Extra supplementary budget for 2023 - Temporary tax on excess profits of certain electricity producers

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! With high inflation leading to higher interest rates, both in Sweden and in our global surroundings, and high electricity and fuel prices, households and companies in both Sweden and other countries are having a very tough time right now. We also have war in Europe with enormous suffering in Ukraine. Sweden, together with a responsible global community, is sending both weapons and economic assistance. There is broad support in this chamber for that, and that is good.

We must upgrade the Swedish defense capability and build security together with other countries. After many years of crime and organized crime, we have a domestic situation where we need more police and harsher punishments. The challenges and problems are large and extensive in Sweden. Much of what happens in the world around us naturally affects Sweden. Many problems are also a consequence of political decisions made in Sweden by previous governments.

The war in Ukraine has affected the oil price and, of course, also the price of gasoline and diesel here in Sweden. But even before the war in Ukraine, Madam Speaker, Sweden had the world's highest diesel price. The electricity price in Sweden has, of course, been affected by the energy crisis in Europe and the war in Ukraine, but the electricity price in Sweden increased long before Russia started the war against Ukraine. When the nuclear reactors Ringhals 1 and 2 were shut down during the previous parliamentary term, electricity production equivalent to 10 percent of Sweden's annual electricity consumption was erased. With a one-vote majority in this chamber, the previous government succeeded in shutting down nuclear power, which, if it had existed, would have resulted in 30-50 percent lower electricity prices in southern Sweden in the autumn of 2021, that is, long before Russia started the war in Ukraine.

After many years of global economic boom, the world is now entering a recession. Of course, it affects Sweden, Madam Speaker. But eight years of a Social Democratic government also means that Sweden had the lowest economic growth in the entire European Union the previous year. What happens in the outside world affects Sweden, but a large part of the problems Sweden has today are the result of political decisions made in this chamber and by the previous government. I want to remind those listening to the debate today and hearing the tone from the opposition that much of the criticism directed at the new government's policies concerns problems created by the previous government.

Today we are debating yet another supplementary budget, which aims at certain electricity producers' excess profits. This is a step in the EU's work to manage the electricity crisis and the catastrophic consequences it has for the economy, for households and for companies.

The tone has been high this week. The government has been criticized for sluggishness. Some have even gone so far as to say that the government has wasted billions by not doing this fast enough. This, Madam Speaker, simply does not hold water, and I hope that today's debate will make that very clear to those of you listening.

The fact is that the Ministry of Finance has worked as quickly as possible to get all of this in place. Introducing a new tax is complicated, and it is good that it is complicated. In Sweden, one should know in advance how high the tax is. Imagine as an individual citizen finding out afterwards that the vehicle tax is becoming ten times higher because the state needs money! Then it is a matter of decisions that one as an individual citizen can no longer influence. It is good that it is complicated with tax legislation, and it is good that it takes time to introduce new taxes.

In concrete terms, this proposal will mean that electricity producers who produce and sell electricity from the types of power that the regulation targets will be taxed on revenues over 1,957 kronor per megawatt-hour, which is thus slightly less than 2 kronor per kilowatt-hour. Profits exceeding that level will be taxed by the state at 90 percent. It should be remembered that it is net profits that will be taxable.

Generally, the process has been fast, Madam Speaker. All stages of the process have been shortened, with shortened preparation time, shortened motion time here in the Riksdag, and shorter time until entry into force. Those of you who listened to the presiding Speaker when she opened the meeting today could hear that even the time until the chamber debate has been shortened.

In Sweden, there is a general prohibition against retroactive taxation. The legal assessment is that it has not been possible to do this faster or differently than in the way it has been done. Let me be clear: the Government has worked as fast as it has been possible based on the legislation that I believe we collectively agree on: the frameworks for how laws and taxation should proceed in this country. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it has been strange to follow, not least the Social Democrats' criticism, in the debate. The lack of self-awareness is at times numbing. I hope that the Social Democrats agree that the laws that we enact in here must also be followed.

The fundamental problem, however, is the electricity crisis and the shortage of electricity. The Social Democrats are most responsible for that. It was the Social Democrats who shut down fully functioning nuclear power. It was that which created the electricity crisis that we have to deal with and which creates problems for households and companies in Sweden today.

Madam Speaker! It is the Social Democrats' fault that the pensioner must sell the house and that families are forced to send hungry children to school. It is the Social Democrats' fault that companies are forced to shut down and that staff are laid off.

Madam Speaker! It is the Social Democrats' fault that money that could have been used in welfare, which would have provided more hands in healthcare and which would have strengthened schools, healthcare, and elderly care, is now going towards high electricity bills. Let no one deceive you into thinking otherwise, because things are connected!

Sweden stands out in the EU. 42 percent of all collected capacity charges in Sweden go to Svenska kraftnät. These are funds that the state can use. Last year, it was 70 billion that were capacity charges. That is far more than what all VAT and all excise tax bring in. The forecast is that the excise tax on electricity from last year brings in approximately 26 billion kronor. The VAT on electricity is 20 billion. Together, the total taxation is therefore just under 46 billion kronor, according to the current forecast.

The capacity charges are well over 70 billion. It is good to understand in context that Sweden stands out. The large revenues therefore do not go to the state via tax or VAT on electricity but via the capacity charges.

That is why the government has chosen to use the capacity fees to repair the problems caused by the previous government for households and companies. The fees are now used to ensure that households and also companies will receive some help along the way to cope with the high electricity prices.

Madam Speaker! The government that is now in power together with the Sweden Democrats will rebuild nuclear power. We will rebuild energy production here in the country. It is one of the government's primary priorities to get order and clarity in Sweden again.

The extra supplementary budget is only a small part of a large package to handle the problems that decommissioned nuclear power has caused. It will provide a small revenue to the state and help so that we can manage the problems that this has caused.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! On 6 October, the Council of Ministers adopted an EU regulation to address the high energy prices. A regulation enters into force 20 days after it has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. As we all know, an EU regulation has direct legal effect in an EU country without any national implementation measures being required.

On November 17, the government submitted a proposition on the grounds of this specific EU regulation, which concerned tax on extraordinary profits for certain companies. In that specific case, it concerned fossil fuels. The whole thing passed relatively unnoticed, and there did not seem to be any particular obstacles. The tax began to be applied in accordance with what was stated in the regulation.

However, a new bill has now landed on the Riksdag's table based on the same EU regulation. This time it concerns the electricity companies' excess profits. Now, however, the government claims that the tax cannot be applied until three months later than what the regulation specifies.

I therefore have two questions for Edward Riedl. The Government and the Moderaterna claim that the tax cannot be applied in accordance with EU law. Is it the Moderaterna's and the Government's position that EU law does not take precedence over Swedish legislation? Why was the bill on tax on capital gains from fossil energy and tax on electricity companies not prepared at the same time, when both are based on the same EU regulation?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, for the questions!

Let me start with a few points. It is not the government's primary assessment but the Council on Legislation's assessment. It is usually something that we have to listen to in here. We also follow the law that exists. The Department of Justice at the Government Offices has also looked at it.

It is the collective assessment that Swedish tax legislation means that we have to do it in this way. One cannot place EU legislation on top of Swedish legislation without doing something; it must be implemented in Swedish tax legislation. That is what makes it take a little longer in Sweden and some other EU countries.

It is not possible with retroactive taxation. It is as I said, Madam Speaker: It is fundamentally quite good that one cannot be taxed retroactively. But for those listening to the debate, it may be good to know that Vänsterpartiet yesterday submitted a proposal to the Finance Committee which we will, of course, now address.

There, they propose that we simply break Swedish constitutional law and retroactively tax the companies from December 1, 2022, until June. It is a rather far-reaching proposal, and it would change things fundamentally if it were done in that way.

What is important when introducing taxes is that one knows who is to pay the new tax. It is especially important that those who are to pay the tax know that they are the ones covered. At what level should the tax be, and over what period shall the tax apply?

What was most important for this government was to know how it would affect electricity production in Sweden, given that the previous government, together with Vänsterpartiet, decommissioned 10 percent of Swedish energy production when they decommissioned the nuclear reactors Ringhals 1 and 2. We risked disconnection, that is, that the electricity would run out in Sweden.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I ask Madam Speaker to note that the questions I asked received no answers, namely whether it was the government's and the Moderaternas position that EU law does not stand above Swedish legislation. That was the absolutely most relevant question in this case.

We have now heard Edward Riedl in the rostrum claim that it was somehow a record-fast processing of taxes. We know that we have handled a tax legislation based on exactly this EU regulation already in the autumn. Was it not a record-fast processing of tax legislation in such cases? I assume that it should have been handled much faster than the one we have to deal with here today.

The question remains. Why do the government and the Moderaterna choose not to submit a proposition regarding precisely those things that the EU regulation proposes we should do so that we can meet the requirements that EU law places on us?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! That was what I was trying to describe. Of course, Sweden shall implement EU legislation. That is what we are doing now. We will make decisions on that today, just so that it becomes clear for the listener.

What I explained to Member Samuel Gonzalez Westling from Vänsterpartiet was that we in Sweden have different legislation than some other EU countries, especially in the tax area. That means it must be implemented into Swedish law.

So, it was not possible to lay this EU legislation on top of Swedish tax legislation and let it start to apply; instead, it had to be implemented into Swedish law. It was not we politicians here who said it was that way. It was the Council on Legislation that said it. The legal department at the Government Offices stated that it was that way it had to be done.

Fundamentally, it is good that we do not have the possibility of retroactive legislation in Sweden. I know, Madam Speaker, that the Left Party has a completely different view. They want to be able to tax both private individuals and companies retroactively. That would be a completely different order than the one that I believe most parties and politicians here in this chamber agree on. One must know in advance how much tax one is to pay.

Play with the thought that as an individual citizen, you find out in hindsight that Vänsterpartiet has now decided that the vehicle tax will be ten times higher than one thought from the beginning, and so you are supposed to handle that.

Madam Speaker! It is reasonable to know from the beginning how much tax one is to pay. There, I believe, the Left Party and the other parties in this chamber differ. We differ in how this implementation could look.

We have different views on this. But not on whether EU law should be implemented, for that is what we do today.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! When one listens to the presentation by the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, Edward Riedl, Bagdad Bob pales in comparison.

It is clear that it is part of the bourgeois narrative to blame everything on the problems that one believes the previous government has created. It is a way to hide one's own shortcomings and one's own deficiencies.

I nevertheless took note of a passage in Edward Riedl's speech. He said that the chamber of the Riksdag convenes today to debate a tax on electricity producers' excess profits. Let us then stick to that, Edward Riedl.

During the time that the government has been in power, ever since election day in September, it has made a good number of different choices. It has made a large number of different decisions. There has not been a single path to follow. It could have handled it in very many different ways and could have arrived at a completely different proposal than the one it is delivering to the Swedish Riksdag today.

It naturally leads to a reflection. After all the choices the government has made, and after all the decisions that have been taken, one produces a proposal that covers 150 million kronor in tax that you collect. You have also set a timeframe from March 1 to June 30, when the EU regulation says it should be applied from December 1.

What I cannot decide is whether the bourgeois government represents incompetence or if one represents a complete unwillingness to find a solution to return the large profits that the electricity producers are making today back to Swedish households and Swedish wage earners. Perhaps the chairman of the Committee on Finance can bring some clarity to this.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first say to the listener that one truly becomes provoked when one hears Social Democrats who have governed Sweden for eight years and who leave behind an electricity system where nuclear power has been removed to such an extent that Swedish households and companies today are being tormented in an extreme way, which they did not have to do. Nevertheless, the Social Democrats stand here in front and try to rewrite history.

Bagdad-Bob, for those listening, was in Iraq and declared that there were no problems and so on. The one who most closely resembles Bagdad-Bob, Madam Speaker, stands in the other speaker's chair here and pretends not to see that one has abandoned nuclear power and created the problems we are forced to handle today. These are problems that the new government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, have to solve.

It is an incompetence that led to the removal of carbon-free electricity production - the one that made Sweden, as one of few countries in the world, have carbon-free electricity at an extremely low price. This is now gone because you destroyed it. I believe that is something that should be taken to heart.

Madam Speaker! The second part perhaps Member Niklas Karlsson, the Chairman of the Committee on Taxation, can answer. Those who listened to the news yesterday heard Mikael Damberg, who is the economic-political spokesperson for the Social Democrats. He was, just like Niklas, critical. He did not want to be held accountable for the fact that nuclear power has been decommissioned, even though it is a fact. He was critical that this has not been implemented faster, but he still wants to follow the legislation we have jointly agreed upon. He could not provide an answer on how quickly it would occur, but perhaps Niklas Karlsson can tell those who are listening.

In what way and at what point in the process would we have saved time? We have saved time in all parts of the preparatory process. Niklas Karlsson can tell us: Where would we have saved more time? Which law would we have skipped to do this as quickly as you say it would be possible to do? Niklas Karlsson can be asked to answer that.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The Chairman of the Committee on Finance repeatedly returns to talking about completely different matters than those we are here to debate today.

I can debate anything else at any time, exactly when Edward Riedl wants to: the electricity system, nuclear power, and energy supply. But what we are to discuss today is a temporary tax on the excess profits of certain electricity producers. Let us stick to that. Tell us who are sitting in the chamber of the Riksdag and for those listening to the debate why this should only cover 150 million kronor and why it should only apply from March 1 to June 30!

I can inform the members of the Riksdag that the answer we receive from the chairman of the Committee on Finance today shows that there is incompetence in Sweden's government. After all the choices that have been made and after all the decisions that have been taken, one could have chosen a different path.

It is true, Edward Riedl, that Mikael Damberg in a debate in yesterday's Aktuellt with Elisabeth Svantesson said that there were certain things we could not have done faster. It is true, but we also could have done them differently. Those who know the craft know that if the government had gone to the Riksdag in the autumn with a stay of execution and spoken about how the EU regulation shall apply from December 1, but that we need to return with supplementary Swedish legislation, we could have handled it as what Edward Riedl today experiences as a problem with retroactivity.

This is a deliberate choice by the bourgeois government. It shall be 150 million, and we are not to return the large profits that the electricity producers have now made back to households and ordinary wage earners. They shall remain there. Edward Riedl represents completely different interests than those we Social Democrats represent. While we stand on the side of ordinary households and wage earners, Edward Riedl represents the producers - this seasoned with a certain degree of incompetence and lack of decisiveness in Sweden's government.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let us begin with what Niklas Karlsson does not want to answer. Would the government have chosen to ignore the Council on Legislation or the legal department at the Government Offices? The government has shortened all parts of the preparatory process in order to get tax legislation in place at record speed. Which part would we have shortened? That is where Niklas Karlsson owes an answer.

The Social Democrats have said that this could not have been introduced as early as December 1; that is one message. Apparently, it could have been done much faster than this government, but they refuse to answer the question of where in the process we would have shortened the whole thing. There is no answer to that. Then you cannot do the craftsmanship. Then you stand here, Madam Speaker, and just talk nonsense. One must be able to answer those types of questions. If you want to shorten the process - where, and which law would we have skipped to make this faster than it was done? They refuse to answer that from the Social Democrats' side.

Madam Speaker! It is not possible to have this type of debate about electricity subsidies, about the over-taxation of electricity producers, or about anything else without talking about why the problem has arisen.

I understand that the Social Democrats are constantly saying: Let us not talk about what happened during the last parliamentary term when we decommissioned nuclear power and created these problems! I understand that one wants to conduct that type of debate. But, Madam Speaker, this is not insignificant. One must talk about why the problems have arisen.

This government has to handle the problems that the previous government created, and that is what we are doing right now. You will be held accountable question by question. You cannot answer what should have been done differently, so I assume that the Social Democrats also agree that it was reasonable to do it in the way we did. It was reasonable to listen to the Council on Legislation and other instances.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to continue a little further on the track regarding the boundaries that the government has chosen to make when introducing this exceptional legislation.

We have a fundamentally well-functioning energy system, I mean, with responsible and competent actors. We have competitive markets, and that is good. We need to have that. But under the exceptional conditions that now prevail with a war in Europe, there is reason to apply this type of legislation, which is exceptional.

My reflection concerns somewhat the delimitation the government has chosen to make in relation to the actors who are taxed. It was actually entirely possible to tax actors other than electricity producers as well, for example those who trade with financial instruments and speculate on the electricity price. Under these exceptional conditions, there is reason to tax these actors as well.

My question, Madam Speaker, is: Why has the government made the delimitation that it has made?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Those listening to the Member of the Environment Party in the Committee on Finance, Marielle Lahti, need to remember one thing. The Member says that we have a well-functioning energy system. I do not believe that all the households that today are plagued by extremely large electricity bills - several times larger than they have ever been - agree.

I, who live in Norrland, where electricity has been a non-issue until recently, had an electricity bill of 10,000 kronor in December. People have contacted me from southern Sweden, where they have electricity bills of over 20,000 kronor for a single month. Miljöpartiet thinks that we have a well-functioning energy system. I guess that one is proud of what was done during the eight years one ruled the energy policy together with Socialdemokraterna.

Companies are shutting down production. People can no longer afford to run baking ovens in bakeries. Staff are losing their jobs as a result of what the previous government has caused.

Madam Speaker! We do not have a well-functioning energy system. We have an energy system that is heavily affected by the fact that functional nuclear power was decommissioned. They made nuclear power economically unprofitable, and then they try to stand there afterwards and say that it was market-based decisions that led to the decommissioning of nuclear power. But remember: Here in the Riksdag's rostrum, both Social Democrats and Green Party members have stood and been proud of what caused nuclear power, Ringhals 1 and 2, to eventually be decommissioned.

The price of electricity went up long before the war in Ukraine started. In the autumn of 2021, long before Russia had launched its war of aggression against Ukraine, electricity prices increased dramatically in Sweden - everyone who paid their electricity bills at the time knows that - as a result of nuclear power being phased out. That has created these problems. That is where we differ: in what has caused today's situation and whether we are satisfied with it.

I must return. I see that my speaking time is over, but I will answer Member Marielle Lahti's question in my next contribution.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I note that during the two minutes that the chairman of the Committee on Finance used to answer my question, no answer to my question was given. However, the rhetoric is somewhat reminiscent of the election campaign, which is now long over. The government representatives want to talk about everything other than the question that is on the table today.

I am simply awaiting the answer. I ask the chairman of the Committee on Finance to answer the question of why it was chosen to make this delimitation, which entails a very large loss for both households and companies. These could have received a good supplement to their coffers if the delimitation had not been made as narrow as the government has chosen to make it.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me start where I left off. I obviously intend to answer the question that Marielle Lahti has asked. But I am provoked - that is why I had to start in that direction - when politicians who have caused these problems, Madam Speaker, stand here and pretend as if they have nothing to do with it. One even goes so far as to say that we have a functioning energy system and that there are no problems. I believe that both the people who today are paying these electricity bills and the companies that are plagued by these costs are experiencing problems. I do not believe they think that we have a functioning energy system.

We need to talk about both things. We need to talk about what has caused the problems, and there, the Social Democrats, the Green Party and the others who shut down nuclear power are to blame. We also need to talk about what we are doing here and now to mitigate the consequences of that policy.

It is this that this government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is doing. Time and again, in extra supplementary budgets, we submit proposals to tax companies and return money to households and companies. We are also in the process of implementing the first parts of what will, in the long term, solve the problems, Madam Speaker: to rebuild Swedish nuclear power so that we move away from the problems created by the previous government.

It is always difficult to talk about the technology, but I will briefly delve into this. The large sums are found neither in the tax nor in the VAT on electricity, but in the capacity charges. That is where Sweden differs from the rest of the EU. It also means that there are not as many excess profits as the opposition tries to claim. Even the Social Democrats' own RUT report showed this. The risk of reduced electricity production if things are done in the wrong way is also worth mentioning.

We were, therefore, forced to make delimitations. We had to look at the consequences depending on who would have to pay this tax.

I did not have time to finish the entire answer, but we may debate this further.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It was good that Edward Riedl brought up the capacity fees. The government has on several occasions said that instead of getting this in place – we have debated this for a while here, and we do not seem to be getting any answers – it has decided to repay the capacity fees to consumers and companies. But that has not been done. Despite having been informed that small business owners in some cases have given up while waiting for the government, despite a record number of bankruptcies – which the credit reporting companies now, according to information, directly link to the delay in the repayment of the capacity fees to small businesses – and despite a record number of warnings, they have still not succeeded in arranging the repayment until a model is now to be in place on May 30. According to information yesterday, this will furthermore not reach the companies until in many cases next winter, i.e., after November 1, 2023, or before Christmas 2023, not 2022.

It was precisely this that was pointed out in the ordinance we are now discussing and which the government refers to – that the capacity fees should be able to be paid back promptly. How is it then possible, if the government prioritized this instead of the taxation of excess profits, as it is called, in the electricity companies, that one has still failed so miserably and had to redo the law so many times? If this is what one has put all its energy into, how can it then be that these small businesses still are not getting their money?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Martin Ådahl represents one of this chamber's four parties, Centerpartiet, which by a margin of one vote managed to shut down 10 percent of Swedish electricity production during the previous mandate period when it shut down Ringhals 1 and 2. Given the problems they have been involved in creating, it is astonishing to hear the high tone of the criticism of the new government when this one is solving these problems.

But let us go to the facts. What Martin Ådahl stands here and says is simply not true. This government chose to extend and expand the possibility of tax deferral, which means that companies can borrow from themselves on the tax account to bridge the time until they receive the payment of the capacity fees.

What Martin Ådahl stands here and says, Madam Speaker, is simply not correct. The companies have the opportunity to borrow against the tax account to get themselves to the point where they receive these funds paid out.

There is no doubt that the government has prioritized ensuring that both households and companies, despite the previous government's and its coalition partners' policies, will manage the situation here and now. This government has this as its highest priority. The possibilities exist for the companies to manage this. What Martin Ådahl says simply does not hold up.

I have heard other opposition politicians in this chamber being frightened that the companies will not manage the liquidity until the subsidies are paid out. It is simply not true. There is an opportunity to borrow on the tax account. The Government ensures this.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not think the chairman of the Committee on Finance truly understands how cynical it sounds for many small businesses, which already repeatedly during the pandemic utilized this tax deferral to survive the problems we had then, to hear again that it is simply a matter of borrowing against the tax account. Both Member Edward Riedl and I know very well, after many company visits, how it looks in reality – how this varies with what one is able to borrow from the bank, how one can manage, and what one can manage as a small family business. You need the money in the account, Edward Riedl. You do not need it in your imagination. Now it is time to start delivering.

This is a bit like the story of the master tailor, the one who was supposed to make a coat for Saturday that would keep me warm. So I came back next Saturday, and then it was a pair of trousers. Then I came back next Saturday, and then it was a scarf. And so I came back next Saturday, next Saturday and next Saturday, and finally it was only a thumb.

That is how it is with everything right now – the electricity support, the diesel, the electricity support for northern Sweden. Now that we have a regulation that was supposed to be implemented by December 1, it applies to that as well.

But my point is this – and here it is not possible to just say nuclear power, nuclear power, nuclear power, but now the question actually must be answered: If you have promised the small businesses, and they have planned based on that, that this would come on November 1, then before Christmas and then early in the spring, and if this was possible when you promised it before the election, after the election and again during the autumn, how can it now suddenly not be possible and only happen next winter? How can you have failed so capitally? Were you wrong earlier when you promised it? Or have you known about this all along but still promised it around?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Martin Ådahl says that the government and I are cynical. Cynical, for me, is to ruin the Swedish energy system and ensure that households and companies get enormously higher prices, so high that they can hardly manage them. Together with three other parties in this chamber, they are shutting down nuclear power, and then they stand in the chamber and use a high tone towards the government that is now solving the problems that the previous government created together with, among others, the Centerpartiet.

It is cynical to create the problems, tilt one's head, and try to appear empathetic—that is what Martin Ådahl is trying to do, Madam Speaker—in front of those for whom the problems have been created.

Martin Ådahl says that it is not real money. It is clear that it is real money in the tax account!

The very best would have been if the chamber with Martin Ådahl, Centerpartiet and the other parties had not caused the shutdown of nuclear power, Madam Speaker. Then we would not have had to talk about these things.

The experts themselves say that if we had kept the two nuclear reactors, the consequence would have been lower electricity prices by approximately 30-50 percent. It would have been real money. It is indeed with real money that households and companies today pay the high electricity bills. It is real money that hard-working people have earned and which they now have to pay with, Martin Ådahl.

Madam Speaker! It is also real money that companies have the opportunity to borrow on the tax account to bridge the gap until the government's support to the companies arrives. They will, in fact, arrive. Yes, it is more complicated than we had wished and hoped.

Above all, Martin Ådahl should not tilt his head and try to appear empathetic when he has caused these problems. It is terribly provoking.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Swedish households and companies are being pressured hard by very high electricity prices. Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the country's actions on the energy market have caused sharp increases in electricity prices across Europe. Even though Sweden is a country that is not dependent on gas for electricity production, we import the high electricity prices from Europe. Due to the pricing mechanism used, the price on the electricity market is set according to the marginal cost of the most expensive power source in operation.

At the same time as electricity prices have risen sharply, the production cost for the majority of electricity production in Sweden has been more or less unchanged. Almost the entire price increase has therefore generated increased profits in the system. In practice, this has meant large wealth transfers from electricity consumers to actors on the electricity market with large, unexpected surpluses without any positive effects for the Swedish economy.

To meet this, the EU has, through a regulation, taken the initiative to return the large profits to the consumers, in the sense of protecting households and wage-earner groups against the high electricity prices and facilitating things for people in an economically difficult time. The purpose of the revenue cap decided by the EU is that the excess profits shall be returned to households and companies through various measures.

It has also been clear that it is a way to increase our endurance during the energy war that Russia is waging against Europe. By taking common steps to make the situation more bearable for households, we allow no division or discord between our countries and within our societies.

But the government fails to deliver. The proposal we have to take a stand on today, which is on the Riksdag's table for a decision, is frankly both clumsy and insufficient. It is toothless and completely misses its purpose.

Madam Speaker! On December 13 last year, the responsible State Secretary at the Ministry of Finance was called to the Riksdag's Committee on Taxation to account for the matter and how the government intended to handle it. But no clear messages could be given to the committee, other than that one, as was said, had done the best possible. The message from the Committee on Taxation back to the responsible Minister was unambiguous: If the government can only manage to deliver, we shall handle the proposals expeditiously.

We see the result today. Sweden comes in last, and Sweden becomes the worst. The price for this failure shall be borne by already pressured households and companies.

The EU regulation entered into force on 1 December, so that the excess profits during the harsh winter months would be covered. But for the Swedish government, the issue has not been prioritized. Therefore, our revenue cap will be in place at the earliest in March, long after the large excess profits of the winter months. It is remarkably weak action.

From the large profits in the billions made during the winter months, the government and the Sweden Democrats expect to collect 150 million kronor. All other countries succeed, but not Sweden. We are clearly worse than Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and almost all other member states in the EU. Sweden comes last, and Sweden becomes the worst.

During the week, information circulated that Sweden, with a different construction, could have brought in much larger amounts, more in line with what our European neighboring countries have managed to achieve. To Dagens Nyheter, the Energy Markets Inspectorate says that a rough estimate gives a revenue of 6 billion kronor during January and February alone. These are completely different magnitudes than the pittance that the government has managed to perform. Sweden becomes last, and Sweden becomes worst.

Madam Speaker! 200 years ago, Esaias Tegnér chanted:

What you cannot clearly say, you do not know; with the thought the word is born on the man's lips: that which is dimly said is that which is dimly thought.

An unclear manner of expression often reveals a lack of knowledge and a lack of underlying reasoning.

Tegnér's words carry the weight of truth. What we see today is the right-wing government's and the Sweden Democrats' political priorities in reality. It becomes particularly clear when we listen to the chairman of the Committee on Finance, Edward Riedl. In the exchange of remarks, he does not call the matter a tax on electricity producers' excess profits but says it is an over-taxation of electricity producers – "what is vaguely said is vaguely thought."

The government would preferably avoid the taxation of capital gains entirely. The proposal is designed with the weakest possible regulatory framework within the framework of the EU regulation. The proposal is presented only now, three months after it is intended to be implemented. The proposal has primarily been referred to the producers, while the consumer side has been completely omitted. Neither the opinions of the tenants, the villa owners, nor the wage earners' organizations have been requested.

Madam Speaker! It is completely impossible to be anything other than disappointed. The possibilities to compensate consumers and companies for record-high prices decrease the worse we are at taxing the excess profits. That the government cannot or does not want to deliver better proposals is, in plain Swedish, deplorable.

Madam Speaker! It is beyond reasonable doubt that the government lacks a plan for how Sweden should meet the tough economic situation we are currently in. We see the result in the half-measures that the government and the Sweden Democrats nevertheless manage to produce.

Madam Speaker! Let me nevertheless underline that there is reason to hold great respect for complicated legislative work, not least when it concerns tax legislation. But in this specific context, such an argument is merely an excuse. "If there is a clear political direction, the problem will be solved," a government source told Dagens Nyheter the other day.

It is not possible to wave away the sense of injustice by claiming that Swedish tax legislation does not allow for retroactivity. The EU regulation arrived as early as October. Despite the requirement for supplementary Swedish legislation, the government could have announced the upcoming tax to the Riksdag already during the autumn and subsequently designed the details.

That the proposal is minimalist and only covers 150 million kronor shows whose interests the government primarily represents. And it is not ordinary wage earners or Swedish households under severe pressure.

Madam Speaker! The Government has shown an almost monumental reluctance to acknowledge how tough it is for Swedish households and companies right now.

In the blink of an eye, they abolish the electric car bonus. It is at top speed to submit proposals to lower taxes for high-income earners and deliver proposals to the Riksdag to classify electric vehicle subsidies as secret - then one does not rest on any legal grounds.

When it comes to proposals to protect ordinary wage earners and households pressured by tough economic margins, the pace and priorities are not as high – electricity price subsidies, excess profits that must be repaid, free schools that should not be covered by the principle of public access, and so on.

Madam Speaker! One must not handle the difficult economic times we find ourselves in so lightly. One must not behave so nonchalantly towards Swedish households and Swedish wage earners.

It is at least my view that the Swedish people need decisiveness, substantial measures and, above all, a government that represents their interests.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first ask Niklas Karlsson, who is also the chairman of the Committee on Taxation: How much faster would the Social Democrats, if you had been in government, have managed to push this through? Which parts of the process would you have shortened? Which laws would you have skipped? Would you have ignored the Council on Legislation? Would you have ignored the Government Offices' legal department, which is non-political and the same regardless of the government? Where would you have shortened this? I have heard Mikael Damberg say that it would not have happened on December 1st - but it took far too long before this government did it. How fast would it have gone for a Social Democratic government? Which parts of the process would you have shortened? That, Madam Speaker, Niklas Karlsson is welcome to answer.

Since then, I have a few more questions. Electricity prices in southern Sweden increased as early as the autumn of 2021. Can it really, Madam Speaker, have depended on Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, which came much later than that? Or what did the high electricity prices in the autumn of 2021 actually depend on? Could it be, as electricity and energy experts say, that the decommissioned nuclear power - Ringhals 1 and 2 - is the explanation for the 30 to 50 percent more expensive electricity costs already in the autumn of 2021? Or what is Niklas Karlsson's opinion on what this was due to? It is these problems that have created what we are debating today. It would be interesting if Niklas Karlsson could bring clarity to what he himself believes caused this. Those were two questions for Niklas Karlsson to answer.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Now, this is not the Riksdag's question time, but I will nevertheless give the chairman of the Committee on Finance a chance to get answers to the questions he poses.

I am particularly pleased that Edward Riedl takes this turn. We had this discussion in the exchange of remarks after Riedl's speech. Obviously, Edward Riedl has either not listened or not understood. And then we have a couple of minutes left to try to sort this out.

The answer to the question of whether this could have been done faster is no. The bill that we have to take a position on today, we would also have delivered with a Social Democratic government at approximately the same time. That is not the concern. It is the handling. It is the decisions and the choices that the bourgeois government has made during the autumn.

Now it is important that Riedl listens: Those who know the craft know that the government can also come to the Swedish Riksdag and speak about that there is now an EU regulation that applies from December 1, that it is the government's ambition that it should apply from the postponed time point, but that the matter is of such a character that supplementary legislation is needed. This means that the supplementary legislation and the bill will come during the spring, but that the decision applies from December 1. That possibility exists for the Swedish government. It is called a stay of proceedings. That decision the bourgeois government chose not to make.

Then my question is: Is it because the government is incompetent and did not understand this, or is it because the government does not want to tax the large excess profits and return this to Swedish wage earners and Swedish households?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I am hearing here from Niklas Karlsson that it would not have gone faster with a Social Democratic government. It is very strange to hear, but then we have received the answer to that question. I do not understand the high tone if the answer is that it would not have gone faster.

It is interesting that Niklas Karlsson brings up cease and desist orders and so on. In that case, I assume he knows the entire legislation surrounding this, because one also has to state who is to be taxed and how much. Even if one had done it in the way that Niklas Karlsson proposes, it would not have been possible with what existed from the EU. It would not have applied, because we would have had to go through the taxable subjects. It would, therefore, not have worked. Even if we had done it in the way that Niklas Karlsson now proposes in hindsight, it would not have been possible. We are finished with that part of the discussion.

In the second part, it is said that a Social Democratic government could not have done it any faster. Well, then that part of the debate is settled. Thank you for that, it was a clarification!

Madam Speaker! We shall proceed now that we have received answers to those questions. Niklas Karlsson, who is standing there saying how much the Social Democrats care about households and companies, is welcome to tell how much electricity support in money you paid out to Swedish households last year. This government is paying out 60 billion. I would guess that it is approximately six times as much as the Social Democratic government did last winter, but Niklas Karlsson is welcome to tell those who are listening.

Please also tell us how much electricity support the previous Social Democratic government paid out to the companies. It would also be interesting to hear, now that you are saying that a Social Democratic government would certainly have taken much greater responsibility. We had a Social Democratic government. There was much lower electricity support for households, and nothing for the companies. This government is handling the result of what you have caused, Niklas Karlsson!

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by admitting that Edward Riedl won a little in the debate, because now I got the chance to move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation in the committee report. I simply forgot it in the speech. So it is done!

Back to the question. It can only be stated that Sweden is last and worst. In all of the EU's countries, they manage to handle this. But not one bourgeois government in Sweden. Now, Edward Riedl has tried to explain to the Riksdag and to me in this exchange that this is not due to incompetence or a lack of decisiveness. That is all well and good - we are not going to argue about the Pope's beard. But it only strengthens the thesis that Edward Riedl represents completely different interests than what I and the Social Democrats and some other parties in the chamber do.

You manage to take back 150 million kronor. You tax the first link. But the money is many times elsewhere, in pension funds or on a derivatives market, which you completely overlook. And so you succeed in recovering 150 million kronor, when one could have recovered significantly larger amounts. This is what it is about – whose interests one fundamentally represents.

This debate today has given clear signals as to where the line of conflict lies in Sweden's Riksdag. Is it households and wage earners who should be protected and get back the large excess profits that the electricity producers have earned due to the situation we find ourselves in today, or is it the electricity producers' excess profits that should stay with them rather than be repaid? That is where—just as I have previously said that what is vaguely said is vaguely intended—it has shown where Edward Riedl and the Moderaterna are located. It is not a tax on electricity producers' excess profits that applies in Riedl's world, but an over-taxation of the electricity producers. More need not be said.

(Applause)

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

Charlotte Quensel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Finance's report Extra supplementary budget for 2023 - Temporary tax on certain electricity producers' excess profits.

The extra supplementary budget is based on a regulation produced by the EU. I will return later to the events that led up to today's committee report. The regulation is a response to a very poorly managed energy policy both here at home and in the rest of the EU. In Sweden, planned nuclear power was shut down instead of building new and building more nuclear power plants. In Germany, they invested in Putin and his fossil gas while simultaneously shutting down nuclear power plants. We live with the result today – a vulnerable electricity system where high energy prices prevail.

The regulation is an attempt to hide the result of the failed energy policy by redistributing a portion of the electricity producers' excess profits to the consumers. The intention is certainly well-meaning, but we electricity consumers will not be helped over time by certain electricity producers needing to pay an extra tax; on the contrary. More predictable and fossil-free electricity production in every member state is what pushes down prices, not new taxes.

The report concerns that certain electricity-producing companies shall pay a point tax on 90 percent of revenues that exceed approximately 2 SEK per kilowatt-hour. The period for this extraordinary tax is from March 1 to and including June 30 this year. The revenues are calculated to be 150 million SEK net.

The tax shall apply from 1 December 2022, but since it concerns a new tax in Sweden, we have constitutional rules to follow. According to the government, the proposal has been developed as quickly as possible based on the preparation requirements. These follow certain rules, including that the proposal must be sent out for consultation and that the Council on Legislation shall have sufficient time for review. In this case, the comments from the consultation bodies have led to the proposal being reworked over time.

Some are requesting a retroactive tax to include the electricity producers' revenues from the winter months. But in Sweden, we have a general prohibition against retroactive taxation, which means the tax can only be levied from the day the law enters into force.

Madam Speaker! Those burdened by tax on excess revenues are wind power, nuclear power and combined heat and power plants, with the exception of gas power. Swedish hydropower with reservoirs is exempt. The idea is that electricity production with low marginal costs, which would have produced as much even with lower revenues, should be taxed. Smaller plants with capacities under 1 megawatt are exempt from the tax.

The Sweden Democrats have tried to increase the number of actors to be burdened by the tax on excess profits, but the EU regulation is a blunt tool that does not allow the member states to adapt the tax based on what suits each respective country.

Madam Speaker! The Government assesses that the revenue cap will not have negative consequences for the electricity market or raise prices. However, one of the referral bodies, Energiföretagen, sees a risk that this tax will increase energy prices. Several referral bodies warn that the punitive tax will reduce electricity producers' willingness to invest in the future. Capricious taxes usually result in investors raising return requirements, which leads to higher prices for us consumers. This is extra unfortunate because the tax primarily affects electricity producers in bidding zone 3 and 4, where we already produce too little electricity compared to what we need.

Swedish politicians are usually in agreement that taxes are a national competence and not a matter for the EU to decide on. Nevertheless, encroachments occur without any criticism being voiced. This tax on excess profits is a clear example of how one in the EU bypasses applicable rules.

When it comes to tax matters, unanimity among all member states is required, but regarding this tax on excess profits, Article 122 of the EU Treaty was invoked as the legal basis. Through this maneuver, the EU Commission bypassed the unanimity requirement. Instead, the current regulation was decided by qualified majority in the Council. It is very worrying that rules are bypassed at the EU level when it suits them. The requirement for unanimity is there so that all member states should feel secure with the legal process.

Unfortunately, it is not the first time that the Commission bypasses the requirement for unanimity in tax matters. This leads to repeated encroachments regarding the member states' tax sovereignty. In this specific case, the EU is therefore deciding how a tax shall be implemented in Sweden and what it shall be used for. This contradicts the entire basic principle of the EU.

It is worrying that the EU's handling of the tax issue does not provoke any debate. We should be very vigilant against all of the EU's attempts to steer towards a common tax policy.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! In the speech we have just heard, the concern for Swedish households and ordinary wage earners was marked primarily by its absence. It was criticism of the EU, much formality and much bureaucracy.

If one looks at the matter that the government has now put on the table and which we are to make a decision on today, one sees that it is a proposal designed based on the weakest possible regulatory framework in the EU regulation that has been left to Sweden. It is presented only now, three months after it is intended to begin being applied. Furthermore, it has been referred primarily to the producers. The consumer organizations have been completely excluded. Neither the opinions of Hyresgästföreningen, Villaägarna, nor the employee organizations have been considered.

What prompted me to request a reply to the speech was the following: This is the government's product, but at the same time we are aware that nothing leaves the Government Offices and reaches the Riksdag without it having been negotiated with the Sweden Democrats. Every single syllable and almost every comma has been approved by the Sweden Democrats. This means that the products delivered by the government are also the Sweden Democrats' proposals. They are not just the government's.

We can observe that the Sweden Democrats also need to bear this responsibility. My question to the Sweden Democrats is: What is so good about this proposal? Why is it reasonable that we simply take and tax the electricity producers with 150 million kronor? Why can we not do as the rest of the EU and the other countries do and bring home the profits and return them to Swedish wage earners and Swedish households who are now living with tough economic margins? Why is this good? Why do we not protect Swedish households and Swedish consumers?

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

Charlotte Quensel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. I do not quite know if the member was listening, but what I said very clearly was that we tried to get through that more actors should be taxed.

Among other things, it is those who trade with electricity. They buy at low prices, and then they sell at the spot price and earn enormous amounts of money. We thought it was very strange that we could not tax them, but it turns out that it is the regulation that governs.

Then one has to look back a bit at who in Sweden negotiates so poorly that we cannot even reach those who just trade and make money, and then we have to take a step back to October 8, 2022. It was a Social Democratic Minister for Energy who approved this.

I think it is regrettable that the only ones we hit are the producers who actually do some kind of good – they do deliver electricity to us. But those who trade, they protect the Social Democrats by approving the regulation. I would not have approved it in the EU.

It would therefore be interesting to hear how the member views this ordinance that his colleague has drafted.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is a regulation that the bourgeois government is finding it difficult to live up to. One is truly looking for the most anorectic proposal one can find within that directive and the regulation that is submitted. You have the opportunity to tax in a significantly greater extent than you do today, but the Sweden Democrats go out and say that they would gladly like to do something else.

This is the Sweden Democrat trick, and we see it time and again. They want to both have the cake and eat it. I understand that the chairman of the Committee on Finance, the bourgeois members, and the government think this is somewhat inconvenient. One simply cannot bear the responsibility all the way. The Sweden Democrats stand on either the left or the right leg, or both at the same time, and try to avoid responsibility.

Speak to the members of the Swedish Riksdag and those listening to this debate about why it is right that Sweden is last and worst! Why is it right that we have not made other choices during the autumn and made other decisions that would have allowed us to pass on significantly more of the electricity producers' profits to Swedish households and Swedish wage earners? Instead, you point the finger at someone else.

Now the responsibility lies with the bourgeois government and the Sweden Democrats. How are you going to handle it? Why is the proposal lying on the Riksdag's table good? Why is it right? Why is it sufficient?

The Sweden Democrats need to account for this.

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

Charlotte Quensel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Niklas Karlsson, for the somewhat confused repetition of the question! I just answered it, and I cannot ignore the fact that there is a previous government that is responsible for the rules that the regulation stipulates.

I have also clearly stated, twice, that I would have liked to see that we could tax other actors. But the regulation means that we cannot do that. I also cannot say that we should disregard the Council on Legislation and perform back-taxation when it is very clear that one cannot do so for new taxes. Above all, if we had submitted the petition, it would not have been applicable at the same moment that adjustments were being made.

The members know this, so it is just a matter of standing and speaking about election policy or whatever else.

As a Scanian, I also cannot ignore that you applauded on January 22, 2020, when we did not manage to get through a ban on the closure of two reactors. We saw an impending energy crisis, and you applauded. There are four parties responsible for that, and it is so sad that we stand here and argue about things when you could have chosen other paths, just as Niklas Karlsson says to me.

You could have done it in another way. Then we would have had electricity in Skåne. According to researchers, we could have had 30-50 percent lower energy prices here in Skåne, the member and I. But he chose another path.

Now we stand here, and we are going to sort it out.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I did not receive any answer at all from the representative for the government parties on the question of why one is not able, in any reasonably close time, to give Swedish small businesses back the capacity fees that they have paid in.

Due to the lack of response from the government, I therefore turn to the party that I have understood actually decides in this government coalition, namely the Sweden Democrats. Do you think it is okay that small businesses are surviving with the help of deferrals on the tax account because no support has arrived yet? You yourselves say that you prioritize this, which actually has its origin in the same regulation that we just spoke about. Do you then think it is okay that you, according to the government constellation's own statement, have not succeeded in getting these EU rules in place so that the money is actually delivered?

Is it okay that small businesses in Finland have received a tax cut on electricity that provides relief? It is the same tax cut that you in the Sweden Democrats claim you pushed for, which we pushed for and which others pushed for, but you are unable to deliver it. They have had it since December 1, while Swedish companies may have to wait until December 1, 2023, before they get anything.

How can you have such a high tone in the debate when you have had the same opportunities as all other EU countries around us to give Swedish small businesses - companies that are now laying off people and in many cases even going bankrupt - an opportunity to get back the high electricity fees and still have failed?

I repeat the question, Madam Speaker: Do the Sweden Democrats, as part of the government constellation, consider it okay to do this to small businesses when they have promised them relief by November 1, before Christmas, and so on?

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

Charlotte Quensel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Martin Ådahl is fully aware that I do not work with these issues. They are also not in the report. Therefore, I will not answer his questions.

When Martin Ådahl now takes this high tone and says that C helps small business owners and sees everyone who has problems, then I wonder why Martin Ådahl and his party voted with the left wing on 22 January 2020 when we had the chance to stop the shutdown of two nuclear reactors. According to researchers, it would have led to 30-50 percent lower prices for electricity in southern Sweden. It would have benefited all business owners and all private individuals.

Why does the Centre Party choose to ally itself with the left side all the time and block the possibility for ordinary people and companies to live and operate in Sweden?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! You are trying to lure me and others into starting to talk about nuclear power instead of your delivery. It is indeed tempting, because reference is made to research showing that the energy savings that you and other parties could have accepted would have had even greater significance if they had been implemented a year ago than if just Ringhals had been operational. We see that even countries that have very much nuclear power have big problems after Putin's electricity price war. Those who are completely dependent on nuclear power have roughly the same problems as everyone else in Europe.

But that trick no longer works. It is not a high tone from me and Centerpartiet; the high tone comes from desperate small business owners. We see in concrete figures that they are going bankrupt or are forced to shut down their operations. They cannot take this anymore because we are last in all of Europe in giving them back what they have paid in, quite apart from the fact that we should need to help them in the situation they are in.

Madam Speaker! I know that Charlotte Quensel does not work with these issues, but we submitted in the Committee on Finance, where I know Charlotte Quensel was present, a proposal for a committee initiative on a reduction of the electricity tax as soon as possible, which the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates had once proposed. Then, small businesses and households throughout Sweden would receive something today, just as they have received in Finland, in order to survive. You will vote no to this without the slightest blink.

My question is again: If you really care about the small businesses, is it okay to put them in that situation when you have promised so much, so many dates, so much delivery, but they don't get anything until in six months?

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

Charlotte Quensel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the repeated question.

What I find strange about the member and his party is that he had every chance to present a budget where he could take this into account. But he has chosen not to do so. Instead, he jumps on others. It is just politics. This is just an opportunity to stand here and go on the attack.

Of course! At the same time as Martin Ådahl considers that I am throwing nuclear power in his face, he made an active choice to vote for the decommissioning of two reactors. Now he even lies to the researchers when they say that there would have been completely different prices, especially in southern Sweden. I understand that it is easy when one lives in Stockholm not to see the problems with living in the southern part of the country, where many of us have houses powered by direct electricity. It is terribly expensive to make that transition.

It is unfortunate, and I can only repeat that we could have had a completely different situation. We will try to work out this, and I hope that Martin Ådahl and his party will support us when we expand nuclear power.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to return to the question of the delimitation. It was pleasing that you are also interested in expanding the group to be covered by the taxation. So are we.

Many have made large profits from the energy war and the energy price. In normal cases, that is how it is, but now it is exceptional conditions. Therefore, it becomes extra important that they are also included in the so-called tax base - or whatever it shall be called - in the special legislation.

I note that you have not reserved yourselves against the proposal with that direction. Our assessment - along with several others - is that it is possible to include actors who trade in financial instruments in the legislation. Why have you not submitted a reservation?

My second reflection is that energy is expensive. In that regard, I look forward to proposals in the area of energy efficiency from the member's party to lower costs for households and companies.

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

Charlotte Quensel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions.

We have tried to include more actors, but the regulation does not leave that opening. Lawyers have interpreted, and we have tried to get it done.

The regulation is clear that it must be a question of producers, which means an entire giant industry that takes in excess profits. It is unfortunate, but the regulation is something we must abide by.

I have already spoken about what I think of the regulation, so I will not repeat it, but I am disappointed. There is no reason to reserve oneself when we cannot push forward proposals for another solution. We have tried, but we have been told no. I cannot do much.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! We mean that it is possible to reserve oneself. That is our assessment, and I believe it is also the assessment of several others. We are surprised that more do not say they want to tax the group that has made indecent profits, proceed in the matter and reserve themselves against the proposal. We mean that it is possible.

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

Charlotte Quensel (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that it is producers who should pay tax on excess profits. These traders are not producers, and therefore the proposal fails, according to what we have heard from lawyers.

I do not know how you can persist in that it is possible, but we have not seen any progress in the matter. That is where I stand.

I was also clear about who negotiated this pathetic solution to a crisis. It is the kind of thing that happens when one is seized by panic and must do something quickly. I hope that we will come up with significantly better solutions in the future. Above all, we know that more fossil-free energy production is what lowers the price. That is why it is so unfortunate that it has become exactly the opposite. There, I believe that many parties have been responsible for shutting down functioning energy production while simultaneously not caring about ensuring a replacement. That is where we stand today.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are to take a position on a proposal from the government regarding a temporary tax on the excess profits of certain electricity producers. It may sound like a dry and boring subject, but for those who have not been living under a stone over the past few months, this is an extremely relevant issue. It is so relevant that during the election campaign, it was one of the most important issues to debate.

The Left Party's proposal has from the beginning been simple and concrete, namely to introduce Sweden prices. Many of the problems that we have to take a stand on today could have been avoided if the government had complied with what both trade unions and the business community are now demanding.

We should not have it this way, that is to say, an electricity market where electricity prices run wild, not because there is an electricity shortage in Sweden, but because there is an electricity shortage in the rest of the EU. The government has chosen to be completely passive in the face of this situation. It is so obvious that the electricity market is not functioning that the EU has chosen to act. The Council of Ministers in the EU decided in the autumn on a regulation which meant that companies' excess profits would be taxed. The regulation began to apply on December 1.

When the government finally deigns to come to the Riksdag with a proposal to introduce the tax, we can state that the government has violated the EU regulation. It is admittedly at the absolute highest possible level that the regulation allows, but the period during which the tax is to apply according to the government's proposal is too short. This cannot just be a matter of carelessness; it suggests something else entirely.

It is highly remarkable that it could have become like this. As I have previously stated in exchanges of remarks, this question should be quite simple. Partly because EU regulations apply as law in Sweden, and partly because there is already a similar tax proposal based on the same EU regulation, which the government already handled in the autumn and the Riksdag passed a decision on. That time it was about windfall profits within the sector for fossil fuels. It affects Sweden to a low extent. But when it is a question of the tax that is applicable for Swedish electricity companies, then it is, according to the Minister for Finance, impossible to implement the regulation in time with respect to the constitutional requirements for preparation.

For me, it is a completely incomprehensible conclusion. The Minister for Finance has, therefore, himself submitted a proposition as early as November 17 regarding precisely this EU regulation. Why was it possible to process one tax but not the other?

The fact remains, regardless of whether it considers something to be difficult, that the government is not above the law. What is clear to everyone is that EU regulations apply as law in Sweden. This means that regardless of the Finance Minister's and the government's, frankly, clumsy handling of the issue, the tax must apply from the date that the EU regulation it is based on specifies, that is, December 1, 2022. For this reason, Vänsterpartiet has raised a committee initiative in the Finance Committee so that justice will be served.

Furthermore, the temporary tax that is now being introduced becomes toothless when the government chooses the highest possible level of the revenue ceiling that the ordinance allows. The government should therefore return to the Riksdag with a proposal for a lowered revenue ceiling in order to be able to return the electricity market's excess profits to electricity end-users to a greater extent.

More actors must also be covered by the cap on market revenues if the purpose is to limit excess profits in the electricity market. The Government should therefore also return to the Riksdag with supplementary legislation in which other actors are taxpayers.

In summary, we can state the following. Instead of households receiving the much-needed support to the greatest extent possible, which is the purpose of the regulation, it is the companies that get the jackpot. The only winners of the proposal the government has put forward are the electricity companies, which earn billions - money that it is obvious to everyone should go to the households. Is it not typical that it just happens to be so when a right-wing government rules the country?

I move for approval of reservation 2 in the report.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! For a longer period, many in our country have had to turn down the heat in their homes. Despite this, electricity bills have become more expensive. At the same time, the cost of food has increased and interest rates on loans have risen.

Let me therefore begin by stating that the day before yesterday, the first electricity support began to be paid out. It is a support that provides relief for all those households that are currently going through a difficult time. In that regard, I am thinking in particular of families with children and the elderly with small economic margins.

A total of 4.3 million households in southern and central Sweden will receive this first electricity support. For a typical villa in Örebro län, where I come from, with a consumption of 20,000 kilowatt-hours per year, the support will amount to approximately 10,000 kronor.

In short, new electricity subsidies will also be introduced, including electricity subsidies for households throughout Sweden, electricity subsidies for companies and organizations, and electricity subsidies for electricity-intensive companies. The high electricity bills have been and are of the highest priority, and no other government would have gotten these electricity subsidies out faster.

Parallel to alleviating the ongoing energy crisis, we must ensure that we rebuild the electricity system that has been dismantled during eight years of Social Democratic rule.

The situation in southern Sweden is extra serious, as it is identified as the region in Europe with the least installed electricity production compared to the needs that exist. This contributes to a heavy load on the electricity system in the whole country, seen in both supply and price levels.

When Stefan Löfven took office as Prime Minister, Sweden had ten functioning nuclear reactors. Four of these were subsequently decommissioned. The planning of two new reactors was halted. The Swedish people have paid and continue to pay a high price for this.

Madam Speaker! Even at the European level, efforts are being made to find different ways to alleviate the effects of the ongoing energy crisis. The EU's energy ministers, at an extra meeting in the energy council on September 30 last year, agreed on a number of measures to reduce the negative effects for consumers. One of these measures we are debating here and now via this extra supplementary budget for 2023, namely a temporary tax on the excess profits of certain electricity producers.

With this extra supplementary budget, it is proposed that a revenue ceiling for certain electricity producers be introduced for the period from March through June. This ceiling requires supplementary legislation which, according to Swedish law, constitutes a tax, and introducing a new tax is an extensive and complicated legislative task where it is important that it is done correctly. The question was asked by our Finance Minister yesterday whether it has ever gone faster to introduce new tax legislation in Sweden. I have not heard any answer.

Madam Speaker! It has not escaped any of us that there are many opinions on whether supplementary legislation is needed or not. For my part, I will admit without detour that this is an extremely difficult matter. I therefore gladly lean towards those who have far better knowledge than I do on what is required and what is not.

I note that the Council on Legislation makes the same assessment as the government, namely that the application of a revenue cap requires supplementary provisions. It is not solely a Swedish interpretation; several other member states have, just as Sweden, made the assessment that implementation through national legislation is required for the revenue cap to be applicable. Sweden has a requirement for preparation in the constitution, and the proposal must be subject to consultation and reviewed by the Council on Legislation. This has also occurred.

Madam Speaker! This revenue ceiling will not generate any billions in revenue that can go to the country's electricity consumers, even though we who have followed the media over the last few days have seen such figures floating around. Nevertheless, it is good that we can now make such a decision and that we, even though the handling has been hasty, for it has been, have had it highlighted in an adequate way. Indeed, there will be new winters, and with our electricity system and the energy production we have in the country, it is good that we now have legislation in place that can be used again.

It is reasonable now, given that we have a situation where consumers are exposed to extremely high prices which also damage the member states' economies, that we limit the extraordinary market revenues for producers with lower marginal costs through a revenue cap. Now we can establish a way to ensure that the excess revenues resulting from the application of the revenue cap are passed on to electricity consumers.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! Now I have been up a few times and asked the same question time and again. The question is still why the government did not prepare this tax proposal in connection with the other tax legislation based on the same ordinance. It was obviously possible to handle that bill in a significantly shorter time than a month from the time the government took office.

It cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the government has chosen not to do what it should in time. This does not, however, exempt the government from responsibility, and the fact that the government is passive does not mean that the law does not apply.

Hans Eklind repeats what other members in the chamber have said - that it would not be possible to do this any faster. Despite that, as recently as yesterday we could hear Energy Minister Ebba Busch say in Aktuellt that the government looked at this proposal in the autumn, this regulation, but chose to prioritize something else. How does Hans Eklind explain that?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I note that Samuel Gonzalez Westling has now posed the same question to three different representatives. I am going to disappoint Samuel Gonzalez Westling. I will not give any other answer than what the member has received from the others, namely that a cease and desist order requires that one knows who is to pay and how it is to be paid. If one follows the progress of the case, one sees that it has been adjusted in the course of the referral process and so on. Then this would have been ineffective.

As a Christian Democrat, I am immensely proud today that we got the electricity support in place on Monday so that it could begin to be paid out. I know that my party leader, Minister Ebba Busch, has fought furiously to get this in place as quickly as possible. I don't actually believe that anyone listening to this debate thinks there are politicians sitting and withholding compensations that one knows can make a dramatic difference for the individual, not least for families with children and the elderly. But it has been difficult to get it in place so that it is correct.

But now the electricity support is coming, and it will be up to 65-70 billion – I am not quite sure of the exact final sum. We will also now, thanks to the fact that the EU Commission has given notice, be able to put in place an electricity support of up to 29 billion kronor as compensation to the companies that are also struggling.

So much good is happening in Sweden right now, as we now get out these things that can provide relief in a very difficult situation. What Samuel Gonzalez Westling is focusing on is why this did not come earlier. I would then like to ask the question: If we could make this tax retroactive from January 1, which we therefore cannot, how much money would have come in? Now we have the final result for the electricity price during January and February. How much money would have come in? Does Samuel Gonzalez Westling know the answer?

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! My question to Hans Eklind was indeed whether Ebba Busch, Minister for Energy and party leader for Hans Eklind's party, told the truth in Aktuellt yesterday, when she said that they looked at this in the autumn but chose to prioritize something else. That means, in that case, that one has looked at it and could have done something much earlier but chose to do something else.

At the same time, we hear Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson claim that this has been handled in record time, despite the fact that we know that another tax proposal, based on the exact same EU regulation, was handled significantly faster. It was possible to produce a government bill on this in less than a month from the time the government took office. It is one and a half months from the time the decision on the EU regulation was made.

How can one take five months to produce this tax proposal and then claim that it would somehow be a record-fast handling, when we see that there obviously are other tax proposals, built on the same basis, that have been manageable much faster? I do not understand that.

I would very much like to hear how Hans Eklind views the fact that the statements from the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Finance seem to stand in very sharp contrast to each other. One says: We looked at it, but we chose to prioritize something else. And the other says: We have prioritized this very much, and we have worked very hard on it; it would not have been possible to do it any faster. Who is it that is telling the truth of these two?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! The short answer is both, for the simple reason that Ebba Busch will naturally prioritize getting the capacity fees out, as it lies with her department. That Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson, who handles new tax legislation, prioritizes that part does not mean that there is any contradiction, rather the opposite. It is two ministers who are managing their respective departments in the way they are supposed to.

I have previously during this debate heard members - I perhaps should have requested a reply to them - standing and saying that Sweden is last. Are we? It has been asserted several times. Have the Netherlands and Denmark then, this morning, this day, made this decision? We are not last.

This has proceeded very quickly. The member claims that it has taken five months. It has taken a little over two months from the time the government started; it is a fast process. The Minister for Finance asked the question yesterday, and I also asked it in my speech: Has it ever gone faster to produce tax legislation in Sweden? That question demands an answer. I have not heard the member claim that it has ever gone faster. This is new tax legislation.

It is not only the government that makes this assessment, but also the Council on Legislation. I am humble enough to state that if the government's own legal experts and the Council on Legislation together say that this requires us to produce our own legislation to implement the regulation, then that is likely the case. Unlike the member, I hold that position when it comes to such things, because I am not an EU expert who knows exactly. We have experts who have made this assessment, and I therefore assume that the assessment is correct.

Based on this, this government has very promptly gotten this in place. That Ebba Busch prioritizes getting the electricity support out is something I am very happy about, and I believe all households in southern Sweden are too.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It is inevitable, here two days before the anniversary of Putin's horrific, vile invasion of Ukraine, to begin a little there. It is perfectly right to discuss profits and tax revenues in Sweden, but I think that throughout these days we have reason to remember the Ukrainian people's struggle for their democracy and their freedom, which is also a struggle for our democracy and our freedom. While we stand here and speak, they are fighting to maintain the power supply at all, when the infrastructure is terror-bombed by Putin, as some kind of punishment against the innocent civilian population because he is losing on the battlefield. Every day that passes proves that the voice of freedom always has a strength that an ever-so-strong oppression cannot stifle, and that Ukraine deserves doubled and redoubled support for its people and its army from us who do not fight, not least from Sweden.

The question is also, Madam Speaker, whether we, when we in this chamber discuss electricity producers' so-called excess profits, should not talk about the excess losses, if the word is permitted, which is constantly referred to as that which this government prioritizes, but which the government has created among our Swedish small businesses, who wait and wait and wait and wait for that which the government has promised and promised and promised and promised.

We who sit in this chamber must understand that our words, whether they concern households or small businesses, have consequences. If we say that we are going to deliver something – that, based on the regulation we are discussing today, we prioritize delivering support first on November 1st, then before Christmas, then early spring – people will act accordingly. They take you at your word. The small businesses may feel that they should never do it again, but they believed in this government, which called itself conservative and liberal, when it said that this would save them and that it would arrive in time – that they would get back the capacity fees they had paid in.

We are now seeing record-fast increases in layoffs and bankruptcies at a level we have not seen in many years, not even during the pandemic. Analysts are now pointing to the government's sluggishness in helping small businesses as the direct cause of this. It is almost a business-hostile policy we are facing, with tax increases, regulations, and now a carousel of broken promises that just keeps rolling on, where the small businesses are left with the bill.

Here in the speaker's chair, it was said by the Christian Democrats that no other government could have done this faster. What is unfortunate is that we have neighboring governments, for example in Finland, where the Center Party otherwise holds the position of Finance Minister, which since December 1 has been helping its small businesses and households - which succeeds in delivering.

Now we have a debate about how we should use an already decided EU regulation that gives us the right, and according to some lawyers an obligation, to take back a small part of the profits that some of the energy companies are making as a result of the skyrocketing prices on fossil energy since Putin's invasion of Ukraine. It is this that is the cause of all this in all of Europe.

It is obvious that there is a need to help small businesses make investments in energy savings and to help households so that they can install heat pumps and solar cells. These are needs that are not being met today. It is quite obvious that one could at least use the money for Ukraine. Ukraine's economy is bleeding, and then these funds would have come in handy.

But it is as with everything else that it turns out as in the tale of Master Tailor: It only bidded an inch, even though we waited week after week. So it became with this as well.

Now we are there. A regulation that was supposed to enter into force on December 1, we will not manage to get finished until March 2023. We are not the worst in the EU, as there are actually some countries that have had to get even more time - which is, by the way, because they want to bring in more money and not less - but Sweden is second to last.

After all this time, it is still incredibly unclear what actually applies regarding this tax. Now the question is being asked whether it applies retroactively. I don't think so, but I don't know. But the government also doesn't seem to really know what applies! I don't doubt for a moment that the officials at the Government Offices have had to work hard - rock hard, as one has read in the newspapers - for this government. What I doubt is the management, with all due respect. As an official, it is difficult to deliver when the majority parties have had full hands. It is difficult to handle all the populist slush that was served before the election. It is difficult enough for the officials to handle all the orders that the Sverigedemokraterna have put at the top of the list, before everything that the households need.

But I still want to say that we do not know what the consequences of this legislation will be on the energy market because time has not been used to analyze this either. It will likely not sabotage the market's functioning this time or hinder investments because it is a one-time occurrence. In an emergency, this legislation can be both reasonable and right. That is what we think.

But we cannot repeat a tax hike of this kind year after year. It is not obvious that it is possible. On the contrary, we must carefully consider what consequences this will have if it is to be done again in Europe, but we will never get there, because one cannot even deliver on what has already been agreed. We still do not know how hard this hits the investments in renewables, which we urgently need now when Europe is to replace 1,500 terawatts of energy from Putin's gas and oil. We do not know how it affects the need to invest when Sweden's electricity demand is increasing very rapidly with electrification and the new green industries.

It can only be stated - it has been mentioned several times in a rather high tone by the government - that households are suffering. I believe we all know people among our loved ones who have had six-figure electricity bills and more than that in recent months. They have not had the means to install a heat pump or solar cells, and now they are receiving huge bills.

If you are a government, you do not make excuses. You solve people's problems. You take action on laws and regulations. You do as our neighboring countries do and deliver.

But this government unfortunately seems to land in the worst of all worlds. One conducts a policy that is short-sighted, and furthermore, it is short-sighted in an incredibly clumsy way. It becomes so protracted that bankruptcies and warnings soar, and households cannot manage their daily lives from week to week and month to month.

In a time when companies should be given the relief they urgently need to be able to hire when there is a crisis in the world economy and in Sweden, and in a time when households and companies must be able to invest to save electricity - yes, then the government continues to blame civil servants. I just say: Start delivering! Start functioning!

I would like to move for approval of the Center Party's reservation.

(Applause)

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Madam Speaker! It has been a tough winter for Swedish households and Swedish companies. Electricity prices have soared following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Europe's dependence on fossil fuels has cost us dearly.

Despite the fact that Sweden has been the largest exporter of electricity in the entire EU, we have also been affected by higher electricity prices. When the fossil-fueled production on the continent has been ramped up, the price effects have spread all the way up to northern Sweden.

It is clearer than ever that Europe must break its fossil dependency. We do this by expanding renewable energy, but also by using energy more smartly.

At the same time, we need to support Swedish households and companies in the situation we are currently in. The Tidö parties campaigned on quickly introducing support for households and companies so that they could manage the winter. The electricity support that the Tidö parties promised would be in place on November 1, 2022, became a broken election promise. Now we are at the end of February, and the support has only just begun to trickle out.

Many tenants and housing cooperative owners are still waiting. When the companies receive their support, we do not know at all. If northern Sweden is to receive any electricity support at all, no responsible minister can answer. It is difficult to call this anything other than a betrayal.

The State has a responsibility to intervene and adjust the injustice that electricity customers have been affected by. Swedish consumers should not have to bear the entire burden of the high energy prices.

Of course, the energy companies that have seen their revenues soar as a result of the global situation must also participate and contribute. That is the very spirit of the proposal that we are debating here in the chamber today.

The countries within the EU have agreed that a portion of the excess profits that the electricity companies have received when prices surged shall be returned to the consumers. This agreement was concluded already in the beginning of October 2022, and by December 1, the revenue cap could be in place.

What is the government doing then? Well, they are dragging their feet again, and again it happens at the expense of Swedish households and Swedish companies. Not until March 1st does the government propose that the revenue cap should be in place—three months later than what is specified in the EU directive. By then, the bitter electricity price winter that the proposal is supposed to protect European households against will already be over.

Sweden's government is among the worst in the class – only two countries lag behind – when it comes to getting the electricity support in place on time. Thus, they are actually leaving their inhabitants in the lurch.

The government's actions, or rather lack of action, have cost us billions of kronor, money that could have gone directly towards supporting households and businesses.

But there is actually more to criticize in the government's handling. Not only has the government been too slow in getting the revenue ceiling in place, but they also seem to have designed the proposal so that it only just meets the minimum requirements that are set.

This means that a large part of the revenue generated by the high electricity prices is not covered by the revenue cap at all. The goal has obviously not been to establish a proposal that enables Swedish consumers to be compensated.

We had an exchange of remarks earlier regarding the delimitation of those covered by the extra tax. We believe that it is possible to tax a larger group. It explicitly states that the member states may "maintain or introduce measures that further limit the market revenues for producers who produce electricity, including the possibility of making a distinction between different technologies, as well as the market revenues for other market participants, including those who engage in electricity trading". It is therefore possible to expand the scope of the taxation.

When the situation is uncovered, the responsible minister refuses to answer questions, and one ducks the journalists and refers to the KU report to avoid having to explain themselves in the Committee on Enterprise.

The question one must ask oneself in this situation is whether it is a matter of incompetence or whether the government has deliberately wanted to protect the electricity companies' profits. Regardless, it is difficult to call this anything other than a betrayal.

Madam Speaker! We need to get to the bottom of what has caused this situation. Alarm reports are coming from within the Minister for Energy and Business's own department that are difficult to interpret in any other way than that the government still believes they are in opposition.

Introducing a tax on the electricity companies' large excess profits was actually an election promise from the minister. Jakob Forssmed, then the economic-political spokesperson, said on September 5 that it was a priority to introduce what was called a windfall tax, which later came to be called a solidarity contribution by the EU.

The proposal we are debating today is a failure, with 6-10 billion in missed revenues. It is yet another in the series of broken election promises. And in this situation, the government refuses to answer questions. It is once again difficult to call this anything other than a betrayal.

That this government says one thing and then does something else is unfortunately something we have started to get used to. Ebba Busch said last Friday that more wind power was needed. At the same time, one hires an anti-wind power lobbyist as a state secretary, and the government gives the defense assignments that make it difficult for wind power. New investigation directives are produced that hinder the expansion of wind power and remove support for offshore wind power.

If the government had actually prioritized a rapid expansion of wind power, it could have lowered electricity prices in the long run. Instead, they have done exactly the opposite. If the government had succeeded in getting a revenue cap in place, one could have protected Swedish households from the electricity companies' excess profits this winter. Instead, they have done the opposite.

This government looks like it is going to be very expensive for Swedish households. When Sweden's economic development is predicted to be the worst in the entire EU and costs are skyrocketing, the policy must stand on the side of the households and support those who need it most. But unfortunately, that does not seem to be what we get with this government. The management is downright embarrassing.

I would like to conclude by expressing my support for the Green Party's reservation. I look forward to seeing any other reservations now that it has emerged that the scope of the tax can be expanded.

(Applause)

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

Carl B Hamilton (L)

Madam Speaker! Let me, for the sake of safety, begin by moving for approval of the committee majority's and the chairman's requirements.

I want to join something gloomy in a positive spirit, namely that which Martin Ådahl took up. On Friday, it is exactly one year since Ukraine was attacked by Russia quite brutally, and successively more brutally. The question may seem a bit odd in this debate, but I think it is so pressing and important for us in the Nordic region that it should be mentioned.

One can, Martin Ådahl, without doubt say that the invasion of Ukraine and the war we are now seeing affects the energy supply and the energy market in Europe. This applies not only to electricity, which has been the focus here, but also to other types of energy. What I think has been missing in the debate is the fundamental question, namely how Sweden and other European countries in the long run are to have a sufficient supply of carbon-free energy that can satisfy the demand. How is that going to happen? One can answer nuclear power, which is the solution that is closest at hand, but it lies quite far off in time.

We have a number of years ahead of us in which there will be a fundamental uncertainty about what our country's energy supply will actually look like and what prices will prevail. It is a bit troubling, I think, that we have this debate without going deeper into precisely that question, who bears the responsibility, even though it has been touched upon in passing. It is important to learn from the past, and therefore accountability is an important task within politics. We have heard nothing about this here other than when it concerns the collision between national law and EU law and those types of questions.

How will Sweden's long-term supply of energy and electricity be managed? That question remains unanswered. What is interesting in this company is that the Social Democrats have no idea about this. There is no governance whatsoever and no hint of how the country, which they themselves boast of having built up, shall be supplied with energy. How will the re-industrialization of Norrland be supplied with energy? There is no answer to that. This is distressing and a failure. But we are, thank goodness, members of the European Union, so we certainly have support there.

I will now, however, move on to the more fundamental issues in this debate, such as the revenue ceiling, which has come into focus.

Everyone watching this on TV now should be aware that we are dealing here with two issues in Swedish tax law. One is rules in Sweden that are to be applied when laws are enacted, and the other is EU legislation, which in itself is also decided and handled in Sweden's Riksdag. It is not at all the case that one sits in Brussels and decides one's legislation, but it is instead a mix of two systems. This partly explains the somewhat confused and complicated decision-making process we have listened to here.

When it comes to tax law and decisions on a so-called revenue ceiling, the rules for changes in the tax system are, as usual, strict; there is a strict requirement for preparation. If the government skips all or parts of the strict preparation requirement, it results in a report to the Committee on the Constitution, KU, and - what is worse - it leads to doubt and uncertainty regarding legal certainty. How tax law shall be interpreted if the preparation has been poor is, ultimately, put to the test in any legal proceedings regarding tax law issues in our administrative courts.

But it is important to say that it would be illegal if the government, which the opposition seems to be proposing, did not follow Swedish rules for how one enacts laws in Sweden to the letter.

There are requirements for the preparation of a new law. If these constitutional rules are not followed, a committee of inquiry in the Committee on the Constitution awaits, as said, and potentially continued handling in courts and in public administrative authorities.

It is a matter of conscience for me to advocate that one should abandon the principles of preparation and legal certainty that lie in the requirement of strict preparation obligation. Legal certainty is of primary importance in, among other things, this government's tax law as well as in other legislation. We do not compromise on legal certainty on our part.

Now I come to something important in this debate, and which is perhaps more important than much else. Note that when the government has received support for its actions and its way of working, which has been criticized intensively here earlier, it is very important to notice that the government has the support of the Council on Legislation in its opinion on the government's proposal. The Council on Legislation is, therefore, a group of high-ranking jurists who work outside the political system, among other things with quality-assuring new legislation. It appears as if the opposition takes this fact lightly, that is to say, that the government has the support of the Council on Legislation for the proposed, current legislative process.

As far as I understand, a part of the opposition is advocating for retroactive legislation in this case in order to thereby bring in more millions or billions to the Swedish state. It is, in my opinion, a peculiar course of action.

In this preparation mandate, there are requirements for referral and requirements for a Council of State review. I have already mentioned that.

There is a lot of talk here about households and companies. But one must know that those who are primarily dependent on a very careful decision-making process with this strict requirement are precisely companies and individuals. It concerns their legal certainty. It is therefore not just about the households' economy, but it is also about the legal certainty for the households - regarding the constitutional rules for tax legislation and the prohibition against introducing and applying a new tax legislation retroactively. This government does not engage in such things. One cannot buy a bourgeois government's legal certainty in the legislative work for a number of billions. We do not bargain over legal certainty.

Extra supplementary budget for 2023 - Temporary tax on certain electricity production centers' excess profits

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 21.)

A pilot project for distributed database technology

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