Business

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

Sweden's heritage as an innovation-driven nation shall continue and be prioritized. It is the entrepreneurs who create new business opportunities and who lay the foundation for new innovative companies in Sweden.

As a Sweden Democrat, I choose stability and implementation. Together with the government, we ensure that nearly 9 billion kronor are allocated for industrial policy in 2026 and that the most important financing tools are in place.

A capital injection into Norrlandsfonden strengthens lending to small and medium-sized enterprises in Norrbotten, Västerbotten, Västernorrland, Jämtland, and Gävleborg. In order to continue the fossil-free journey even when the economy weakens, investments must still be able to be realized. For us, fossil-free means that nuclear power is a central part of the solution.

The investments do not stop only in the north, however. The credit lines, guarantees, and faster examinations we carry out apply to the entire country. They strengthen the vehicle and industrial cluster in Western Sweden, life science in Stockholm, Uppsala and Skåne, advanced manufacturing in Småland and Mälardalen, as well as the tourism industry and exports along the coast. The point is better access to capital, faster permits and simpler contact with authorities, regardless of postal address.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats also advocate for reducing the EU's cumbersome regulations and administrative burdens. The business sector is in great need of fewer overlapping requirements, less double reporting, and clear, uniform rules so that companies can instead spend their time on production, export, and innovation.

We also need more common sense when EU rules are implemented in Sweden. There is research showing that Sweden has often gone further than the EU requires without sufficient impact analyses. Our position is proportional and cost-effective application that frees up capital for investments that provide real benefit on the way towards a fossil-free Sweden. We do not want accelerated and over-implementation of environmental goals that are not analyzed and do not improve Sweden's competitiveness.

In addition to preventing over-implementation, we also need to take back control from the authorities. Politics must weigh conflicting goals, set priorities, and demand impact assessments before new requirements are imposed on companies and municipalities. This, combined with proportional EU application, frees up time and capital for investments that make Sweden fossil-free in practice.

Europe needs to restore the balance between goals and means. For a long time, we have piled rules, taxes, and trials on top of each other, which causes investments to move away from here while demand remains. The result is that we buy components and raw materials from countries that do not share our values, and it happens without global emissions decreasing. It is a bad deal for both the environment and independence.

The Sweden Democrats want to do the opposite and keep production and processing in Sweden and Europe through fewer unnecessary obstacles, faster and more predictable permits, and an energy policy that actually enables fossil-free status with nuclear power as the basis for a functioning energy supply.

A strong industry and secure supply of input materials is not just economics, it is also security policy. When decisions are made close to home and are based on consequence analyses instead of symbolic politics, we become less dependent on others and stand more on our own feet.

Mr. Speaker! Nationally, we are modernizing the interaction with authorities with digital identity and a sharper Verksamt.se. One should be able to submit information once, follow the case in real-time, and receive clear requirements from the start. With a specialized review authority and more resources, we shorten the lead times and move from paperwork to production start.

Against the background of the serious security policy situation, we welcome the deepened cooperation around the Baltic Sea, including the protection of critical underwater infrastructure. Poland has announced the purchase of three submarines of the A26 type, which strengthens the industrial capacity here at home. A secure Baltic Sea area is also industrial policy.

Security for entrepreneurs is fundamental. Economic irregularities and company-related crime must be met with action and sharper tools. There must be faster opportunities to shut down companies that are used as instruments of crime. Safer entrepreneurship provides a higher willingness to invest.

Within the industry, predictability, less friction, and stronger tools are needed where the market needs politics to pave the way. We secure robust export financing and clear guarantee frameworks. We strengthen capital availability where it is needed most. We push for faster trials and regulatory frameworks that are manageable, both in Sweden and in the EU.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: The opposition chooses different paths, which go in different directions. The Social Democrats want a new growth pact, more targeted support, and the reintroduction of green credits. The Green Party wants to significantly expand support for renewables and for supervisory authorities, and the Centre Party wants to double Industriklivet.

We Sweden Democrats instead prioritize technology neutrality, financing tools, faster permits and less bureaucracy. The investments shall go to and benefit all of Sweden.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Johnny Svedin, for your speech!

There is much to say about the Sweden Democrats' industrial policy, but I intended to dwell somewhat on what Johnny Svedin mentioned regarding life science and our innovative power, and how important it is that Sweden is a prominent industrial nation.

I intended to ask Johnny Svedin what the Sweden Democrats' view is of the future for Swedish industry and the Swedish business sector. What analysis does Johnny Svedin and the Sweden Democrats make of the situation in the world, and what path do they believe is the correct one when it comes to positioning themselves in world politics right now?

We see that there are very many countries that are investing heavily in their industries, so I would like to know what the Sweden Democrats' policy is regarding what Sweden should live off of in the future.

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

The bottleneck right now is, as we see it, simply capital, permits, and regulatory burden.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I asked a question about what the Sweden Democrats' view of the global situation is.

We have an industry that lays people off every single day. We have increasing unemployment. We have had growth in the EU's bottom line throughout the entire mandate period. What I get as an answer from the member is barely five seconds on what the Sweden Democrats' priorities are for Swedish industry.

This is a situation where the Sweden Democrats have gotten what they wanted. Green credit guarantees have been completely paused in a situation where Swedish industry stands completely helpless in the face of competing economies. Industriklivet has been almost scrapped, which means that Sweden is one of the few countries that does not intend to support its industry.

In the same situation, Sweden has, as stated, an unemployment rate that is at a record high and a record number of bankruptcies among small businesses. What the industry and the business community get from Johnny Svedin and the Sverigedemokraterna is a five-second answer about what one wants to invest in.

Let us look at what Johnny Svedin said regarding the issue of capital. It is stated by experts, researchers, IVA and Svenskt Näringsliv that risk-sharing is the key if we are to be able to create new jobs in Sweden. But what Johnny Svedin and the Sverigedemokraterna say is that the state should not take any responsibility at all for job creation in our country.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very disappointed. This is the fourth budget debate we have had, and the only thing Johnny Svedin can squeeze out is five measly seconds for all those who are worried about their jobs.

We have it in black and white: the Sweden Democrats have no answers on how we should support Swedish industry and how we should create jobs in Sweden. With the Sweden Democrats in power, it is completely obvious that Sweden will become poorer and that it is the Swedes who will have to pay.

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, if it was indeed a question at the end – it felt more like an interruption.

Briefly and concisely, we are not floating out into a mass of oddities or platitudes about how things should or should not be, but what it is about is that we need capital, we need permits and we need to lighten the regulatory burden. That speeds up Sweden's industry. We cannot continue with a mass of regulations that make a small business owner have to spend a lot of time reporting on environmental requirements and things that perhaps have nothing to do with production.

The members of the board began talking about Europe, and one of the most important measures we need to take in Europe concerns productivity. Fine words do not help – one must do something for something to happen. We have introduced functioning technology-neutral tools that are intended to deliver results now, and they will do so. Furthermore, unemployment has fallen.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Johnny Svedin, for the speech!

Today we are debating economic policy, and in that area, there are many components that are essential. It is a fairly broad area, but one could say that most of it boils down to growth issues: to get a larger economy in our country so that we can get better healthcare, better schools, a better justice system, and so on.

When we talk about growth and the business sector, there are input factors that can be discussed and things to adjust. Johnny Svedin has been involved in, among other things, regulatory issues and capital issues. I thought I would ask a bit about labor, which is also a fantastically important part of a vibrant and productive business sector.

We have problems in Sweden with our demography. 1.43 children are born per woman, and if that development continues, we will have a shrinking population. At the same time, there is a new law regarding a return migration grant of 350,000 kronor per person. The Sverigedemokraterna are therefore driving a policy where they want to reduce the population and thus the number of people who can work in Swedish business.

I want to ask Johnny Svedin: From a growth perspective, how does it help to have a return migration grant so that we have fewer able-bodied residents in Sweden? How does this connect?

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not labor market issues we are to discuss now, but business issues. But I will try to answer Anders Ådahl's questions anyway.

The return migration grant is about people who want to return. If you want to return, you are welcome to do so, and then you should also get a good start when you return. That is what the return migration grant aims for.

When it comes to skills supply to Sweden, this government, together with us, has ensured that we will invest much more in STEM education, i.e., technology education and such. What we lack today is engineers at a high level. We lack many people even in other sectors, but as member Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro pointed out earlier, there is a certain unemployment in Sweden, which means that there is actually a base. The question then is: Do you want to take these jobs or do you not want to?

It is also an important issue that one must take a stand on. It is not a business issue in that sense, but it is the answer I can give.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Member Svedin is right that this issue clearly borders on labor market policy, but political areas have a tendency to merge. If we talk about industrial policy and growth, we actually need to talk about labor market policy at the same time.

Instead of paying people to leave the country, the Center Party's approach is to try to educate people and close the skills gap that exists in the labor market. Those who do not have the right skills today can educate themselves and obtain the skills that companies are seeking so that our growth can actually increase.

When Northvolt was to establish itself in Skellefteå – even if Northvolt is not the best example – it was said that one of the major bottlenecks for establishing itself was how the public sector would function in Skellefteå. How would one handle preschools, healthcare, and everything else? How could one attract highly competent labor who also expected public services?

It was almost the biggest challenge, and that challenge will remain when we are to industrially establish in Sweden with companies other than Northvolt. Now we have a wage floor for labor migrants that makes it impossible to come to Sweden if one earns under 33,400 kronor a month, I believe that is what it is. That is what one often earns in healthcare and in the public sector.

We will not be able to achieve growth in a new, growing business sector if the public sector cannot hire people. What is Johnny Svedin's recipe for accelerating the business sector in new locations when it is impossible to attract people to work in the public sector?

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again for the questions, Anders Ådahl, even though this is, as said, not a labor market policy debate!

Sweden is a fantastic country. Here we have all the opportunities in the world to retrain ourselves. It applies to everyone. Everyone can do it. I myself went from having worked in the industry for many years to becoming a nurse. I did that when I was a bit older. Everyone has that opportunity, even those who are unemployed today. It is actually nothing strange. But why do people not choose to retrain or enroll in something? Why do people live in exclusion instead? Now we are getting into integration and so on, and I do not want to end up there, but it is also a reflection to take with you.

It is also known that it is not only Sweden that suffers from an aging population and problems with getting new people into the labor market. It actually applies to the entire Western world and Europe. We also have the problem that people do not hire older people, which is an issue that I think you in the Center Party can take with you. Age discrimination is also a problem.

So we have a bit of work to do. I can agree with that. It is not strange. But I still wonder why we have so many people who do not want to work despite all the opportunities being there.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Johnny Svedin, for the speech!

I actually hadn't intended to take the floor, but there were several things in the speech that piqued my curiosity and I wondered a bit if I had heard correctly. Then there was an exchange of remarks here that made me even more confused.

Johnny Svedin says in his speech, as I understand it, that you are securing capital for the business sector in your budget. There, the biggest loss of capital that can be seen is that the Tidö government has removed or at least frozen the green credit guarantees. This came a bit unexpectedly at the end, and I have wondered a bit what was behind it.

The Moderates have since been out and decided that they do not want to continue having green credit guarantees. Therefore, I wonder if the Sweden Democrats will continue to push for green credit guarantees after this stop to further secure capital, because this is one of the safest and most cost-effective reforms to bring in private capital to the business sector and the green transition. That is my first question.

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the question!

When it comes to green credit guarantees, the member spoke about private investors. I would like to assert that it is not largely private investors, but pension funds and others who can be affected. There are good examples of industries that would be green but which collapsed. We do not need to mention their names, but on that, the pension savers have lost billions of kronor. The investments were made without any consequence analysis. One has been far too ambitious and fast in the decisions to transition. Money has been poured in and it was thought that everything would turn out well. But that is not the reality.

We are not against moving from fossil to fossil-free, but it can be done in different ways and at different paces, I think. I think we all in the Sverigedemokraterna think that.

In the previous debate, on environment and agriculture, we talked about the same thing. There are several types of energy that can be viable, but the best and most viable for the base industry is nuclear power. The green transition projects require an incredible amount of energy. We must solve that somehow. It becomes like a hamster wheel, and you never know where it ends.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! I did not become much wiser from it.

The green credit guarantees mean that the state covers for banks so that they can lend out money at a lower price. Credit guarantees have been issued, but none of them have been used so far for any of the companies that have gone bankrupt. No taxpayer has therefore lost on them, at least not so far. It is quite few companies that have received this, and not all have utilized it. Northvolt did not either. I cannot really see that the answer covers my question.

I have another question. It concerns – if I understood the member's speech correctly – that we are not to lean on environmental goals that do not increase Sweden's competitiveness. Was that what the member said? I wonder which environmental goals do not increase the competitiveness of Swedish companies. If it is about climate goals, how does Johnny Svedin view the fact that Sweden's companies would not benefit from a climate transition when very many other countries are investing heavily in ensuring their companies transition?

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to green credit guarantees, we choose functioning technology-neutral tools that provide results now. The Export Credit Board has up to 650 billion to distribute. We also have export credits for lending up to 175 billion. Is that perhaps the same thing with another name?

When it comes to the issue of environmental goals and competitiveness in Sweden, an over-implementation of the goals occurred during the years you sat in government. It has cost the companies a great deal of money and resulted in unused resources or that the resources went to other things than what they were intended for, namely productivity and production.

Today, Europe stands quite poorly internationally due to bureaucratic red tape that has arisen because of the eagerness to become as fossil-free as possible as quickly as possible, without considering the consequences. I said in my speech that a consequence analysis was needed before doing anything. We are not against the transition, but we must be prepared and calculate when and where it is appropriate to do what.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! We have reached the final budget debate of the mandate period for expenditure area 24 Business. Now, this government's business policy is complete, and it can only be stated that it is four lost years. I intend to take you on a short tour through the mandate period to see what these years have looked like.

When the government took office, the Tidö coalition found a set table at the Government Offices. Sweden had strong public finances. We were leading in global innovation. We had made large investments in groundbreaking technology. Industry flourished across our entire country. But instead of increasing the pace of development, the choice was made, with decision after decision, to completely dismantle that work.

An image of Sweden associated with a growing industry, low emissions and growth instead became an image of a Sweden that has completely left walkover when it comes to business and climate policy for the technology of the future.

Madam Speaker! We can look at the decisions that were made during the initial period in the Government Offices. At the beginning of the mandate period, it was chosen to cut the innovation ecosystems by almost 1 billion kronor. It was a completely decisive support for small and medium-sized highly innovative companies. Then, in the middle of an economic crisis, it was chosen to completely remove the support for short-term work, which has certainly led to many more becoming unemployed than what was necessary.

In 2024, it was decided to completely remove the high-cost protection for high sickness benefit costs for small businesses, despite an organization that I know the Swedish right usually listens to quite a bit, Svenskt Näringsliv, warning of what it would entail. And what do we see now? Yes, a record number of bankruptcies of small businesses in Sweden. No efforts have been made to curb the bankruptcies. Instead of supporting the country's small business owners, the government has spent its time abolishing a lot of regulations. This has indeed been welcomed, but when it comes to actual outcomes in jobs or fewer bankruptcies, one cannot point to any result.

Madam Speaker! We must remember that during the first half of the parliamentary term, the government parties chose to engage in the stupefying culture war that we have had in Swedish energy policy for far too many years. Then they came to their senses and followed the Social Democrats' policy.

We need an energy agreement for the sake of our country and for our competitiveness. Unfortunately, those talks stalled, which I regret. I just want to emphasize how important it is that the Riksdag reaches an energy agreement. We have not done that because certain parties chose culture wars over electricity production.

We see that almost no power production has been added during 2025. Despite the government having placed its entire climate and business policy on electrification, during the mandate period they have made it cheaper with fossil fuels than with electricity.

In the budget we are discussing now, the government has chosen to pause the support for green credit guarantees. It is yet another commissioned job from the Sverigedemokraterna. They were out in the media and criticized individual companies quite openly. They said they wanted to pause the green credit guarantees. The Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna, who always do as the Sverigedemokraterna say, are pausing the green credit guarantees.

And what did they do in the budget we are debating now? They scrapped Industriklivet by 80 percent. Then they say they stand on the side of Swedish industry. I have not met a single industry leader or a single company that welcomes this policy – on the contrary.

For every day that passes, Madam Speaker, Swedish industry and competitiveness are under heavy pressure from competing economies. For every day that passes where this government does not support Swedish industry, we lose competitiveness and jobs.

Now I have seen in the media that the Prime Minister, in order to counter the development of low growth and high unemployment, wants a growth pact with what he calls non-socialist parties. It is those parties that have put us in this situation. This is a proposal that he has taken straight from the culture war box.

If one were serious about a growth pact, the first ones you would want a growth pact with would have been Swedish business, academia, and those who stand for innovation and research. If you understood anything about what a small country like Sweden needs in the geopolitical situation the world finds itself in today, you would have known that cross-bloc agreements are also required. But instead, one chose to take a proposal from the culture war box and continue with that which has been hindering Swedish growth and Swedish industry, Madam Speaker.

We currently have an industrial policy that does not position Sweden as a leader in the world. I regret that. I also want to express my immense concern over this and over the fact that the governing parties do not realize how serious the situation is.

Madam Speaker! There are competing economies that are investing heavily in their industries and at the same time pursuing a protectionist policy that disadvantages a functioning, free, sustainable and fair trade. This puts great pressure on Sweden and the EU.

During this year, we have been able to follow how the European Union has made great efforts to strengthen European competitiveness. It is a task that we Social Democrats have welcomed. We need to continue to be strong advocates for low emissions, a rules-based world order, and strengthened competitiveness. That is where our strength lies.

But the government and the Tidö parties choose a different path. There, Sweden shall not participate and position itself as a leading innovation nation. They do not seem to quite understand how acute the situation is. China subsidizes. USA subsidizes. Neither of these countries is particularly enthusiastic at the moment about free and fair trade.

The climate crisis is a fact, no matter how much the Sweden Democrats seem to believe that it is not. We need an industry that survives and that is vital. Then investments are needed here and now, otherwise industries will move and technology will disappear. We will lose control over important value chains. In that situation, one completely scraps the support for Swedish companies. The support for Swedish companies is fundamentally about our industrial resilience.

We Social Democrats believe in a different path, Madam Speaker. We want a real growth pact that can gladly involve several parties in the Swedish Riksdag but above all the business community, academia, and the labor market partners. We want to see increased funds for our innovation ecosystems. We want to direct special funds to the Swedish Companies Registration Office (Bolagsverket) to curb the many bankruptcies in our country. We want to see more initiatives for free trade agreements. And we want to share risks together with the business community to invest our way out of the many crises we face.

We can and want to leave behind a country that can be built upon for future generations, a country that instills hope and faith in the future. We want to deepen cooperation in the EU and globally. We fundamentally want to see more cooperation, both here at home and internationally. If this is to happen, Madam Speaker, a new government is needed. A government is needed that says it as it is, does what is required, and understands the importance of leading Sweden in a new direction. And for that to happen, it is completely obvious that a Social Democratic government is needed.

Madam Speaker! I have accounted for the Tidö government's failed economic policy. None of the members before me have made an effort to request a reply. I can therefore only state that it is not only the Social Democrats who reject this policy, but so do the members of the Tidö parties. They also believe that a Social Democratic government was needed.

(Applause)

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would like to move for the approval of the proposal in the committee report and the rejection of all motions.

Economic policy – what is it? Well, it is that politics provides the best conditions for companies to work and operate in Sweden. It is, however, completely harmful when politics provides targeted money in various business projects and state aid. Several members have spoken about this in previous speeches. One should not provide support; instead, the state should be strong in research and education. That is the key to Swedish industry's success. It has always been that way, ever since Curt Nicolin's time.

When one introduces targeted subsidies, there is a risk that it becomes exactly the opposite. It is imperative that decisions become arbitrary and do not have business grounds. The market economy is replaced by a command economy and limits free competition for companies enormously. Such an economy only belongs in totalitarian states such as China and the like.

We have fresh examples of that, such as Northvolt, which one of the AP funds entered with several billion in the hope of green transition and without having business calculations. It is frightening that so much money has been embezzled from pensioners who have worked hard their entire lives. Now this money is gone. We must learn not to do this again.

Small businesses and export companies are the root of Sweden's economy. Sweden's export companies are of the highest world class: Volvo, Scania, ABB, Atlas Copco, Epiroc, Ericsson, Astra Zeneca, Saab, SSAB among others, to name just a few.

Our export industry accounts for 52 percent of GDP. It is enormously strong. I believe no country is as export-dependent as Sweden. Therefore, it is essential that we develop our relations with the rest of the world to get more customers and do more business. The highest priority is therefore to strengthen our competitiveness and dampen the EU's eagerness for more regulations that hinder the entire EU and our competitiveness.

An example of this is the climate directive for fossil-fueled cars that is about to knock out the German car industry. Germany is the engine of the EU's economy. This will harm the entire EU if there is not a reconsideration.

It is also important that we, as an export-dependent country, to a greater extent link aid to our export industry, and this is now being done.

It is also important with more trade agreements outside the EU. The USA is, despite tariffs and everything, still our third largest trading partner. It is therefore important to nurture the relationship with the USA. We will open two new consulates in the USA, one in California and one in Texas.

The Government and Saab have signed a letter of intent with Ukraine for between 100 and 150 Jasplan. It is a historically large order, if it goes through; it is still only a letter of intent. Orders from Brazil and Colombia are also in the works. Saab is today a global company that manufactures the world's best fighter jets, Jas.

What is it that builds companies? Yes, it is people with creative thoughts and entrepreneurship who are prepared to risk their own capital – people who are prepared to take greater responsibility. We must give small business owners better conditions to grow.

I want to be clear that it is not a problem when companies make money, as it is sometimes portrayed in the debate. It even states in the Companies Act that companies should make money, which is a self-evident fact for me as someone who has run companies for 26 years. We must become better at building a better business climate with fewer regulations, which facilitates entrepreneurship and new companies.

Madam Speaker! What should we in the Riksdag do to facilitate things for the companies? The great challenge both in the EU and in Sweden is that we have had too low growth for a long time, approximately 1.5 percent over the last ten years, while the USA has been far ahead with 3.5 percent. Now it still looks like it is turning upwards. For 2026, the forecast is 2.5 percent growth in Sweden, and the krona has strengthened significantly over the last half-year.

The EU has produced the Draghir report for increased competitiveness – a step in the right direction, absolutely. Unfortunately, the USA has introduced tariffs against us, 15 percent for the whole of the EU now, which hits our export industry very negatively. I believe we will manage this anyway, but it is not good.

Madam Speaker! USA develops, China copies and the EU regulates. Unfortunately, the European Commission devotes too much energy to introducing various types of regulations. For example, they want to regulate our forestry into oblivion, which has been managed by families and forest owners for generations. We must put a stop to this nonsense; it causes Europe to lose competitiveness.

We need more reforms for growth and simpler permit processes for the mining industry and other industry. In other words, the Environmental Code must be reformed.

We must facilitate innovation and new companies, for example, in order to be able to open mines and become self-sufficient in metals to a greater extent and thereby reduce our dependence on China and Russia.

Madam Speaker! Smaller companies are being hit increasingly hard by red tape. Many small businesses with more than ten employees are required today to have a work environment plan, an equality plan, and so on. It is highly questionable what this is good for. Who benefits from these rules? It results in many small business owners choosing to have nine employees. If they have more extensive operations, they use several chains of subcontractors. Even the responsibility for sick pay burdens small companies and should be reviewed in the long term, when the economy allows.

Madam Speaker! Unfair competition is another threat to Swedish companies. We should have clearer legislation to limit the possibilities for municipalities and the state to compete with companies. That investigation is underway. It concerns, for example, municipal gyms and certain state-owned companies. Svevia has a subsidiary called Arento, which operates the rental of construction machinery in central Norrland and competes out small companies.

What does a company do when profitability goes down? In the first instance, one reviews its organization and its costs in order to become competitive. A company is not like a political activity that raises taxes when money is lacking.

A major threat and problem for companies is crime. Many companies are exposed to threats from criminal networks. The government is now stepping in with money, strengthening the authorities and cooperation, and removing the secrecy between the authorities to protect the companies against this. This is very good. It concerns Skatteverket, Kronofogden, Finansinspektionen, Bolagsverket, Spelinspektionen with several others.

Madam Speaker! It is of the utmost importance that we in the Riksdag take responsibility for the infrastructure in Sweden. It is important for our companies. The road network is under heavy criticism in parts of the country. In addition, it is very good that the government is increasing the appropriations for the maintenance of roads that have not been maintained for many years.

The eastern connection should be built, and there are agreements. The Stockholm region accounts for 40 percent of Sweden's growth, and this is the key to getting the entire ring completed.

Arlanda must be strengthened. It must become easier and faster for people to fly. At Bromma it was easy to check in – now it is complicated.

The Malmbanan also needs to be expanded and reinforced for the mining industry. It costs LKAB 100 million per day when it is stopped there.

Madam Speaker! The energy policy is ruined because of the red-greens. They have closed six of twelve fully functional reactors. The same parties have had a dream of replacing nuclear power with weather-dependent energy in various forms.

Hydropower has been the key to Swedish development over the last 130 years. All around Sweden, there are many hydropower plants that are now undergoing environmental review according to new legislation. It is important that we ensure that no hydropower is decommissioned, for several reasons: partly for the sake of the electricity system, and partly for reasons of property rights. Many small companies in both West and South Sweden actually own their own hydropower plants.

For the development of our export industry, it is of great importance that the Riksdag decides on a modern and robust energy policy with new nuclear power. Now we have finally decided on new nuclear power.

Madam Speaker! Finally: In order to maintain our prosperity, it is of great importance that we in Sweden maintain our competitiveness against the rest of the world. This can only be achieved through education, research, technological development, and lower taxes on labor. Hard work must always pay off. Companies are guarantors of our prosperity. Companies are also guarantors of new jobs in the future.

It is of great importance that the economic frameworks are maintained in the state finances. This is the guarantee for jobs and growth.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M) agreed.

(cont. § 14)

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