and see how we can tweak it and improve it as we go, if it turns out to be possible.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Government's bill and the Social Affairs Committee's report on so-called farm sales have the heading Better conditions for the tourism industry regarding small-scale production of alcoholic beverages.

One might ask why the Committee on Health and Welfare should debate proposals concerning the tourism industry. Should it not be a matter for, for example, the Committee on Enterprise or perhaps the Committee on Environment and Agriculture? The reason that it is the Committee on Health and Welfare that handles this issue regarding the conditions for the tourism industry is that issues concerning alcohol sales are of importance for public health. We Social Democrats think it is a sensible arrangement. Alcohol is not just any commodity, and it should not be sold as just any commodity either.

Approximately 300,000 Swedes are estimated to be dependent on alcohol. More than that – 320,000 children – live with an adult who drinks too much and are negatively affected by it. Children who grow up under such conditions risk developing problems themselves when they become adults.

The main issue today is how we create conditions that are as safe as possible for these children. How do they get a safe upbringing, and how do we ensure that we protect them from growing up in a society where alcohol is available everywhere and at any time?

The main issue today is about what conditions we create for ourselves – for Sweden as a country. Shall we be able to decide on the Swedish alcohol policy in the future, or shall we hand over the decision-making power to future court processes?

The main issue today concerns public health and the future of the Swedish retail monopoly.

The main issue is not about the conditions for the tourism industry in Sweden, and the main issue is not whether it is reasonable for local producers to be allowed to sell their products themselves and under what conditions that should occur in that case.

The restrictive alcohol policy – and with it Systembolaget's retail monopoly – has served Sweden well. As recently as February this year, the UN released a report stating that countries with state-owned monopolies have lower alcohol consumption per capita compared to the EU average and generally a lower proportion of alcohol-related injuries.

Without Systembolaget, probably more Swedes would have been alcoholics. More children would have grown up with alcoholic parents, and society's costs for illness, accidents, and sick leave would have been even higher than they are today. But 320,000 children tell us that we still have a great deal to do.

Mr. Speaker! When Sweden applied to become a member of the EU, we fought for the right to retain the Swedish retail monopoly for alcohol, even though the monopoly contradicts the idea of mobility and free trade. Sweden was allowed to keep the monopoly because it is part of a systematic and coherent regulation of alcohol sales, for the purpose of protecting public health.

With the proposal we have on the table today, the government wants to break up the retail monopoly and allow the sale of alcohol for industrial policy reasons – but only a little bit, it sounds like, when the government and Christian Carlsson are to explain how they intend to do so. It is being done only to benefit the tourism industry and only to benefit Swedish local alcohol producers over other alcohol producers. That would be very nice, even a bit continental. A freedom reform, the Prime Minister proclaimed.

One may think what one wants about the proposal, but it is not a proposal that makes Swedish public health policy systematic or coherent, on the contrary. The proposal implies that the monopoly is broken up by definition and that a completely new sales channel outside of Systembolaget is created with many different points of sale. The systematicity in the alcohol legislation is abandoned when retail is to take place partly at Systembolaget for public health reasons, and partly directly by the local producers for industrial policy reasons.

Mr. Speaker! I suspect that everyone who stands at this rostrum today will say that they stand up for the Swedish retail monopoly. The Government says that they make the assessment that the proposal on farm sales is compatible with EU law and that it does not jeopardize the position of the Swedish retail monopoly. But just as the Government itself writes in its bill, it is only the Court of Justice of the European Union that can determine whether it is compatible with EU law to combine the form of farm sales that is currently relevant with a preserved retail monopoly.

The problem is that far from everyone shares the government's assessment. Heavy referral bodies, lawyers, and experts in trade law have pointed out the risk that the Swedish position will not hold in the European Court of Justice and that it is not a question of whether it will be reviewed, but how quickly it will happen.

We Social Democrats believe that this is a risk that we shall avoid as far as is possible. We believe that there are other and better ways to benefit the important tourism industry and the small-scale production of beer, spirits, and wine in Sweden. These are important industries that should be benefited, but it could be done within the framework of today's retail monopoly in cooperation with Systembolaget. We Social Democrats have presented proposals for this, but the government has not been interested.

Mr. Speaker! Those who have followed the debate can observe that no one seems particularly satisfied with this proposal. Before the proposal has even been adopted here in the Riksdag, many voices are raised that the conditions for farm sales should be changed. Already today we have heard that it should include larger producers – then it could really get the tourism industry moving! Visitors should be allowed to purchase more during their visit – three liters of wine is hardly worth the effort. The requirement for knowledge-enhancing elements casts a mocking glint over the issue, and the time limit of six years makes it impossible to make this profitable.

In the same way, proposals are currently pouring in regarding how it should be easier to stay open longer at the pub. The requirement for food service at the pub should be abolished, and there should be more liberal rules for serving alcohol during the intermission at the theater.

In today's debate, there is a great focus on alcohol as relaxation and experience, as something fun and festive. And alcohol is indeed all of that. It has and should have its place. But it is also appropriate to remind of the 320,000 children who grow up in homes where the adults drink too much, homes where "Happy Easter!" has not necessarily meant a happy Easter for the children.

It is for their safety that we should discuss this issue. It is their best interests that we must keep in mind. It is for their sake that we should be concerned about the Swedish retail monopoly. It is not the interest of those who produce, sell, and make their profit on as many people as possible buying as much alcohol as possible that should be the basis for Swedish alcohol policy.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude by quoting a man who knows more about Swedish alcohol policy than most others.

Gabriel Romanus has been a member of the Riksdag for Folkpartiet, Minister for Social Affairs and CEO of Systembolaget. He was involved in and ensured that Sweden could join the EU with the retail monopoly maintained. He was also involved in paving the way for Systembolaget to be the company that Swedes have the highest confidence in, measurement after measurement.

Gabriel Romanus summarizes the discussion on farm sales as follows: ”In reality, there is a great risk that it would threaten the monopoly. Many of those who advocate for farm sales want it as a tool to get rid of the alcohol policy. It feels like hypocrisy when they claim that the monopoly can remain.”

Mr. Speaker! I move for the rejection of the bill and for the approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I requested a reply when I perceived an almost mocking tone from Member Karin Sundin regarding the micro-producers we have in Sweden who are involved in developing the tourism industry, who are involved in creating jobs, growth, and faith in the future, who are involved in ensuring that we have a living countryside, and who are actually involved in developing a better and healthier alcohol culture.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that Sweden has moved in a very positive direction. We have moved from traditional binge drinking to demanding high-quality products to a much greater extent. Taste and experience, not intoxication, are at the center. We have moved from a large lager to a locally produced ale from the local brewery, and it is very much thanks to all the microbreweries, small distilleries, cideries, and vineyards that this cultural change has occurred.

This is an important reform for these companies, a reform that neither threatens Systembolaget nor public health. Still, the Social Democrats are saying no. I think it is good that the Social Democrats are finally speaking their minds and are clear about their opposition to providing better conditions for the Swedish tourism industry. It is good that one is clear about their opposition to giving hard-working companies all over Sweden better conditions, both on Gotland, where Karin Sundin is originally from, and in Western Sweden, where I come from and where the tourism industry is a base industry.

Can Member Sundin not be honest about the Social Democratic reason, which is that there is a principled opposition to creating better conditions for small producers? It is not about protecting Systembolaget. It is about denying these actors the opportunity to develop their businesses. Can Karin Sundin admit that?

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have the greatest respect for the local producers of both beer, wine, and spirits. There are many fantastic products that are manufactured on a small scale in Sweden today and, moreover, also on a large scale. They are found on Gotland, they are found in my home county today – Örebro län – and they make great contributions to the local tourism industry. They contribute to joy and enjoyment for the Swedish consumers, and that is something we must safeguard.

I completely agree with Member Hultberg that Sweden has moved in an incredibly positive direction from when we, at the beginning of the 1900s, consumed 6 liters of spirits and 50 liters of beer per year. We were practically drinking ourselves to death in this country!

Today we are in a completely different situation. I want to assert that it is largely due to a restrictive alcohol policy, where we have given Systembolaget the mandate to balance sales with education and to conduct its sales without a profit motive. Systembolaget is embraced today by most and is the company in Sweden that people have the absolute greatest trust in when the Trust Barometer makes its measurements, year after year.

This is thanks to Systembolaget, and we Social Democrats believe that we should utilize that strength. Let us use Systembolaget to continue providing local producers with good conditions in their work! Let us ensure that they continue to have their place in Systembolaget's assortment, but let us also cooperate to give them better conditions to showcase and also sell their products based on local visits. This does not, however, need to mean that one carries the bottles directly from the farm.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats' opposition to the sale of farms is clear, but let me nevertheless return to the question of Systembolaget, which has been at the core of the entire debate on the sale of farms.

What there is political support for in this chamber is to introduce farm sales in coexistence with Systembolaget. That is what we show in this bill is fully possible. It will unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, come with a long series of restrictions. That is the prerequisite. But it is not about establishing a separate sales channel. It is not about challenging the retail monopoly.

Karin Sundin's description of what the proposal entails makes me wonder if she has even read the bill at all. It is not the case that in a normal retail store one is forced to pay an entrance fee to take part in a visiting arrangement in order to then be allowed to buy the products included in the retail trade, which is what this proposal ultimately entails, Mr. Speaker: Only those who pay to participate in a visiting arrangement of an educational character shall be allowed to buy a few bottles after the visit.

This is a cautious reform that shows that it is possible to combine farm sales with a maintained Systembolaget.

Mr. Speaker! It is my firm conviction that we must constantly develop the Swedish alcohol policy if it is to continue to enjoy the strong support that Karin Sundin referred to. It is also my firm conviction that the Swedish people want Systembolaget right now, but also that they want farm sales. The Moderate-led government shows that it is possible. Finally, after 20 years of debate and investigation, we can now introduce farm sales.

I truly regret that Karin Sundin and the Social Democrats want to deny farm sellers all around Sweden this opportunity to develop and contribute to jobs, growth, and a strong competitiveness for Sweden and the Swedish tourism industry.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! The problem is that there is no agreement on whether this proposal is compatible with EU law. The Government and the business sector believe it is, but heavy referral bodies do not share that assessment. Experts in trade law and EU law say it is doubtful.

We also know – it has already been signaled – that the European wine producers' industry organization intends to review this. There is a resistance against the Swedish retail monopoly both in Sweden and outside Sweden. This is what it is about. The question is how large risks we should take.

I believe that Member Hultberg was standing there and hesitating. The problem is that there are clear voices, both in Hultberg's party and in other parties, who say that one actually wants to go further and give greater room for sales alongside Systembolaget's retail monopoly. They consider that the regulation surrounding that reform is not sufficient. Member Hultberg said that Swedes seem to want Systembolaget right now. How are we to interpret that?

What does Hultberg think the Swedes and the Moderates will want after a few years of farm sales? After a few years of EU processes, how will people stand then? When will it be time, according to Hultberg, to abolish that detestable retail monopoly?

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by talking a bit about the role of a politician. We earlier heard the member of the Left Party, Karin Rågsjö, speak about the role in the Social Affairs Committee. Now we hear Karin Sundin speak about the same thing, i.e., why this is a debate for the Social Affairs Committee and not for the Enterprise Committee. But for me as a member of the Centre Party, it doesn't matter.

I am the same politician regardless of whether I sit in the Social Affairs Committee, the Enterprise Committee, or the Environment and Agriculture Committee. I have the same politics regardless. It is not the case that the Center Party members in the Social Affairs Committee have one opinion and vote in one way regarding farm sales, and that the Center Party members in the Enterprise Committee have a different opinion and vote in a different way. But if I understand Karin Sundin's remarks correctly, Mr. Speaker, that is how it works in the Social Democrats. One votes differently depending on which committee one sits in. One is not a Social Democratic politician but a committee politician.

It occurs in all municipalities that someone becomes an education politician because they sit on the education committee or a social policy politician because they sit on the social committee. But that is not how politics should function. We must stand for a whole.

Mr. Speaker! It would have been interesting to hear if this had become a different debate if a business policy representative for the Social Democrats stood in the speaker's chair and not a member of the Social Affairs Committee. We could have started the discussion there and then proceeded from that.

For me as a member of the Centre Party, the proposal on farm sales means that one develops the tourism industry, the food industry and the countryside, but also that one preserves our retail monopoly and the alcohol policy in Sweden.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Bergenblock chooses to divert attention from what was the main point of my speech, namely that today's discussion should be about how we safeguard Swedish public health.

My point in raising the business perspective and not the public health perspective in my introduction was that the reason Sweden has been allowed to have an exception and is allowed to keep our retail monopoly in the EU, even though monopolies conflict with the idea of free trade, is that we have been able to describe the monopoly as a systematic and coherent regulation of alcohol sales for the purpose of protecting public health. Alcohol is a matter of public health, but what the government is doing now is breaking up that regulatory framework. You are breaking up the monopoly's sales, and you are doing it with arguments that it is good for the business sector and the tourism industry.

The business policy perspective on this issue means that Swedish alcohol policy can no longer be described as systematic and coherent in its regulation of Systembolaget. If this is the case, I can assure Member Bergenblock that we Social Democrats are in agreement, regardless of which committee we sit in. But it is strange that representatives of the Committee on Health and Welfare discuss issues concerning the core of Swedish public health policy without even wanting to draw attention to what problems this actually entails.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! Let us then talk about the Swedish alcohol policy. I do not believe that any party here will say anything other than that they stand behind both Systembolaget and the Swedish alcohol policy as it currently stands. It was also a mandate for the commission to produce a proposal that was compatible with a preservation of the retail monopoly. That is precisely what the commission has produced. It is such a proposition that has been submitted to the Riksdag, and it is that report we are dealing with today.

One can, of course, for emotional reasons, think otherwise or feel that this is probably wrong. But the facts state that the proposal is compatible with the retail monopoly in Sweden. This is established in the investigation. It is also established by some of the referral bodies. It is not strange that other referral bodies have thought differently. It is, of course, a balanced assessment that is made.

How has public health in Sweden developed during the last 20–25 years? Well, alcohol consumption has fallen year by year. According to CAN's latest report, which came out at the beginning of the year, it fell by 2.3 percent in 2023. It has fallen every year.

Throughout the entire time Finland has had farm sales or has been a member of the EU and had farm sales within the framework of EU legislation, alcohol consumption has also decreased there. Farm sales will not lead to increased alcohol consumption. Nor is it the case that farm sales will eliminate the Swedish Systembolaget or the retail monopoly, rather this is a proposal that is compatible with the alcohol policy and the retail monopoly in Sweden.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! I then remind again that the problem with the bill and the report that are on the Riksdag's table today is that there is no agreement on whether this is truly compatible with the Swedish retail monopoly. The Government says so, and some referral bodies say so, but heavy referral bodies do not agree. The Public Health Agency does not agree. The Central Association for Alcohol and Drug Information does not agree. The Gothenburg District Court does not agree. The Court of Appeal in Gothenburg does not agree. Systembolaget does not agree. The Children's Ombudsman does not agree. Heavy lawyers and experts in commercial law do not agree.

That the Swedish alcohol consumption has fallen has largely occurred thanks to the fact that we have pursued a wise and balanced alcohol policy. We use the alcohol policy tools we have in a wise manner. In that regard, Systembolaget, with its social mission, is an important tool. Without a profit motive, it manages to sell alcohol to the Swedish population in a way that has made it the most popular company we have. The trust is immense for the way it balances its task. The staff check every young person so that no one is allowed to buy alcohol before they have reached the age. They turn away those who enter who have drunk too much. At the same time, they can give good advice on which wine fits best, which beer one can afford, or what one should choose and keep in mind.

This is what we must be careful about, and that is what the proposal is about. We must be able to continue to dispose of the instrument that has served us well and caused consumption to decrease. It has ensured that local producers have a shelf in their local Systembolag. This is what we must be careful about and not hand over to the EU Court.

(Applause)

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Finally! Today, the Riksdag will finally make a decision to allow farm sales of alcohol. Finally, it will be possible to buy a few bottles after a visit to your local microbrewery or from the vineyard, distillery, or cider mill that you visited during the summer holidays or the weekend getaway.

Today, Sweden is the only country in the EU that does not allow any form of farm sales of alcohol. I am proud and happy that we are now changing that. Finally, Sweden is becoming a little, little freer. Finally, Sweden is becoming a little more like the rest of Europe. The Moderate-led government is delivering.

Mr. Speaker! In my free time, I enjoy engaging in endurance sports, for example running, cross-country skiing, and other sports that require both physical and mental endurance. I have run several ultramarathons, which has taught me to fight and not give up even when it gets tough. The issue of farm sales has been a political ultramarathon of rarely seen proportions, where the goal has many times felt distant. But as long as one continues forward and grits one's teeth, even when things go against you, you will reach the finish line. This applies as much to running as it does to politics.

For many, many years, yes for decades, farm sales have been debated and investigated, but now we are finally on our way to reaching a conclusion, thanks to the purposeful and persistent work that the Moderaterna and other actors have undertaken. Finally, Sweden's many capable beverage entrepreneurs will get the opportunity to develop their businesses and at the same time contribute to the development of the tourism industry and of Sweden as a food and beverage country.

The bill from the Moderate-led government that we now have to debate and later this afternoon make a decision on means that farm sales of alcoholic beverages of all kinds – wine, spirits, beer as well as other fermented beverages – will be permitted. The proposal does, however, mean that sales may only take place in connection with a paid visit, and the sales volume is also strictly limited. Furthermore, only small-scale independent actors will be able to obtain farm sales permits.

It is certainly no secret that I and the Moderaterna had wished for a significantly more permissive system. Our goal is and has always been a system as permissive as possible with as few and as small restrictions as possible. But to introduce farm sales without jeopardizing the Swedish retail monopoly – Systembolaget – does, however, require restrictions. Hence there is the requirement that the sales may only be carried out by small-scale actors and only in connection with a paid visit. Hence there are also the limited sales volumes.

My hope is that time will show that the limitations that now accompany the introduction of farm sales are unnecessarily far-reaching and that it will therefore be possible to loosen the reins further ahead.

The question of whether it is possible to combine farm sales with the preservation of Systembolaget has been at the core of the debate on farm sales. I and the Moderaterna have stubbornly asserted that it is possible, and we have been proven right. The farm sales investigation showed clearly and distinctly that farm sales are compatible with EU law provided that the sales are limited.

The model for farm sales that the investigation proposed and which the government's proposal is entirely based on has since undergone a so-called notification process within the EU. The EU member states as well as the EU Commission have thus been given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The EU Commission, however, had neither questions nor objections to the proposal. The Commission actually refrained entirely from submitting a detailed opinion.

When the EU Commission gave the green light to the proposal on farm sales, I hoped that the opposition parties, or at least the Social Democrats, would stand behind the proposal. In the debate on farm sales, representatives for the Social Democrats have indeed asserted that the party is not fundamentally opposed to farm sales, but that it has been about protecting Systembolaget. But even though it is now clear that farm sales can coexist with Systembolaget, the Social Democrats, together with the Left Party and the Green Party, want to stop the proposal.

Mr. Speaker! I am therefore forced to state what I have actually believed all along: the Social Democrats do not want farm sales. They have consistently been against giving Sweden's beverage entrepreneurs and the tourism industry better conditions, even though farm sales are not a threat to public health either. The Social Democrats have only tried to camouflage their opposition to farm sales behind claims that farm sales would conflict with EU law. It was a bluff, which has now been exposed.

Mr. Speaker! As with all legislation, good implementation is required for the new provisions on farm sales to work in practice and fulfill the intentions that we as legislators have. Now, however, many are worried about the Public Health Agency's regulatory work linked to the new law. I, too, am honestly quite worried. Why? I shall explain that shortly, but let me first give the agency praise for having already, before we in the Riksdag have made a decision on the new legislation, produced proposals for regulations. That the Public Health Agency, just like Sweden's 290 municipalities, is on its toes is indeed crucial for farm sales to be able to get started as early as June 1 when the law enters into force.

What I and very many microbrewers, winegrowers and other beverage entrepreneurs, however, are worried about and sharply critical of is that the Public Health Agency shall over-implement the new law by, in practice, further raising the already high requirements for conducting farm sales. Let me give a couple of examples.

In the new law, there are requirements that farm sales may only take place to consumers who participate in a visiting arrangement. Furthermore, it is regulated that this visiting arrangement shall have a certain duration. This means, according to the bill, that an arrangement must have substantial content and not merely be a visit where one pays an entrance fee.

Now, the Public Health Agency proposes that the visit arrangement shall last for 45 minutes, of which at least 30 minutes shall be of an educational character. This is completely unreasonable. It is an over-implementation of the law's requirement that visit arrangements shall have a certain duration. In the final proposal, the time limits need to be significantly lower, otherwise, I fear that the agency will put a stop to very many producers' plans to start farm sales.

Another example of how the Public Health Agency's proposed regulations is an over-implementation of the legislation we are now debating regarding harmful effects. The law stipulates that the person granted a permit for farm sales shall be responsible for ensuring that information on the harmful effects of alcohol is provided in connection with visiting arrangements, something that I believe should be able to occur in both diverse as well as simple ways.

What does the Public Health Agency propose then? Yes, that the farm sellers at the beginning of every visiting arrangement shall inform about the harmful effects of alcohol. Not only that, but the farm sellers are also proposed to be responsible for ensuring that the visitors receive the written information material on the harmful effects of alcohol that the Public Health Agency will produce.

I want to be crystal clear that the authorization for the Public Health Agency to issue regulations is not intended to give the agency room to practically tighten the provisions of the law, but rather the authorization is intended to provide the possibility for necessary clarifications on how the provisions of the law shall be applied.

I note that the proposal for regulations prepared by the Public Health Agency has received extensive and stinging criticism. I assume that the agency will take note of the views expressed in the referral responses and then issue regulations that make it both possible and easy to be a farm seller.

Mr. Speaker! Based on the legislation that we are adopting today and the regulations that the Public Health Agency will subsequently issue, it is the municipalities that will then review applications and issue farm sale permits. If the farm sale reform is to be successful, it is very important that the municipalities now prepare the permit process.

Unfortunately, there is reason to feel concern over the actions of some municipalities. For the first, I am concerned that some municipalities are not at all as forward-looking as they need to be for farm sales to be able to begin as soon as the new legislation comes into force. Now it is up to the municipalities to wake up and realize that summer is soon here.

Secondly, I am concerned that there are politicians out in the municipalities who actively want to oppose farm sales and thus the affected companies. As mentioned, the Social Democrats at the national level, here in the Riksdag, want to stop the proposal entirely. As is expected, the Riksdag with a broad majority will vote yes this afternoon to allow farm sales. But what do the killjoys within the Social Democratic party do when they fail to stop farm sales nationally? Well, then they begin to obstruct locally.

The Social Democrats in the City of Stockholm have already announced that they do not intend to allow farm sales on Sundays. This would naturally be a very hard blow to the local beverage entrepreneurs in Stockholm. It is precisely on weekends, when people are off, that there are opportunities to attract guests to visiting arrangements and then offer farm sales. S are some real party poopers.

Mr. Speaker! As I said initially, the issue of farm sales is a political nightmare, a nightmare that – given, among other things, the Social Democrats' local attempts to shoot the reform in the sink – now continues. I and the Moderaterna will, on our part, continue to push for a modernized alcohol legislation where we safeguard public health but without unreasonable and unnecessary prohibitions and restrictions. Specifically, this means that we will, among other things, continue to work to abolish the alcohol law's food requirements. For Moderaterna, it is indeed self-evident that it should be possible to, for example, open a simple small wine bar.

It is just as natural for the Moderaterna that it should be possible for a beverage entrepreneur to sell some bottles directly to the consumer. Therefore, today is a day of joy. Therefore, I move for approval of the government's proposal to allow farm sales of alcoholic beverages. Finally!

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare, Mats Sander and Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (all M) concurred.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! Finally, Sweden is becoming a little freer, and finally we are here today – "Finally!", exclaims Member Hultberg. And he exclaims that the Moderaterna were right – the proposal is compatible with the retail monopoly.

I honestly hope that the Moderaterna are right in this matter. I believe that everyone who safeguards Swedish public health and public health policy hopes that the Moderaterna are right when they believe that the proposal which will be voted through by the Riksdag today is compatible with the retail monopoly.

I believe that the 320,000 children who today live in families where one or more adults have alcohol problems and who suffer harm from it also hope that the Moderaterna are right. But Member Hultberg is anticipating the events. He asked earlier, in a previous exchange of remarks, if I have actually read the government's bill. Yes, I have done that, and I allow myself to quote it again.

The government writes that it is only the ECJ that can determine whether it is compatible with EU law to combine the form of farm sales that is currently relevant with a preserved retail monopoly. But the question is not decided yet. Only the ECJ can decide it. I wonder what Member Hultberg will say if it turns out that he is wrong.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my speech, the issue of farm sales has been debated and investigated for years, for decades actually. Several investigations have reached the conclusion that it is possible to introduce farm sales while preserving the Swedish retail monopoly. That has been the core of the issue, and it has also been the reason why the process has dragged on.

The Moderates and the Moderate-led government have been keen to ensure that a proposal can be presented to the Swedish Riksdag that is compliant with EU law. I feel incredibly secure with the proposal that is now on the Riksdag's table, Madam Speaker. I am about to receive criticism from the Center Party member that the proposal is not generous enough, that the limits are set too high and that the restrictions are too many, but that is precisely because we must be able to be secure that the proposal holds up under EU law.

I note, as I have said, that we have had a notification process, and I must say that it went unexpectedly smoothly. Only one country came forward with comments. The EU Commission, as I mentioned, completely refrained from submitting a detailed opinion, and for the observers in the gallery, I can clarify that in EU-speak, this is to give the green light. They had nothing to object to regarding the proposal.

Then it is as Karin Sundin referred to when it comes to the report, entirely correctly: Ultimately, it is the court that interprets the law. That is the case with all legislation, if I may remind Member Sundin of that.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! Investigations are one thing, and bills are another. This will likely be reviewed. We will get answers as to whether it is compatible with EU law or not. The risk is that it is not. Many referral bodies have pointed this out, and many experts have commented on it, despite the notification process that has taken place.

Member of Parliament Hultberg says that the Moderaterna want a system that is as permissive as possible. The question is how far the Moderaterna want to go to make the accessibility to alcohol and the possibility of purchasing alcohol as extensive as possible. We have heard the Moderate Member of Parliament Hultberg's characterization of the Socialdemokraterna here in the Riksdag and around in the country's municipalities, but that we are acting depends on the fact that we are truly worried about where this issue will head.

I want to point out once again that we are not alone in this concern. I want to quote the former Folkpartiet Member of Parliament, Minister for Social Affairs, and CEO of Systembolaget, Gabriel Romanus, again: "In fact, there is a great risk that it would threaten the monopoly. Many of those who advocate for farm sales want it as a tool to get rid of the alcohol policy. It feels like hypocrisy when they claim that the monopoly can remain."

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! What is hypocrisy is the Social Democrats' alleged enthusiasm for the countryside, for small businesses, for the beverage entrepreneurs who are involved in developing Swedish beverage culture and who have been involved in shifting our drinking from intoxication drinking to a drinking with a focus on quality and experiences.

I am very happy that we have changed the Swedish alcohol culture and seen drinking decrease. It has made it possible for the damages to decrease. We must also remember that this has occurred in a time when the availability of alcohol has increased and increased and the policy has been liberalized. It is, I argue therefore, not a correct assumption that just because one liberalizes the legislation a little cautiously, the damages will increase.

The fact is that youth drinking has halved in the 2000s. During the same period, the number of serving licenses has increased significantly. Should we then conclude that it is because there have been more sales licenses? That is roughly the way Karin Sundin argues. No, we naturally should not.

My point is that farm sales are possible to introduce with a preservation of the monopoly, and that is what has been the government's task. That is what has been the Moderaternas entry into this work, and that is why this proposal is surrounded by so many limitations and restrictions – so that we can be sure that the Swedish retail monopoly holds even if it were to become a matter for the EU Court.

I feel incredibly secure with this proposal. I hope and believe that it is a proposal that will create better conditions for many of Sweden's beverage entrepreneurs. But that requires that one does not put spokes in the wheels locally, but instead takes advantage of the opportunities that the new legislation opens up for.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! I hope that this will turn out very well, but it can also turn out very badly.

I was one of those who worked with the alcohol committee when Sweden joined the EU. We worked on trying to get people to think. It was we who developed the alcohol warnings and so on. I will not go into detail about that. But there are clouds of concern in this.

For example, WHO Europe released a new report highlighting both the monopoly's importance for Sweden's public health and that deviations from the monopoly in the form of farm sales undermine the monopoly's legal standing.

The Council on Legislation commented on the farm sale in September 2024. It was noted that it is still uncertain whether the farm sale proposal is compatible with EU law.

So there are still some questions, Madam Speaker. I wonder: Are there no concerns at all regarding this proposal? How will the members act if it turns out that this means we have to shut down Systembolaget, the monopoly? What kind of consequence thinking is there? One does not find much in the proposal.

I think that farm sales are great and that breweries are great. That is not what this is about, but this is about the monopoly. There are already today great opportunities to go to a farm and order wine and to go to a brewery and order beer and then pick it up at Systembolaget. That opportunity exists.

Another question I am considering is how the member intends to take a stand regarding the incredibly radical people who, so to speak, want to promote alcohol in every way and specifically this freedom reform. What will you do to act here? I will return to it.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, Member Rågsjö may return to the final question. I did not quite catch it.

When it comes to the question of whether we will be forced to abolish the monopoly, it is my firm conviction that we will not be forced to abolish the monopoly. I am very confident in the bill that is on the Riksdag's table. It has taken a long time to produce, but it finally makes it possible to introduce farm sales in Sweden. There, the EU law aspects have truly been analyzed. The government has been cautious. They have even lowered some limits further, which had already been up for debate here, just to be sure that this legislation will hold up under EU law.

I do not fear a potential EU law review but feel confident that the proposal will hold. And should it, Madam Speaker, against all odds, be the case that the European Court of Justice directs criticism towards Sweden, then Sweden naturally has all possibilities to adjust the legislation so that the farm sales do not jeopardize the Swedish retail monopoly. But I am, as I said, genuinely confident in the bill that lies on the Riksdag's table.

What I am not fully confident about is that there will be a good application of the new legislation, given the proposals that have come from the Public Health Agency regarding regulations and the signals that have come from individual municipalities about putting spokes in the wheels of this reform and this important intention to create better conditions for Sweden's small independent beverage producers who contribute to jobs and growth and actually also to a healthier alcohol culture.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to clarify myself. There are very many Moderates around who, just as Member Johan Hultberg sees it, view this as a freedom reform with more alcohol in every way.

Some debaters, for example Moderaterna's Christofer Fjellner who is an opposition councillor in Stockholm, want to see more changes. They demand Sunday opening at Systembolaget. Today's rules "mess up Stockholmers' life puzzles," says Fjellner, as if the most important thing parents consider on Sundays is whether Systembolaget is open or not. It is this slightly myth-making: If we don't open all doors, we will become a DDR country. That type of statement is seen a bit all around.

Then I mean that it feels a bit like this investigation is slowly pushing the monopoly over. Alcohol policy is then being steered not by public health principles but more by the market. Is that something the member has reflected on?

Another question concerns unemployment, which is very high in Sweden – almost the highest in Europe. Will this in some way affect it positively, that is, reduce unemployment in places where there is farm sales or breweries? Will it generate very many jobs? Is there such an idea? Is this something good?

It is my questions to Member Hultberg, Madam Speaker.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, this is a reform that will generate jobs. It is a reform that will create better conditions for small producers who today, many times, struggle just to survive at all. These are certainly not companies with large margins and large profits. These are entrepreneurs who are passionate about their craft, who are passionate about being able to offer high-quality products on a local market. Now we are giving them better conditions to develop their businesses and also the ecosystem that forms the basis for the tourism industry.

It is the case that if that hotel is to be able to grow and that restaurant is to be able to attract more guests, there need to be reasons to visit, and we see all around Europe that the opportunity to visit a vineyard or a whisky distillery many times is a reason to visit. That is why people travel to Scotland or choose to spend their vacation in Bordeaux. In the same way, it is important that that opportunity is strengthened in Sweden.

When it comes to Systembolaget, we have touched upon the fact that the support for the retail monopoly in Sweden is very strong. As I tried to explain in my previous exchange with Member Sundin, it is my firm opinion that we need to develop the policy so that the support for the Swedish restrictive alcohol policy continues to be strong. We need to remove the rules and prohibitions that have become obsolete.

We should therefore naturally abolish the food requirement so that it is possible to open a small wine bar even if one does not invest millions of kronor in a kitchen of one's own and is forced to provide a large selection of dishes. It is not that type of restriction that saves public health, but it is completely other measures.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Member Johan Hultberg began, and concluded, his speech by saying: "Finally!" I can only share the enthusiasm that the member has for what this can mean for the tourism industry, for the beverage companies within the food industry, and for rural development in Sweden. On the other hand, it will not mean that the retail monopoly falls. In that sense, this is a safe proposal.

In my opinion, and the Center Party's opinion, the proposal is also somewhat too safe and a bit timid. We share the view that this needs to be about small-scale companies, but we see that it could have been made something larger than the proposal that is currently before us. We understand the need for a knowledge-enhancing arrangement, as it is the arrangement and not the purchase that is at the center. But we perhaps do not consider that 45 minutes for a study visit is necessary. We understand that a limitation in the purchase is needed, and we share that view.

What we do not understand, however, is this matter regarding information on the harmful effects of alcohol. It is a paragraph and a proposal that were not included in the government investigation, but rather the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna have thought of themselves in their own chamber.

Now the member stands and blames the Public Health Agency when they have interpreted this proposal and said that it means one should have a lecture on the harmful effects of alcohol and then distribute a folder about the same – just as if it were the Public Health Agency that had pushed this paragraph into the legislation. But that is not the case. It is the government.

Ulf Kristersson has spoken about this being a reform that makes our freedom a bit larger and that moves us a bit closer to Europe. I wonder if this was what he envisioned when he spoke about becoming more like Europe. Why was this paragraph included?

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! As said, the question of farm sales is about how we are to find a model that makes it possible to introduce farm sales while simultaneously preserving Systembolaget's monopoly. It must honestly be said that it has been a challenge. We cannot open up for ordinary retail and at the same time assert our monopoly. It is an impossibility. It is therefore that this proposal has as a fundamental prerequisite that it shall be precisely the visit that stands at the center. I can think it is somewhat remarkable that the Center Party directs criticism towards the very basic idea for the farm sales, namely that it shall be a paid visit. That was the commission's proposal, and it is the most fundamental requirement for this model to be considered compatible with EU law and possible to combine with Systembolaget's monopoly.

It is also the case that with this proposal we need to show that our alcohol policy is coherent and that we safeguard public health, because that is also what gives Sweden the right to have an exception for its retail monopoly. Following the referral comments that have come in, the government has landed on the conclusion that requirements should be set that the person who is granted permission to conduct farm sales shall have a responsibility to provide information on the harmful effects of alcohol. We have, however, not prescribed in the law that it shall be oral lectures and brochures that are distributed. It is the agency's – in my opinion – over-implementation that has resulted in that proposal.

I hope that the Public Health Agency takes to heart the views and the massive criticism that have been directed at how they have interpreted that provision and returns with a proposal that is more reasonable.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! As I said, the Centre Party shares the view in the investigation that this needs to be about small-scale companies, that there needs to be a knowledge-enhancing activity, and that there needs to be a limitation in the purchase. All of this is addressed in the investigation. We submit proposals for corrections in these parts, but as a whole, we say yes.

What was not included in the investigation was this information about the harmful effects of alcohol. The investigator's mandate was to produce a proposal that was compatible with the retail monopoly. That has been done with both hinges and straps – which has been established here previously. Nevertheless, the government pushes in the paragraph about informing about the harmful effects of alcohol.

This is becoming a bit absurd. Most people would probably think it was quite absurd if you went to a restaurant in Sweden and the waiter, before the wine list was handed over, gave a lecture on how the wines you might drink could harm your health. At the same time, there would be a brochure about the harmful effects of alcohol lying on your plate next to the napkin.

Not even the staff at Systembolaget have this requirement imposed on them. If the member were to go into Systembolaget and buy ten bag-in-box with cheap wine, the staff still would not give a lecture on how this can harm you. But the farm sellers, who are allowed to sell 3 liters of beer, 3 liters of wine, or 0.7 liters of spirits, shall inform and give a lecture on the harmful effects of alcohol and furthermore distribute a brochure developed for that purpose by the Public Health Agency. This casts a mockery over the entire issue of farm sales, and it is the government that is responsible. The Public Health Agency has only interpreted what the government has proposed.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not think I should have to take the blame for what I consider to be an absurd interpretation by the authority. I can quote directly from the bill. The provision reads as follows: The permit holder is responsible for ensuring that information regarding the harmful effects of alcohol is provided in connection with the visiting arrangements.

I imagine that it could happen in many, and simple, ways – for example, by the person who goes onto a winery's website and books a visit arrangement receiving information about the harmful effects of alcohol in the booking confirmation. I think that would be a simple and smooth way to fulfill the requirement. The Public Health Agency has suggested an absurd way to fulfill the provision, I think as well. It is impossible for us politicians to look into the future and predict this type of crazy application from an agency's side. Thank goodness, it is just a proposal from the Public Health Agency.

I hope, as I said, that the authority will be responsive to the extensive criticism that has been directed at the proposed regulations in general, and particularly regarding the issue of the duration of visits and the issue that the member Bergenblock and I are now discussing, namely the information regarding the harmful effects.

As said, the addition has been part of ensuring that the system complies with EU law and being able to show that we conduct a coherent public health policy, which is the basis for the exception we have for the Swedish retail monopoly. The Government has concluded that it is reasonable for us to require the beverage manufacturers to inform about the harmful effects when we now give them better conditions to market their products. But it must, naturally, happen in a reasonable way. I think digital information in connection with a confirmation, or access to information in the premises, should be fully sufficient.

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

Angelica Lundberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation 3.

Today we are finally debating a concrete proposal on the sale of alcohol in stores.

Sweden has a long tradition of small-scale craftsmanship, not least when it comes to beverage production. Only in recent years has the number of microbreweries, distilleries, and vineyards in Sweden increased significantly, and there are today approximately 750 registered producers of beer, spirits, wine, and cider. This includes everything from local microbreweries to award-winning vineyards, cider mills, and world-renowned brands.

These are businesses that are often located outside the larger cities, where they create jobs, strengthen the tourism industry and contribute to a vibrant countryside. One can calmly say that we have a proud tradition of beverage production that is worth preserving. Among both national and international beverage enthusiasts, the interest in visiting the establishments is great.

Until now, one has only been able to take home a T-shirt or a bottle opener from the visit, which of course is not at all as fun as being able to take home some of the producers' products. This obviously reduces the attractiveness of these visits – something that we are going to change today.

Madam Speaker! The debate on farm sales has been ongoing for a long time in Sweden, and allowing farm sales has been investigated three times. The latest investigation was completed in 2021. We from Sverigedemokraterna have been driving the issue and have, since we entered the Riksdag in 2010, submitted proposals to allow farm sales.

For the Sweden Democrats, this is therefore a long-awaited reform that will support Sweden's many small business owners within the beverage industry. Finally, they can be given the opportunity to let their visitors experience both the craftsmanship and the products on-site in a simpler way. It is therefore pleasing to have a proposal on the table today that enables this. That the proposal now also includes distilled beverages and does not require own raw material production is extra welcome.

Madam Speaker! With that said, there is however some bitterness in the cup of joy.

We from the Sweden Democrats safeguard Systembolaget's monopoly – it is worth emphasizing – and we have full respect for the fact that this proposal needs to be combined with certain restrictions. We do not want farm sales to come into conflict with the restrictive Swedish alcohol policy. Throughout this entire process, it has also been made clear that the proposal will not lead to that. That matter has therefore been explained and established. Public health is in no way threatened.

The proposal, however, contains all too extensive restrictions that risk contributing to the fact that the farm sales will not achieve their full potential.

The limitation regarding annual production, the so-called production ceiling, for being granted farm sales permits is too narrow and risks being growth-inhibiting. We obviously want farm sales to contribute to increased production – not pull the rug out from under the companies that invest in the tourism industry and do so in a successful way. Of course, it is good for everyone if small manufacturers succeed and actually become larger, hire more people, and contribute to developing the local community. Companies that have built up their production through hard and purposeful work should not be disadvantaged by their success.

One can imagine a company that makes investments in outreach activities and hires people for that purpose, succeeds in reaching out, and then becomes successful in the market. Should they, when production increases, scrap the activities they have built up or refrain from meeting customers' demand in order not to risk their outreach activities? This is a limitation that stands in sharp contrast to the entrepreneurial spirit that we are usually so quick to applaud.

Even the proposal regarding volume limits for consumers is too meagerly conceived. Imagine coming to Sweden as a tourist, visiting a distillery, and only being allowed to take home a tiny 0.7-liter bottle! 3 liters of wine can admittedly be seen as a somewhat larger amount, but 6 beers becomes almost a bit ridiculous. We are still talking about adult people here, Madam Speaker – adult people whom we allow to drive cars, vote, and marry. We should have greater respect for people and not treat them with overprotectiveness. The volumes should, of course, have been larger.

Even stranger, however, is the requirement for a knowledge-enhancing experience of at least 45 minutes that must be completed every time one wants to buy a bottle of wine and some cheese home from the local producer. Someone who lives near one of the microbreweries will hardly pay for a guided tour for a fifth time just to be able to take some of the producer's beer home.

With this limitation, the proposal will not reach its full potential, and the risk is that those who do not want this law at all will be standing here in six years, when the law is evaluated, and claim that it has not had an effect. It is a pity, Madam Speaker, that instead, limitations were not proposed that truly facilitated for small producers and benefited consumers who want to buy locally produced goods.

Before the debate today, I spoke with the founder of one of Småland's microbreweries. There is a certain concern in the industry; we have heard it here today. Among other things, it is not known what fees the municipalities will charge for permits and what conditions will apply. It could be very different depending on where in the country one lives and who governs one's municipality.

There is also a risk that companies will not dare to invest in introducing farm sales because the legislation is time-limited. If one as a business owner is to invest and thus also plan for long-term depreciation, one needs to know the conditions. We believe that instead of the time limit of six years, the government needs to task an authority with evaluating the farm sales reform early on to identify unintended consequences – this is to ensure that the legislation contributes to the development of the countryside and the competitiveness of the tourism industry in the way that is intended.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: It is a pleasing announcement that the Riksdag is expected to decide today to allow farm sales of alcohol. It is a long-awaited reform that the Sverigedemokraterna have pushed through together with the government to promote entrepreneurship, rural development, and tourism. The proposal could, however, have been better and had fewer restrictions.

The future will have to show how this will turn out, and the hope is, of course, that any potential teething problems and negative consequences that the restrictions risk entailing are addressed when they are discovered, so that we can continue to be proud of our Swedish beverage production, our fine tourism industry, and our small business owners.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! Right now, the grapevines are standing in rows at Flädie winery and have just received small green buds. And right now, when Arild's grape bushes are washed over by a cold, salty wind from Kattegat and Ulrik at Klackabacken's brewery in Åhus tastes the Easter ale – with notes of apricot and Skåne kavring – to determine if the hop bitterness is just right, Skåne is at its most beautiful, Madam Speaker.

Today we give the producers of alcohol in Scania and the rest of Sweden a better opportunity to develop their passion and their life's work. Today I say congratulations to all of us who safeguard our cultural heritage – who safeguard the countryside, tourism, the business sector, and not least food and beverage development. Food and drink develop in interaction; that is why a chilled chianti tastes best with the pizza or a French goat cheese tastes best with a glass of cold sauvignon blanc from the Loire Valley. It is also why we Scanians took a beer to the *ålagillet* to cut the fat.

But as is known, our eating habits – and thus our drinking habits – have changed. Both in Skåne and in the rest of Sweden, we eat less fatty and less salty food. We also drink less brandy and fewer large strong drinks in favor of locally produced wine and beer. We Swedes have settled on continental habits.

Agriculture and farms in southern Sweden have seen business opportunities and have developed into tourist attractions. In Skåne, you can try homemade lamb sausage with a Pinot Noir harvested at Thora Vingård in Båstad. You can also stand on the hotel room's balcony and look out over meter after meter of dew-covered grape bushes just before the harvest at Lottenlunds vingård in Allerum. Already today, the vineyards and farm shops are so close together that you can cycle between them. This attracts people, both locals from Skåne and tourists from all over the world.

That one cannot buy a bottle of wine is actually completely unreasonable. Today's change is a step on the way to a functioning drinks industry in Sweden, a living countryside and many new tourists. The regulations regarding study visits and tours became a bit unnecessarily complicated, but that was the compromise that had to be made for it to become anything at all.

The risk that the reform will undermine the monopoly is great, and therefore evaluations are needed along the way. This is, as is known, a pilot project. Let us, however, rejoice that Sweden is now mature enough to liberalize its alcohol policy and move it in the right direction, even if it is moving at a slow pace.

Yes, Sweden is mature. Youth and young adults drink significantly less today than they did in the 50s, when Systembolaget started.

Sweden and Finland are the only two countries in Europe that have an alcohol monopoly, and right now Finland is leading the way even in the alcohol issue. Last year, Finnish grocery stores were allowed to start selling wine and beer with an alcohol content of up to 8 percent. Do you know what? Finnish alcohol consumption fell, because consumers chose a wine with a lower alcohol content in the grocery store instead of running over to the monopoly Alko and shopping. This is proof that it is not the percentage or the alcohol itself that is what is important. It is instead the flavor combination between food and drink that is appealing.

Furthermore, the unlucky crows cackled that only cheap swill would be on the shelves in the stores, but how wrong they were. Several international large-scale producers have now started wine production within the framework of Finland's new regulations. The Finns' changed view on the monopoly thus strengthened Finnish public health. Has Finland unleashed the Trojan horse, or is it that the Finns are capable of handling what the rest of Europe is capable of handling?

I hope that also Sweden and we in the Riksdag look soberly at the alcohol policy and modernize the conditions. Farm sales are a step in the right direction, but more is needed.

We Liberals are proud but not satisfied. We have a national convention decision that the food requirement at pubs should be removed and that restaurateurs should be allowed to spice their own spirits. We also have a national convention decision that Sweden should follow the Alkoholtulls example and introduce license stores for wine and beer for the sake of public health.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Mårtensen for the speech.

It was a very illustrative presentation on how it can look in Skåne as well as the development there regarding vineyards and other beverage producers. I agree that it is fantastically good. This is a day of joy – this afternoon we can make decisions on the introduction of farm sales.

At the same time, the rules, as the member himself said, are somewhat unnecessarily complicated. I intended to go into this again regarding the harmful effects of alcohol. This is a paragraph that the government parties themselves have introduced into the legislation. According to what I have heard, the Liberals were proactive in ensuring that the paragraph about informing about the harmful effects of alcohol would be included.

Now the Public Health Agency has been given this to interpret. That is how it works in Swedish law – we make decisions on legislation, and then an agency adopts regulations. The government parties must have foreseen that it would turn out this way. Furthermore, it was very well known that the Public Health Agency was against farm sales altogether when the agency responded to the referral. I can therefore wonder why one was not clearer in the drafting of this legal paragraph.

I am most astonished, however, that this paragraph was inserted into the law at all. It means that at Flädie vingård, when we hopefully open for farm sales this summer, we will have to begin every visit by telling our visitors how harmful it is to drink the wines at Flädie vingård and additionally hand out a brochure from Folkhälsomyndigheten where the visitors can read the same information. Was that really what the government parties intended?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Bergenblock for the question.

No, that was not how we had intended; that is the short answer. Given the previous posts here, including those from Member of Parliament Hultberg, I assume that this will be discussed with your authorities. Just as the government has the opportunity to give directives to its authorities, one has the opportunity to revise the directives if something is unclear.

This was not the purpose.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! It was good to hear that the purpose was not for the whole thing to be designed in this way, with a lecture on the harmful effects of alcohol and the distribution of a brochure. At the same time, I am somewhat surprised by the naivety that obviously existed among the government parties, who did not foresee that the Public Health Agency – with its basic attitude towards farm sales – would interpret this as far-reaching as it possibly could.

The question remains nonetheless, Madam Speaker: What does this paragraph do in the legislation at all? It was not the case that this was included from the investigation. Nothing was said there about conducting any information campaign regarding the harmful effects of alcohol.

In Sweden, we have today a systembolag that has an overall responsibility to enlighten and inform the population about the harmful effects of alcohol. That is also done, but not even if you go to Systembolaget and shop will you receive a lecture. You won't even receive a brochure from Folkhälsomyndigheten, but if you visit Flädie vingård you will receive it. If you go to a restaurant, the waiter will not give a lecture on the harmful effects of alcohol, and you will not have a brochure on how harmful it is to drink the wines at the restaurant lying on the plate. At Flädie vingård, however, one will be made to do that.

Why, Madam Speaker, did the Liberals include this paragraph in the legislation?

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I understand that the Centre Party needs to find something in this reform that they can take hold of.

I agree that the interpretation of the legislation has yielded completely unreasonable results. We have also heard that previous speakers believe there is a risk that the Public Health Agency is over-implementing. It is not reasonable that at Flädie vingård, or at a microbrewery somewhere else in Skåne or in the rest of Sweden, one should have to hand out a brochure and give a speech about the harmful effects of alcohol.

There is, however, an awareness that we need limitations. I perceive it as everyone who has been up at the rostrum being in agreement on this, as there is still a majority for the monopoly to remain.

I do not have the competence required to answer how lawyers and others have reflected on which regulatory framework was needed, but I think the result is alarming. I do not believe that Flädie vingård, or any other winery or small beverage producer in Sweden, should have to provide both oral and written information about the harmful effects of alcohol.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! That the Christian Democrats would become the party that launched the sale of alcohol – I did not see that coming. I consider it obvious that KD has ended up in rather bad company here. You have always had a very reasonable view on alcohol as precisely a public health issue.

The farm sale has been transformed into a question of market and business instead of being precisely a public health issue. There is no one in here who believes that one will go to a farm viewing or a brewery and drink oneself into drunkenness. That is not what it is about, but it is about how we can preserve the monopoly and Systembolaget and thereby have a good public health policy. The government's proposal to introduce farm sales in Sweden threatens the retail monopoly and thus the public health policy, I believe. A starting point in the farm sale proposal from the government and SD is that Systembolaget's monopoly is not threatened. I belong to the skeptics.

It is also evident, Madam Speaker, that there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding how the government's proposal would affect Systembolaget's monopoly. This has also been emphasized by a number of referral bodies, such as the Council on Legislation, the Cancer Foundation, the Children's Ombudsman, and the Public Health Agency, which have been heavily criticized here today by, for example, the Center Party. At the beginning of February, WHO Europe released a new report highlighting the monopoly's importance for Sweden's public health and that deviations from the monopoly in the form of farm sales undermine the monopoly's legal position. It seems that this has escaped your notice.

The Council on Legislation commented in September 2024 on the government's referral to the Council on Legislation regarding farm sales of alcohol. In the statement, it is noted that it is still uncertain whether the farm sales proposal is compatible with EU law. If Sweden allows farm sales, Swedish alcohol producers will get a new sales channel that manufacturers in other countries cannot utilize. According to the Council on Legislation, this could be a prohibited trade barrier. Well – Portugal is the country that has put its foot down by sending a so-called detailed opinion. It states there that Portugal considers that the Swedish bill conflicts with the existing Swedish monopoly on the sale of alcoholic beverages, that it creates obstacles to the free movement of goods within the EU's internal market, and that it constitutes a discriminatory and disproportionate measure in trade between the Member States. The continuation will unfortunately follow, I believe. But I do not hope for that, of course.

The market and a number of members in a number of parties want to see more. They ultimately want to see the monopoly fall and that one can buy that cheap box of red wine at Coop or Ica. It is total freedom for these people – isn't it? Of the referral bodies, Svenskt Näringsliv rejects the time limit specified for permits, while Visita considers that the rules on farm sales do not need to be time-limited but should apply indefinitely. They want to go all-in. That is the market.

Then we have the Centre Party, which in all contexts says: We must open all the taps! More alcohol! The Centre Party has become like a new advocate in the alcohol issue, and perhaps not in the way I thought. It is some kind of mirage one sees. It is going to be fantastic. Very many people will be employed on the farms, and the ten percent unemployment will be solved. Nowhere does the Centre Party lift the social policy in this issue. I think it is a bit strange.

Another question that is creeping up is how Sweden could phase out the farm sales after six years. I find it very difficult to see that. I think it will be difficult. But one harbors no doubts that this will work. Everything will go very well, it is believed.

It is also the case that even today there is an opportunity to go to a vineyard, another farm, or a brewery, look at the goods and order them from Systembolaget if the producer has registered. But I understand that it is a bit tedious, that there is a bit of DDR over the whole thing. It is like, it is not full freedom moving forward.

The companies that will be allowed to conduct farm sales are, by the absolute largest part, breweries. That must also be admitted. It is not so many farms, but more like breweries in Södermalm.

Systembolaget's strong confidence is certainly linked to the negative consequences of alcohol use in smaller communities. That sales cannot take place at any time, anywhere, and to anyone is the basic principle. The control of the sales link makes it more difficult for children, adolescents, and persons with harmful use to obtain alcohol. With reduced consumption, the risks of more children being forced to live in environments of substance abuse also decrease.

The issue of alcohol has been worked on for a long time in Sweden, for example, by reducing consumption among the youth group. One must be aware of that. That work has been carried out by the state and by voluntary forces.

Sweden has an exemption from the EU's competition rules that makes it possible for us to retain Systembolaget. It is based on the premise that Systembolaget has the exclusive right to the sale of alcohol. If this is loosened, the criteria for the exemption will fall, and then Systembolaget risks being dragged into the case, I unfortunately believe. Systembolaget also has a responsibility for all of Sweden and not just for its customers. Systembolaget is a guarantee for supply and quality but also for sales without a profit motive and without aggressive marketing. The mandate also includes taking responsibility for children and relatives of persons with alcohol problems.

It is this uphill climb that the opponents of Systembolaget's sales monopoly have had very difficult to conquer. Looking at motions and various maneuvers, it is obvious that members in certain parties absolutely do not want to keep the monopoly. They want there to be complete freedom to sell alcohol anywhere. But when one sees that the support for Systembolaget is so great, of course the only correct conclusion is that one should take it easy. One cannot present proposals to abolish the monopoly, but one can present a farm sales proposal. It can be a step on the way towards simply pushing over the monopoly, which would be very unfortunate. There is talk of a freedom reform. I think it is a very interesting concept, I must say.

Some debaters say that this is only the beginning. Among others, the Moderate Christofer Fjellner, opposition city councilor in Stockholm, conducted many interviews directly about this. It was not just about farm sales. He wants to see changes and demands, among other things, Sunday opening at Systembolaget. He argues that today's rules ruin Stockholmers' life puzzles and also wants to allow pub guests to take wine bottles home with them. Some of the things are relics from the 70s' DDR-Sweden, says this Moderate.

That the market will eventually govern even alcohol is what one might see coming if one has a more restless way of approaching this issue. Many want to allow farm sales if it can be combined with the preservation of Systembolaget. But we no longer own that question ourselves when we have challenged it by loosening the monopoly. If the sales monopoly is abolished, we know that the effects will be increased consumption, more alcohol-related injuries, and large costs for society.

The so-called farm sales reform has been marketed as if it were very small-scale, very nice, very many farms and very pleasant. It is a marketing aspect of the whole thing.

Thanks to the model we have chosen in Sweden, we have had lower mortality in alcohol-related diseases, fewer alcohol-related assaults, fewer children who have grown up in environments of substance abuse, and lower societal costs than would have been the case if we did not have Systembolaget.

Vänsterpartiet continues to stand for a solidarity alcohol policy that protects Systembolaget, which minimizes the damage of alcohol consumption and which protects children who risk growing up in environments of substance abuse. I move for approval of the reservation that Vänsterpartiet has together with Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservations 2, 4 and 6 in the committee report.

For over 20 years, the Center Party has worked to make farm sales a reality in Sweden. Our driving force has been that it is a reform that is good for the beverage companies, good for the tourism industry, and good for rural development.

It gives breweries, vineyards and distilleries opportunities to strengthen their companies and develop their regions. For the tourism industry, old destinations can be strengthened and new ones developed. It is good for Sweden, and it is truly timely.

The issue of farm sales has been investigated three times since 2007, and the Center Party has been the driving force behind all three investigations. Two of them were carried out during the Alliance government. But unfortunately, neither the investigations nor the parties measured up to be able to be implemented.

The third investigation was part of the agreement within the January Agreement and was carried out during the previous parliamentary term. The mandate was clearer this time: Produce a proposal for farm sales that is feasible, compatible with EU law, and ensures that the Swedish retail monopoly is preserved. That is exactly what the investigator delivered.

The investigation was completed in December 2021, and the consultation period expired in June 2022. At the end of the consultation period, 180 consultation responses had been received, and the majority were positive. Above all, the investigation received support from municipalities, the business sector, and rural organizations, all of which pointed to the added value of such a reform and what it can bring in terms of job opportunities and rural development.

When the new government took office in October 2022, the investigation had been referred and was ready on the new Social Minister's desk. It was a great deal of material to go through, but that it would take another two and a half years before the matter came up for debate and decision in the chamber was probably something no one had envisioned. For those who can count, it is also clear that if the investigation had not been carried out during the previous mandate period, there would not have been any decision at all regarding the sale of farmhouses during this mandate period.

The investigation that the government was tasked to handle contained a well-founded analysis of the conditions for introducing farm sales. Particularly positive about the investigation was that it could dismiss the two most common objections against farm sales, namely that it would have a negative impact on public health and that it would undermine Systembolaget's monopoly. Both of those questions are thoroughly investigated, and it is stated that farm sales will not have any noticeable impact on public health and that the retail monopoly is in no way threatened.

At the same time, the proposal in the investigation was designed with both shackles and leashes in the form of production volume limits for the companies, volume limits for the consumer upon purchase, and requirements for knowledge-enhancing activities, among other things. That was the investigation's mandate, so no shadow shall fall upon it. But after that, politics takes over to cast its grid over the developed proposal.

The expectations for this government – where at least two of the parties claim to have liberal traits and three of the parties claim to be business-friendly – that something would be eased regarding the proposal were, of course, quite large. But it fell completely flat. On the contrary, the proposal has been made even more restrictive and even more regulated than the proposal in the investigation.

That there has been a great split between the government parties has hardly escaped anyone. With a Christian Democratic social minister who has resisted and a liberal party that has not quite known which foot to stand on, the process has, of course, not been entirely simple.

No one probably forgets that two Moderate MPs were so frustrated that last spring they leaked to the media that the Minister for Social Affairs had intended to remove the entire distilling industry from the proposal for farm sales. From the Center Party, we then opened up to settle the issue directly in the Social Affairs Committee if that were required. But instead, the Minister for Social Affairs had to back down. When the proposal was finally presented in June, it was clear that the conservative forces had nevertheless won several victories in the negotiation, but not just that victory.

The referral to the Council of State has subsequently been notified to the European Commission, which, despite objections from Portugal, has had no comments whatsoever on the proposal. This is naturally positive as long as it does not see that the proposal is in conflict with EU law or with the retail monopoly. But it also shows that the government could have included a bit more than what it has done in the proposal that has been submitted. I will therefore come to what is the Center Party's view on the bill and our follow-up motion in the report.

First of all, I want to clarify that the Center Party will, of course, vote yes to the proposal on farm sales even if we are not completely satisfied with the content. This is an issue that we have pushed for for a very long time, and we are very happy that it is now becoming a reality. But we would have liked to see a more liberal and business-friendly proposal than what is the case. As it stands, the proposal contains too many limitations and restrictions, which makes it difficult for many producers to actually carry out farm sales in reality.

The Government proposes that the law should be time-limited to six years, which we oppose. Here we present a sharp proposal to remove the time limit because there is an obvious risk that companies will not dare to make the investments required to introduce farm sales and that, for many of those reasons, they choose to abstain.

Farm sales is an opportunity primarily aimed at small producers with an artisanal production of alcoholic beverages. Already in the investigation, very low ceilings were proposed for the companies' annual production. Regarding beer, the government has, without sustainable justification, chosen to lower the ceilings further.

The proposed ceilings mean that some producers will be left without the possibility of farm sales. They also mean a tangible limitation for successful companies to grow. In the long run, the ceilings should be able to be raised further. To begin with, the Center Party proposes that the ceilings should be set at 150,000 liters for spirits, 500,000 liters for wine, and 1,000,000 liters for beer and cider.

One of the prerequisites for farm sales is that it is the visit itself that is at the center and not the purchase of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, it is judged to be necessary that the visitor participates in a visit arrangement before they are allowed to purchase any products. On the other hand, we oppose legislation requiring a fee for those arrangements, as it must still be a matter for the individual entrepreneur to decide for themselves.

Centerpartiet therefore proposes that there should be no legal requirement that the visit arrangements shall be fee-based. Furthermore, we are very critical that the Public Health Agency has been tasked with specifying these visits in its regulations. This means that they shall be at least 45 minutes long, of which 30 minutes are knowledge-enhancing.

In addition to the visiting arrangements being knowledge-enhancing, the government has included its own makeshift paragraph about that information on the harmful effects of alcohol must be provided in connection with the arrangement. There is no basis for this in the investigation that has been conducted; instead, it has been designed entirely by the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna themselves.

The Public Health Agency has now also specified it to mean an introductory lecture on the harmful effects of alcohol as well as the distribution of a brochure on the same. This is a completely unique requirement that is not imposed on the staff at Systembolaget or on the staff at pubs and restaurants. Unfortunately, it casts a bit of a mockery over the entire yard sale. The responsibility for this lies entirely with the government. From the Center Party's side, we therefore propose that that paragraph should be deleted entirely from the legislation.

The government has chosen to fill the law with a long series of regulations that, to some extent, are to be interpreted by authorities and municipalities. The law sets requirements for new regulations, municipal rulebooks, determination of fees, and so on. It is obvious – not least after what has emerged from the Public Health Agency's regulations – that farm sales will become an over-regulated area.

For that reason, the Centre Party wants an evaluation before 31 December 2026 of how the handling by the authorities and the municipalities has affected the conditions for conducting farm sales and, if necessary, propose changes.

Madam Speaker! In summary, we from the Center Party are naturally both happy and pleased that farm sales will now become a reality this summer. It is an issue that we have pushed for for a very long time and which we know is in demand from both consumers and producers.

Farm sales will create new opportunities for rural development, food production, and tourism. If we in Centerpartiet had held the pen, it would have been a less anxious, more freedom-oriented, more liberal, and more business-friendly proposal. But this is, in any case, a very good start for farm sales.

(Applause)

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to listen to Member Christofer Bergenblock. I must say that I am surprised that there is not a single word about social policy in his contribution. It is largely just about the market. I think that is something one can be surprised by. There are no reservations; instead, this is going to be a straight path. Nothing will be strange, even though it feels a bit uncertain. Even the Council on Legislation has said it, but that may not be something that Christofer Bergenblock considers strange.

The referral bodies that have said no to this – I have highlighted them previously – are, among others, the Children's Ombudsman, Cancerfonden, the Administrative Court of Appeal in Gothenburg, Gothenburg District Court, the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, the County Administrative Boards in Västra Götaland, Västernorrland and Örebro counties, and the Public Health Agency. It is not a bad group, so to speak.

My first question to the member is: How is it possible that as a party you have farm sales as a flagship, and at the same time do not say a single word about alcohol policy and that there is something that harms with alcohol? You want to open all the taps, and I can think that becomes a bit much.

If one listens to you, the farm sales are going as a terribly successful recipe for success. Then I wonder if the member has any calculations at all of how many people will get a job as a result of the farm sales. Is this how the countryside is to be saved? I am skeptical. This will work on the farms during spring, summer, and perhaps a bit during autumn. Or are there other ideas behind the whole thing?

I am most interested in the Center Party's unequivocal stance on the entire issue. How have you managed to free yourselves from everything concerning restrictiveness and what this could mean for Sweden's public health?

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! To be a question, there were very many questions at once.

Centerpartiet stands behind a restrictive alcohol policy. It is this question that is so interesting in relation to Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, who do not want to see any possibility for farm sales at all.

The proposal that has now been submitted is well-analyzed. The investigation states that this will not have any noticeable impact on public health. There will not be rows of intoxicated people on the outskirts of the farms that have farm sales. The member has by no means claimed that either, but one can read between the lines that you mean that the farm sales will increase alcohol consumption in society. That is not the case. There is no evidence whatsoever for that.

The second question the member is looking for is: Is the farm sale a threat to Systembolaget? Even there, the investigation is very clear. A solid analysis has been made based on EU law and concluded that this is not the case. The proposed form of farm sale – which I admittedly think is too restrictive – is a form that is well-defined. It does not mean that it will become a new, free retail channel, but the purchase of alcohol is something that can occur at the end of a visit arrangement at a vineyard, at a brewery, or at a distillery. That is precisely what we envision.

That some referral bodies have been critical is not surprising. The majority of the referral bodies have been positive.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! It is always important to lean on referral bodies, because in that way one still sees a direction. Those who have said yes to the proposal are Föreningen Svenskt Vin, Föreningen Sveriges Oberoende Småbryggerier, Näringslivets Regelnämnd and so on. It is the market itself. Then it is those who are responsible for public health who have said no. One can reflect on that.

It is clear that no one is going to get drunk during a visit to a vineyard or a brewery. No one thinks that. This is not about that. This is about the monopoly – about whether we can keep it and what will happen on the journey forward.

The Center Party has really tied itself in knots on the issue of farm sales. This is a huge issue for you – one of the major issues for the Center Party. One can end up there as a party if one persists for long enough with an issue and tries to feed it. But it doesn't seem to be a recipe for success, so to speak.

The Council on Legislation has clearly written that if Sweden allows farm sales, Swedish alcohol producers will gain a new sales channel that manufacturers in other countries cannot utilize. According to the Council on Legislation, this could be a prohibited trade barrier.

But at the Center Party, there is no doubt. You also want to make the proposal even more liberal. And it is precisely then, when one takes the liberal turns and make the proposal even more liberal, that we would also risk the monopoly. But that does not seem to be a problem for the Center Party and Christofer Bergenblock.

I am also wondering how these vineyards and breweries are going to reduce the enormous unemployment we have in Sweden. Are there calculations of what the Centerpartiet has done that I have no clue about?

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! If the member has read the investigation, she knows that there are calculations in there of how many job opportunities the farm sales will create. I believe the investigation speaks of an increase of somewhere between 10 and 20 percent within the beverage industry. The member can go back and read more precisely in the investigation herself, because it is stated there.

I understand that this is an important issue in relation to unemployment for the Left Party's Karin Rågsjö. My tip is therefore: Read the investigation and you will get answers to this!

It is not the job opportunities that are the most important for the Center Party here, but rather that we create an opportunity for development in our rural areas, within the food industry, especially the beverage industry, and for the tourism industry. I believe that there is opportunity for development in many ways, and I believe that this can create job opportunities far beyond just the beverage industry. But it is therefore not the job opportunities themselves that are the main purpose of the farm sales.

It is about the development of Sweden and of Sweden's rural areas. That there are then many breweries located inside the cities is not a disadvantage. But what we envision is the strengthening of destinations that already exist and the creation of new destinations where the small microbrewery or the vineyard can be the hub.

Is the monopoly then threatened? Now the member says that the monopoly is threatened precisely with the Center Party's proposal. The member has previously said the same thing about the pending bill – that with this too, the monopoly is threatened. I am not so sure that it is analysis or facts that form the basis for the claim that the monopoly is threatened. It is perhaps rather the fear of market forces – you know, that fear that the Left Party so often stands for and talks about.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Bergenblock was visibly annoyed by the government's proposal and stated that if the Center Party had been in charge, this would have been a much more permissive proposal.

As a small piece of consumer information, it should nevertheless be said that it is thanks to the fact that it was the Moderaterna who won the election together with the other Tidö parties that we finally get farm sales in Sweden.

If Centerpartiet's coalition partners had won the election and Centerpartiet's prime ministerial candidate Magdalena Andersson had become prime minister, we would not be standing here today. Then we would not have a debate about finally introducing farm sales.

Finally, we are introducing yard sales. It is thanks to the fact that it is Ulf Kristersson who is Sweden's Prime Minister and the Tidö parties who have a majority in the chamber.

Then, Madam Speaker, I am not quite clear on the Center Party's position every time. Sometimes it has been said that the Center Party demands that we quickly proceed with the commission's proposals. The next moment, a proposal comes to make major changes. It is quite unclear.

The post from MP Bergenblock made it sound as if the Center Party had proposals not to grant an authorization to the Public Health Agency. That is not true. No such proposals exist in the Center Party's motion. I think it is a bit bold to criticize the governing parties so harshly for the proposals that are, by far, extensive, which the Public Health Agency has put forward in its proposal for regulations.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would still like to thank Member Bergenblock and the Center Party for the fact that we have been able to join forces on this issue. It has been important that we have been several parties who have persistently and for a long time driven the issue. We also agree that the proposal could very well have been much more permissive. But if we are to be able to combine farm sales with a preservation of Systembolaget's monopoly, it is also important that we have the limitations that are included in the proposal.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin in a positive spirit and say that I am also glad that the Moderates and the Centre Party have been very close to each other on the issue of farm sales. During the years of the Alliance government, we also pushed this together. On the other hand, we had a conflict with some of the other parties in that support base and did not make any progress then.

The consumer information regarding who is responsible for what, I would still like to clarify once more: Had the investigation not been carried out during the previous parliamentary term within the framework of the January agreement, in which Centerpartiet, Liberalerna and Socialdemokraterna entered, there would not have been any proposal regarding farm sales this parliamentary term either. It took the government two and a half years to go from the referral being completed to us now sitting with a proposal. The investigation itself with the referral period took one and a half years. It would have become four years in total, and we would then not have been able to make any decision.

The public information must nevertheless be that it is thanks to the Center Party that there is a possibility to now make this decision. Then it is gratifying that we have a political majority in the Riksdag that can ensure that it becomes a reality with the bill that has been submitted.

As I have said before, we will stand behind the bill. We propose announcements regarding things we think should have been done differently. We submit a sharp proposal to remove the six-year limit in the bill. We think it is a bit too anxious and a bit too restrictive. It could have been better. But we will, of course, support the introduction of farm sales. Just as the member said in their speech, both in the beginning and in the conclusion: Finally!

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, finally we are here today. Finally, we have a Moderate-led government that ensures we move from talk to results, from proposals to reality. Finally, farm sales will become possible.

Politics is the art of the possible, but I can state that the Center Party sometimes wants to take on the art of the impossible. To push forward lower taxes and a freer business climate together with the Left Party, or to push through farm sales together with other prohibition parties, is not possible, Madam Speaker. It is thanks to the fact that we have a truly conservative government led by Moderater who we are now finally getting farm sales. But thank you for the long-term work the Center Party has conducted on the issue! It has been important.

But again, Madam Speaker, it is somewhat split what the Centre Party wants. On the one hand, we are to push through the legislation that the investigation has proposed as quickly as possible, and on the other hand, different proposals for amendments are being put forward. These are rather unclear messages coming from the Centre Party.

It is, however, good that the Center Party supports the Moderates' ambition to look long-term at the possibilities of making this reform even slightly freer. We are proceeding cautiously precisely for the purpose of being able to introduce farm sales without jeopardizing the monopoly, but I hope, as said, that we can loosen the reins a little more as time permits. Sweden's beverage entrepreneurs deserve it, and it would have done good for Sweden's tourism industry. Today, however, we take a large, incredibly important, and long-awaited step.

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I completely share the member's opinion that politics is the art of the possible. Precisely for that reason, as a member of the Centre Party, after having pushed this issue within the party for over 20 years, I am happy to be able to stand here today and see it become a reality. Thanks to the three investigations that were previously conducted, we have now succeeded in carrying out an investigation that presented a proposal that preserves both public health and the retail monopoly. It is a move from talk to results.

That the sitting government is presenting the proposal is nothing we object to, other than that we can state that the proposal would have been a bit better, a bit more liberal and a bit more business-friendly if the Center Party had sat in and held the pen when it was drafted.

I do not quite know what the member actually thinks is unclear from the Center Party's side. I believe I was quite clear in my speech and also in the exchanges earlier. The Center Party stands completely behind the introduction of farm sales. We are very happy about this. We would have liked more companies to be covered than what is currently the case. That could have happened through a somewhat higher ceiling for the production volume. We would have liked to see less restrictiveness, bureaucracy, and hassle surrounding the visit arrangements, such as the companies themselves having been allowed to choose whether or not to charge for them. We would also have liked to see that the requirement for information on the harmful effects of alcohol, which the government parties themselves poked into the law, had been removed entirely. That would have happened if the Center Party had held the pen – a bit more liberal, a bit more business-friendly.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I note that there is a wonderful desire for debate in the Social Affairs Committee today. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that we are finally getting to debate at a decent time and not late in the evening. Or perhaps it has to do with the fact that we have a wonderful audience, for once.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 of Miljöpartiet, Socialdemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet.

Sweden today has an internationally successful alcohol policy. We have lower consumption than many other countries, we have fewer alcohol-related injuries, and we have broad public support for the existence of Systembolaget. This is not a coincidence. It is the result of long-term and purposeful work, where Systembolaget plays a key role.

This model is praised internationally – not least by WHO, which points out Sweden as an example.

We are therefore opposed to the legal gamble that the government is now staging. The model that is proposed, with special rules for small producers and special conditions for selling on-site, has already been questioned by both the Council on Legislation and the government inquiry. Portugal has submitted a detailed opinion to the EU Commission where they question the entire model. Several experts warn that the proposal is not compatible with EU law and that it could therefore lead to Systembolaget's monopoly falling in a future legal review.

We must remember that EU law does not allow us to favor Swedish producers over others. If we allow Swedish wine producers to sell directly to customers, how will we then be able to say no to a French wine farmer or a German microbrewery? It is that logic that could bring down the entire monopoly, and once it is gone, it is too late to regret it.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet safeguard both public health and the small local producers. It is possible to do so without undermining the foundation of our alcohol policy. Small local producers can, for example, be strengthened through cooperation with restaurants and through the opportunity to sell their products to customers throughout Sweden via Systembolaget. This is not about stopping development, but about safeguarding what works.

When alcohol consumption increases, it does not only affect the individual, but it affects society as a whole. Systembolaget is not an obstacle but a protection, and it constitutes an opportunity to safeguard access to products throughout the country from precisely small and local Swedish wine producers and microbreweries.

Madam Speaker! The decision is much larger than it appears. It is about which path Sweden should take. Shall we continue to stand up for an alcohol policy that saves lives, is evidence-based, and is internationally respected? Or shall we open up for alcohol to be sold in more places, by more actors, and with less control? It risks undermining the system that already exists.

I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on the debate we have heard. I am not quite sure whether we are talking about a small innocent reform or a big step. Both sides have presented their arguments today.

I have personally visited a local producer; Hvens destilleri, out there among incredibly beautiful fields. They produce different types of drinks, and they have an enormously well-developed culture for producing drinks with the best taste based on local raw materials. But the distillery is not relevant for farm sales because it has a production that is far too large.

We are talking about volumes concerning small producers. The law becomes strange for the small producers because they must develop a completely different type of business with, among other things, demonstrations. This has been highlighted by the industry organization for alcoholic beverages, which sees this as a good start but argues that the ceiling for the volumes is a major problem. The industry organization lobbies for this to be a beginning but that the volumes must increase.

Centerpartiet also says that this is a good start. And the Moderater argue for loosening the current alcohol legislation in various ways, for example, no longer requiring food service where alcohol is sold. As for the Sverigedemokraterna, it has long been known that public health is not important to them, and they have argued for and succeeded in getting through a reduced tax on snus. And now they think that the volumes must be increased significantly. More farm sales!

This looks like an innocent little reform, but we are opening up for something that can proceed progressively. This is only a start, and then a development shall take place. We must remember that the Sverigedemokraterna are the largest party in the Tidöre government, and that worries me strongly.

Miljöpartiet has made its choice, namely to say no to the proposal on the sale of alcohol in farm shops. Naturally, we urge you to do the same.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party is and has always been a strong advocate for farm sales becoming a reality in Sweden. We know that the proposal we are debating today would never have seen the light of the chamber if the Centre Party had not pushed for it for many years.

The proposal is, despite all its shortcomings, an important step toward creating better conditions for the growing, small-scale beverage industry and simultaneously developing the tourism industry, increasing employment, and keeping the countryside alive. But for the proposal to become an actual opportunity, the conditions must be reasonable.

Madam Speaker! The government's proposal introduces a production ceiling that is so low that it practically becomes a penalty for the companies that succeed. A ceiling of 75,000 liters of spirit is not small-scale. "Microscopic" might be an exaggeration, but when it concerns a company that is to have the conditions to receive tourists, organize tours, tastings, and simultaneously develop its operations, the ceiling is unreasonable. It is unreasonable that an operator that produces 76,000 liters of spirit per year – a marginal exceedance – suddenly shall no longer be eligible for the possibility of farm sales.

The bill now excludes a handful of very knowledgeable beverage producers. These are companies that have done what we all say we want to encourage, that is, growing organically and creating jobs as well as investing in premises, visitor areas, and marketing. They have a turnover that allows them to have employees who can take care of the government's requirements for visitor arrangements. And so the government responds by punishing them.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party wants a high ceiling, a much higher ceiling – double the production ceiling! I know that even our proposal will not please all beverage producers, but it includes many of those who have paved the way for beverage production in Sweden, who have generously shared with new entrepreneurs and who have created unique brands and reasons for visits in the countryside. We also propose that the requirement that the visit arrangement must be fee-based be removed and that the Public Health Agency's bizarre regulations be rewritten.

Madam Speaker! This is not a well-thought-out policy for growth in the whole country. It is a desk product where alcohol policy has been mixed up with the tourism industry and resulted in something that neither benefits public health nor the companies, and it definitely does not benefit the confidence in Swedish legislation.

We say that we want to attract foreign visitors, but we force entrepreneurs to act as international sobriety police with brochures in currently an unclear number of languages before sales can take place. We say that we want a vibrant countryside, but we propose a model that stifles just those actors who show that it is possible to build something big in a small place.

Madam Speaker! I am proud that we stand up for common sense. We know that entrepreneurship in the countryside does not happen by mistake. It requires courage, knowledge, and perseverance. It is not our task as legislators to unscrew something that has just started to work, but it is our task to create reasonable and fair conditions. To sharpen this further: We do not do it by transforming every farm sale into a state correction camp with an apron and warning texts, which the visitor must also pay for.

The government, which says it wants to reduce red tape, can stop the Public Health Agency's red tape. We hope that the proposal will be adjusted as soon as possible and provide room for growth.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Now, "finally" has been said a number of times today, and I join that crowd. This is a long-awaited reform. The sale of alcoholic beverages in grocery stores has been something many have hoped for for a long time, and they have fought for and believed in a reform for a very long time.

There has been a great longing among small breweries, local winegrowers and cider producers, to name a few, and also among us consumers, who want to be able to buy a bottle of something we have just tasted and learned about directly from the producer. So we can do that on our travels around Europe and the world.

This has been described as a freedom reform, and it has been debated today. It is a way to strengthen the countryside, the tourism industry, and small-scale entrepreneurship. And it has indeed looked promising with an opportunity to sell self-produced drinks directly to visitors in connection with a tourism arrangement.

But when we read the actual proposal for regulations from the Public Health Agency, with detailed requirements, then it becomes too much – and the arrangement becomes too complex. There has been talk about over-implementation. There are time requirements of at least 45 minutes, of which 30 minutes shall be knowledge-enhancing. A visit arrangement must be led by a physical person. And there has also been talk about how the information should look.

The Government, on its part, writes in the bill that it should be about "certain duration" as the basis for the activity linked to the visit. On page 68 of the bill, I read about a physical tour, but there is nothing there about at least one physical person having to be available one hundred percent, like a guide who follows the visitor step by step, or whether "certain duration" needs to stand in reasonable proportion to the operation. For small artisans and businesses, for example the small craft brewery that might be run by two people, where the margins are already small and the staff is insufficient, this becomes an additional administrative burden – an opportunity that becomes impossible to take. The requirements could even lead to those who were intended to be able to participate being completely excluded through the referral proposal that lies with the Public Health Agency. While some can benefit from and embrace the reform, others risk being left standing on the platform watching the train roll by. That was not the purpose.

This proposal appears to be about farm sales, and it speaks of farm sales. But when we look closer at it, we see something else, something more limited and something that in practice does not fully correspond to what many had hoped for.

We also know that municipalities do different things. The S-led Stockholm city has already stated that they do not want Sunday to be open as a visiting day for tourists and visitors. But it is precisely on the weekend that many people go out to make visits of various kinds. At the same time, other municipalities stand with open arms and account for everything they can do to give the beverage craftspeople a fine summer together with visitors and tourists starting on 1 June 2025 and so that they can be open seven days a week.

Better conditions for the tourism industry regarding small-scale production of alcoholic beverages

Madam Speaker! I believe that the authority is wise and takes the referral responses into account in a way that creates conditions for everyone and that reasonable trade-offs are made. My fellow party member Johan Hultberg raised this in his speech earlier, and I stand behind it completely.

Now there is an opportunity to show how farm sales can enrich our country. It is done responsibly and with reasonable requirements, and even the smallest actors get a place. That is well how we should have it. Then we can take steps forward. This is a first step, but I look forward to working further with this proposal, in order to develop it for the business sector.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 10.)

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