(cont. from § 9) Business (cont. NU1)
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
C states that they share M's view on the need for regulatory easing and confidence in entrepreneurship within agriculture and forestry 1. C argues that the government provides artificial life support to mature technology through support for nuclear power instead of supporting new technology for green transition 2. S wants to establish a bankruptcy clinic and argues that the government has removed support for small businesses and high-cost protection for sick pay costs 3 4. M believes that companies should decide for themselves and warns against a command economy regarding support for new technology 5. M wants state guarantees for nuclear power 5, conduct a review of the EU's climate directive 6 as well as investigate the life cycle emissions of electric cars 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Anders Ådahl (C)
Madam Speaker! Let me first say that there was much in the speech from the Moderaterna and Kjell Jansson that I can agree with, especially regarding agriculture and forestry and the freedom that was needed there to be able to take the right measures, particularly when it comes to entrepreneurship in general – that is, regulatory easing and faith in entrepreneurship. In that regard, Centerpartiet and Moderaterna share the same view.
It is a bit different when we enter the area of climate and emissions. I was recently at an industry day in Gothenburg organized by Svenskt Näringsliv. Jacob Wallenberg opened, and he said something along the lines of: If there are two areas that Swedish business must focus on, they are the AI development and the climate transition. These two issues will permeate the entirety of Sweden's business sector for a long time to come.
At the same time, we read that Sweden's emissions have increased by 7 percent over the last year. We have a growth that is slowing down. When the Center Party says that emissions should go down and jobs should increase, it turns out that the government's policy means precisely the opposite.
In Sweden, we introduced a carbon tax in 1992, and we were the first in the world to do so. In Sweden, we have been able to develop a business sector that can both participate in the transition and simultaneously increase its growth. One reason for that is that we have created a pressure on the Swedish domestic market. Here we can test products. Here we can test new ideas. Here we can take such things further out onto a global market.
My question to Member Jansson is: Why are the Moderaterna working against this development?
Kjell Jansson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Ådahl, for the remark! We are not working against it. We have a slightly different view.
We consider that it is up to each company to decide whether they want to invest in becoming competitive through transition and so on on a larger scale.
We can impose as many rules as we want on ourselves and punish ourselves. Sweden emits a little over one per mille, and if that percentage increases by 7 percent, it is from a very low level. The EU accounts for about 6 percent of the world's emissions. These are approximate figures. But we must be balanced.
We can punish the entire EU as much as we want while in Asia they are building 200–300 new coal-fired power plants. That is what is being built now in Indonesia, China and India. And then some people want us to stop driving cars here. There has to be a limit to things!
We cannot punish the entire industry and people who live in rural areas and cannot get to work without a car. How far do we actually want to go with the regulatory framework?
Anders Ådahl (C)
Madam Speaker! It is still quite interesting that Member Jansson flatly rejects Jacob Wallenberg's scouting regarding two important areas for Sweden, at least the scouting that concerns the climate transition.
Of course, Sweden's emissions are very low compared to the rest of the world, but that was not the point. The point is that if we create a domestic market where we can develop new products and new technology that the world will demand – for example, green steel – then the Swedish business community will be able to flourish not only today with old technology but also tomorrow with new technology.
Member of Parliament Jansson said in his speech that politics should not intervene with support. That is interesting. I think that politics should intervene with support when it is about developing new industries and new branches, for example green transition with industrial steps and green credits. Then it is possible. When we have an S-curve in an early development, the state should be able to help. In a later stage, the business sector should be able to stand on its own feet.
What the government is doing is that they are instead providing state support to nuclear power. It is a technology that reached its maturity in the 1980s. The government is therefore going to provide artificial respiration so that a mature technology cannot sustain itself.
I cannot reconcile that with a classic Moderate market policy. You are running a planned economy model and providing artificial respiration to an old technology. Can Jansson explain why that model is chosen – why not invest in new technology and provide support there instead of artificial respiration to old technology?
Kjell Jansson (M)
Madam Speaker! I was not there listening to what Jacob Wallenberg said. But if he has said so, I have no objection to it. I began by saying that the companies themselves decide, not the politics. Are we in agreement that I said that? I felt that you did not understand my answer to that question, Anders Ådahl.
When it comes to support for new technology, I believe it is something that the market must do with its own money. We have Vinnova, and we have the Export Credit Board if one wants support for export-promoting measures and so on. But I do not think that helps. We have seen the example of Northvolt. Now we also have Stegra, which is faltering. I hope they manage, but it does not look completely solid. There, both pension funds and tax money have been used. I want to warn against that, because it is command economy. It is not market economy, which we Moderates stand for.
Finally, I will address nuclear power. We must have a robust energy system for our export industry and so that we will have solid electricity prices in the future. We cannot have a weather-dependent energy system with wind power and solar. It is unsustainable. Everyone talks about sustainability, but it is unsustainable. Therefore, we must provide state guarantees for nuclear power. It is not state money; it is state guarantees.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Social Democrats' reservation 1 in the report for expenditure area 24.
I would like to thank Kjell Jansson for his speech. As I noted when I gave my speech, no one bothered to defend the government's policy, so I thought I would give Kjell Jansson the chance here.
As always when Kjell Jansson holds his speeches, Madam Speaker, there are many questions one wants to ask. But I will ask a question about something that I raised in my speech.
We have a record number of bankruptcies in our country. It has not been this many in 40 years. As I explained in my speech, we from the Social Democrats have proposed that Bolagsverket should receive an additional 25 million. We want to establish a bankruptcy clinic. We want to ensure that the state continues to invest in our industries. We want our highly innovative small and medium-sized enterprises to survive. We want Sweden to be a leading industrial nation – that positions itself well in the world, that creates new jobs, that has high growth and that contributes to lowering the world's climate emissions.
I would like to know: What is the Moderates' policy and Kjell Jansson's prescription for curbing the bankruptcies? We see many in our country.
Kjell Jansson (M)
Madam Speaker! When it comes to the bankruptcies, I am the first to regret what has happened. Large parts of the bankruptcies in recent years are about the repayment of pandemic support that people are unable to manage. In the building in Stockholm where I have an apartment, there were two companies that went bankrupt because they did not manage to pay back the pandemic support. One can discuss whether it could have been done in some other way, but this became a consequence of it.
Since then, certain industries have performed poorly in recent years. For example, the construction industry, my old industry, has performed very poorly. This has also resulted in many bankruptcies, especially for smaller companies. Therefore, reinforcements of the rotavdrag (deductible for home improvements) were first introduced to stimulate the industry.
I can agree; I am not at all satisfied with this. I think it is unfortunate, but I have no direct recipe. I cannot say that we would have done it this way instead. The only thing I can think is that the pandemic support could have been done in some other way. That is the only thing I have comments on.
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! Bankruptcies are devastating, not only for the individual entrepreneur but for the entire economy of the society. We know that small and medium-sized enterprises account for four out of five jobs in our country. We know that they are incredibly important engines of integration. We know that they are perhaps best at working to counteract sick leave in the workplace. These are, therefore, companies that have found it increasingly difficult under this government.
I mentioned a few things, for example that almost 1 billion in support for small and medium-sized enterprises within our innovation ecosystems was removed. I mentioned that the government chose to remove the high-cost protection for high sickness benefit costs despite Svenskt Näringsliv warning against it. When there were warning flags everywhere about where this was heading – high unemployment, low growth, and many bankruptcies – the government and Kjell Jansson's party chose not to act.
Now we are where everyone warned we would end up. We have, in fact, a record number of bankruptcies. There is not a single answer as to what the government's policy is to curb this. This is the mandate period's final budget for expenditure area 24 Business, and there is not a single concrete answer on how to curb the many bankruptcies in our country.
We have proposed a bankruptcy clause. We also have a high-cost protection for small businesses in the event of high sick pay costs. I have only mentioned something. We invest much more in our innovation ecosystems.
Can Kjell Jansson not come up with anything that the government has in its policy to help small businesses in this extremely vulnerable situation?
Kjell Jansson (M)
Madam Speaker! I forgot in my previous speech to mention that the government has strengthened Bolagsverket with 56 million for 2026.
As I mentioned, we strengthened the rotavdrag – it goes down to 30 percent again at the turn of the year. This has been done to curb this. It is not possible to protect against everything. Society cannot bear everything. Running a company is a big risk. I did it myself for 26 years. Some years it went poorly, and some years it went really well. It goes up and down.
I actually have no answer as to what should have been done instead. What I mentioned in my speech was that I think a review of the sickness benefit responsibility for small companies should be conducted. That is what I mentioned. It has not been done, but I can think it is reasonable to do so. Let's say that one has four employees who go up for a weekend to Åre to have a good time and two break their legs. Then 50 percent of the workforce is gone. Then one has to pay sickness benefit to them for 14 days. It is this measure that I think one should consider.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! As usual, when Kjell Jansson speaks, a lot of information comes at once. I perceived that there was criticism of the new EU legislation regarding the ban on the sale of fossil cars in 2035. I listened to the Environment and Agriculture Committee's debate, just before this debate, and there I heard that the Tidö Government was a strong voice for the environment and climate within the EU. I have also heard that the government stands behind a ban on the sale of fossil cars within the EU by 2035.
Now I became a bit unsure. Is it the case that the Moderaterna do not stand behind this? Or is it the case that Kjell Jansson does not stand behind it? Or did I misunderstand the post a bit? I would like to have an answer to that.
Kjell Jansson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for your questions!
Negotiations are ongoing in the EU – you know that too – regarding the climate directive. I can think it is reasonable that one conducts a review of this. The German car industry is collapsing. Germany carries the entire EU's economy. Without Germany, this will not be good. We have been early in Sweden. Volvo has been almost the fastest to convert to electric cars, but it is not that easy for them either to sell and compete.
As I said earlier, I believe that one should consider carefully and do things at a calmer pace. I am not against building electric cars – absolutely not. But I believe that one must have sense and balance. I do not believe that one should just set deadline dates for everything, so that it is black and white from a certain date. I do not believe in that policy.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! I understand it this way: If Sweden had sent Kjell Jansson to the EU to negotiate this, he would have wanted a review of the directive. I am unsure whether Kjell Jansson shares the Moderaternas view or not. If Sweden sends the government, is it negotiating for a ban or for a revision? I assume that Kjell Jansson is a representative of the Tidöregeringen when he stands here in the speaker's chair, and I would like to know what the government's position is on the issue. Is Sweden pushing for there to be a ban on fossil cars within the EU by the year 2035?
If one somehow steers towards a policy, one gets what one wants; that is how it actually is. I think Kjell Jansson has wavered a bit when it comes to guarantees, for example. Kjell Jansson does not want support but would like guarantees, and at the same time, the Moderaterna have decided internally that we shall remove the green credit guarantees but that we can issue guarantees for nuclear power. It is therefore clear that one can get where one steers, but one gets something else if one does not steer.
In the year 2035, fossil fuel cars will be an old technology that we do not want to continue to deceive people with. A car lasts for approximately 20 years, and during that time, we make ourselves dependent on Russia, China, and other states from which we need to buy fossil fuels. This perhaps primarily concerns Russia in the current situation. I wonder therefore still: Is the government pushing for a ban on fossil fuel cars within the EU in 2035?
Kjell Jansson (M)
Madam Speaker! I will begin with the green credits. They have been paused by the Ministry of Finance, and the reason for that is that they want to conduct a review of this. Some things happened with Northvolt – we lost a few billion there – and it is highly reasonable that they pause it. They have not stopped this but paused it.
When it comes to the cars, it is in Katarina Luhrs' and many others' world that the fossil cars will continue to emit a lot, but they will not do that at all. 25 years ago, when I started working in Stockholm, the cars emitted ten times as much as today. In five years, I do not believe that the gasoline cars will emit anything. New systems will come that make it so that the cars do not emit anything.
This is what it is about. You cannot just ban a technology and say: That technology is dangerous, but this technology is good. If you look at the entire life cycle of cars regarding climate and environment, you see that electric cars today have higher total CO2 emissions than gasoline cars do. I believe, therefore, that a review of this must obviously be carried out. I absolutely believe that in the near future, fossil car models will emerge that do not emit anything.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.