Economic policy

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs more companies and not fewer, more innovation and not less. History has clearly shown that this is achieved through free enterprise - only through that.

One thing is crystal clear when it comes to the defense of freedom and property rights. Regardless of where the attack comes from, regardless of what excuses are used, and regardless of whether it is popular or not, the Moderaterna will always be the last man standing. Of the country's ten best municipalities for running businesses, nine are led by Moderaterna. It shows that we are the party of entrepreneurs and companies, not just in words but also in action.

The Social Democrats say that they promote the startup of new companies and growing companies, which we Moderates view positively. But where is the policy for this? Where are the proposals? After eight years of Social Democratic rule, Mr. Speaker, we can now state that we have the lowest growth in the entire EU. To reverse this trend, it is fundamental that the conditions for entrepreneurship are improved.

Mr. Speaker! For us Moderates, it is a self-evident matter that it should be easy to run a business. Today, unfortunately, entrepreneurs are affected by all too strict laws and regulations that prevent companies from operating and developing. It is about taxes that are too high, permit applications that are too complicated, and far too much bureaucracy. The previous red-green government did very little, if anything at all, to reduce the regulatory burden for entrepreneurs.

Business policy

The work on regulatory simplification is now becoming a reality with the government that we in the Moderaterna lead together with our coalition partners. With a new implementation council, the government will ensure that Sweden does not over-implement EU directives, which has been done to far too great an extent and has led to even heavier administrative burdens and higher costs for Swedish companies. Over-implementation disadvantages Swedish companies competitively. The introduction of an implementation council is therefore necessary.

To the politicians who want to promote Swedish entrepreneurship and business, I want to say: Take a lesson from my Moderate Party friends in the nine top municipalities! Municipalities, regions, and the state should not be obstacles but enablers. A strong business sector comes through openness and welcoming of companies. If one wants to take part in about ten deterrent examples of how not to handle a business climate, one can go and interview those municipalities that are practically exclusively Social Democrat-led, which always fall into the bottom grade when one goes through which municipalities have a good and which have a bad business climate, Mr. Speaker.

Higher growth creates a wealthier Sweden. But for several years - several decades, to be honest - Sweden has had a very weak productivity development. If this continues, it will affect Swedish real wages and our competitiveness negatively. To reverse that trend, reforms are needed that increase Swedish productivity. That is why the government has appointed a productivity commission to map out obstacles and opportunities to strengthen productivity in the economy.

As an entrepreneur, one should not have to be afraid that one's shop, restaurant, or company will become a target for gang attacks. In several areas, the government is strengthening security in Sweden through, among other things, harsher penalties for gang criminals. Continued work will be done to break the gangs. Here, we must not forget that the safety of entrepreneurs also needs to be improved.

Security for entrepreneurs, Mr. Speaker, also means security when it comes to access to fossil-free energy. If we truly want companies that contribute to both Swedish growth and the green transition, it does not work to dismantle the electricity system as the previous government, in which Miljöpartiet was included, did when they shut down fully functioning nuclear power plants.

Companies should not be prevented from expanding their operations because there is not enough clean electricity. Therefore, the government is re-establishing a functioning energy system with a secure energy supply through predictable fossil-free energy.

Mr. Speaker! People and companies shall be given the opportunity to grow and develop regardless of whether they choose to settle in the city or in the countryside. The Moderates see the potential and the development opportunities for the Swedish countryside. Here, good ideas and entrepreneurship flourish.

However, to reach that potential, purposeful work is required to remove obstacles and clarify the opportunities in the countryside. By making it easier to start and run businesses, even in the countryside, we can create more opportunities for people to live, grow, and work in all of Sweden.

A type of business that is often found in the countryside but which has long been opposed are microbreweries, cideries, vineyards, and distilleries. I happen to represent a constituency and part of Jönköping County, namely Skärstadalen and Östra Vätterbranterna, which is quite rich in fruit cultivation and has many such small businesses.

A regulatory framework that enables farm sales of alcohol should be reviewed for the sake of businesses and the countryside. New alcohol legislation that means Systembolaget's monopoly can be protected while it simultaneously becomes possible to conduct farm sales in Sweden is feasible and will, above all, be implemented with this government.

Mr. Speaker! In order for Swedish growth to increase and Swedish competitiveness to be strengthened, the Swedish business climate needs to become better. It must be simple, secure, and profitable to be an entrepreneur in Sweden.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I wish to vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report regarding simplification of rules for companies and the rejection of all motions.

In this speech, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M) agreed.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! There was a lot of information from Mats Green and a lot about how it is not profitable, or business-friendly, in Social Democratic municipalities. I recall that the large industries mostly invest in Social Democratic municipalities up north, but perhaps Mats Green does not know that.

Anyway: Just six months after the formation of the government, we have been able to see quite large cracks in the Tidö agreement. In many debates, we hear government representatives say that this is the first time in a very long time that Sweden has a parliamentary majority behind the government's proposals, but it is almost a comical statement when, in quite open view, there is quarreling about the electricity supply and the industrial investments taking place in our country.

The Sweden Democrats are the largest party in the government base. They are quite clear that they do not want the state to be a contributing actor in the industrial investments in, among other places, northern Sweden. There, the Moderates' majority in this chamber disappears quite quickly – it is actually almost half of the base that disappears.

How will the Moderaterna ensure that investments that have been made and planned stay or end up in Sweden? It cannot have escaped anyone that the market of the future is green. Either one leads that work, or one needs to adapt to other countries and markets. I think, of course, that it is better to lead, but what do the Moderaterna intend? How shall these establishments take place when there is obviously no majority for it in the government base?

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that for the first time in many years, Sweden has a government base that is completely in agreement regarding energy issues and which also has an agreement on this. We also have a majority in Sweden's Riksdag, which guarantees stability and continuity during the coming four years. This was something that was quite obviously lacking during the past eight years.

When I look at the government basis - if I am kind enough to call it that - that the member represents, I can see that there are vastly different opinions both within the government basis and within the Social Democratic Party. It would be interesting to hear how the Social Democrats view retaining the nuclear power we have and whether, from the Social Democrats' side, one is also prepared to build new nuclear power. In that regard, we have actually received no answers at all, but instead, the Social Democrats continue to play the silent game with the Swedish people. It is actually not responsible when it concerns Sweden's future energy supply.

When it comes to various individual company initiatives, it is well clear that there are always discussions when it concerns the distribution of state funds. There, I am not sure that there are particularly large differences between the parties, and furthermore, it is others who are to handle this.

People claim that large industrial investments are being made in municipalities governed by Social Democrats. That is not due to the municipalities being governed by Social Democrats, but rather because there happen to be natural resources there, so the comparison is not quite relevant.

Since it is moderately led municipalities that are at the top and social democratically led municipalities that are at the bottom when it comes to the business climate, I wonder what the member considers that the social democratically led municipalities among the ten worst have to learn from the ten best moderate municipalities.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can start by saying that Mats Green has participated in at least two debates in this chamber where Social Democrats have said that the Social Democrats are indeed positive about building new nuclear power where there is currently nuclear power and about retaining the nuclear power that remains. I believe that Mats Green has even received that answer in Agenda. It has been clear.

It is difficult not to wonder what is actually happening in the Tidö group. The business community wants long-term conditions for its investments, and this is needed to strengthen Sweden's competitiveness. For companies to know that they can get support for their investments, we need, among other things, to ensure that we meet the electricity demand that this entails. Most recently, in the previous debate in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, we heard again about problems with offshore wind power linked to fishing.

I do not claim that you support the Sverigedemokraterna's committee motion fully, Mats Green, but given that you are building a government base together, it is nevertheless interesting regarding what the Sverigedemokraterna call grant entrepreneurs, i.e., those ideas and innovations that receive support from agencies such as Vinnova. What do the Moderaterna think about this? Shall they also disappear, or shall the state not spend a single crown on the climate transition? These are relevant questions that the business community is now also asking.

I think the Tidö government is responsible, especially the Moderaterna, who are supposed to be a business-friendly party. How will Moderaterna ensure that investments stay in Sweden? Will startups and scaleups receive less support? The Sverigedemokraterna want to reduce the support to Vinnova quite a lot, which has been clear for quite a few years. What do Moderaterna intend to do to create predictability and long-term perspective for the business sector?

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Neither the Moderates nor anyone else has received any answer from the Social Democrats regarding new nuclear power. The answer that the Social Democrats give is that they are not closing any doors, and it is not a proactive answer.

Furthermore, it is the case that Magdalena Andersson in 2013, when she was a candidate for Minister for Finance, promised to phase out nuclear power in Sweden. You made a decision at your party congress in November 2021 that Swedish nuclear power should be phased out. Clarify where you stand on that issue! If you accept that Sweden needs to retain its nuclear power and build more nuclear power, we can begin to discuss, but we have not received that answer.

This government, and the entire government base, is investing enormous resources in the Swedish climate transition, where a new and functioning fossil-free energy system is naturally of paramount importance. We have not even received an answer from the Social Democrats on whether it is accepted that the new energy policy goal shall be fossil-free or if they are still clinging to renewable, because renewable is actually just code for avoiding nuclear power.

When it comes to industrial investments in the north, we are the guarantor that there will be electricity for them.

We are also the guarantor that one will be able to mine the rare earth metals that are absolutely necessary for all environmental technology. I am speaking here for my entire government base. But I know that the member cannot speak for his government base because Miljöpartiet is against all of this. They want lots of environmental technology, but they do not want to answer where the metals for this shall be mined, which means that it will only be in countries with appalling working and environmental conditions that the metals crucial for environmental technology, for example wind turbines, will be mined. Miljöpartiet does not think they should be mined in Sweden, even though we have plenty of such.

But if we utilize the potential in the mining sector, Sweden will become one of the world's absolutely richest countries.

In all these issues, I agree with my government base, while the member is not at all in agreement with what could be called his government base. It is a fact.

(Applause)

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a large and important report we are debating, and I begin by moving for approval of our reservation, number 9, regarding other matters concerning business-promoting measures.

With that said, I shall touch upon the subject of this debate: industrial policy - first broadly and somewhat generally in order to subsequently highlight some of the Sweden Democrats' proposals contained in the committee report.

It is my view that the purpose of the Committee on Industry and the Trade Committee and my role in the Committee on Industry is to promote and strengthen the conditions for the business sector. This should be the goal of all parties, but nevertheless, the view on companies, entrepreneurship, and the market economy is an ideological issue.

The parties that make up the government base are of the opinion that companies are something positive and that the role of politics is to take a step back and create the conditions required for companies and entrepreneurship to be able to flourish in our society and thereby create jobs and generate tax revenues which then finance the common welfare and the political initiatives that are sought. That is our side of politics.

There is another side that has a diametrically opposite view on entrepreneurship and rather sees it as a theft from workers and, among other things, in the reservations in the report speaks about how people should retain and own what they produce. On the whole, one turns against the conditions we want to provide for companies and instead views companies and entrepreneurs with suspicion and thinks that they are profiteering. The government base is not of the opinion: that these are people who take advantage of the opportunities that exist and then generate an added value not only for themselves, which they are welcome to do, but also for those who take jobs in their companies and through the tax revenues they generate.

There is no simple or unambiguous answer to exactly what constitutes the business community's conditions in practice. The business community's conditions depend on a multitude of things. Some are political, others absolutely not. Many issues land in other committees and in other reports than the one we are currently debating. A couple of these are worth mentioning.

Crimes against businesses constitute one of the greatest challenges for the business sector in today's Sweden. It is sad when visiting entrepreneurs around the country and repeatedly being met with stories of how crime and insecurity for the staff burden their operations, which generates large costs due to thefts and investments in security-enhancing measures.

Svenskt Näringsliv estimates the total cost for the business sector in this area at up to 100 billion kronor. It is an immense sum that is a direct consequence of a failed policy that has resulted in entrepreneurs having to foot the bill that social democratic governments have run away from.

Another area that is also not addressed in the report but which is important for the business sector's conditions is, of course, the supply of competence - the possibility of finding the personnel one needs to take their business to the next level and increase the pace. Almost regardless of industry and business, there is a need for competence development and lifelong learning.

Permit processes are a third area that is crucial for the business sector's conditions and which is also, at least to some extent, handled in other committees. The Government is now putting forward a number of measures to facilitate this and thereby guarantee the electricity and energy supply, which this committee handles among other things, though not in today's report.

Mr. Speaker! After this account, one may ask what is contained within the industrial policy and precisely this industrial policy report. It turns out to be quite a lot.

Today we are discussing, among other things, innovation-promoting measures. Here, the Sweden Democrats demand better conditions for domestic corporate research. It is important that we can retain and attract innovation-driving, business-oriented research in and to Sweden. Therefore, we believe that, for example, tax levels and regulatory frameworks should be reviewed in an inquiry on how we facilitate corporate research.

We are also debating different forms of corporate support and business-promoting measures. On this theme, SD problematizes the public support for the private business sector, which all too often is something other than market-complementary. Instead, they distort the market's instruments and generate the subsidy entrepreneurs that Sverigedemokraterna want to put a stop to, because they exploit the real entrepreneurs' tax money by receiving alms from the public sector. Better follow-up and a more unified view are needed on how the public sector should support the private business sector without it going wrong.

Competition from public activities is also concerned. Here we see that there are deficiencies. Contractors do not only need to fight against bureaucracy, administration, and red tape, but are also forced to compete with public actors in everything from cleaning services to the construction sector. This needs to be reviewed from a political standpoint. The Competition Authority needs better tools and conditions, which the Sverigedemokraterna also highlight in the report. Furthermore, we need to ensure that the Competition Authority is granted decision-making authority when the public sector competes with the private sector. There are deficiencies in the current situation.

The last in my selection of matters handled in the report is the tourism industry and its conditions. If there is any industry that has been treated harshly in the recent past, it is precisely the tourism industry. During the pandemic, one was forced throughout to adapt to the situation when the politics, jerkily and haphazardly overnight, could change the conditions for conducting business, without one receiving the compensation that would have been reasonable given the restrictions in everything from property rights to the right of demonstration that the politics implemented there and then.

In the preamble, the Sweden Democrats propose, for example, a clear promotional mandate for the agencies that operate close to the conditions of the tourism industry. We also propose that one tackles the red tape that burdens the tourism industry at present when it comes to hotel permits, dance permits, staff lists, and cash registers. It is obviously also about all the shortcomings of the Alcohol Act.

These are some examples of the Sweden Democrats' policies in the report. But the most important thing to take away from my speech is that we now, for real and for the first time in a long time, have a government that stands on the side of the business sector, which safeguards the business sector's conditions and which will do everything in its power to enable a good business climate with good conditions for both entrepreneurs and large companies to grow, develop, keep their production in Sweden and continue to generate the added value that finances our common welfare and creates budget space for us politicians. I think that is great.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats know that active industrial policy makes a difference. Since 2014, the industry has seen a significant upturn, and that is thanks to strong leadership and the direction that Sweden shall benefit from the climate transition we face. An important part of the climate transition is various tech companies and startups that contribute to a faster climate transition and digitalization, something that strengthens Swedish competitiveness. The Social Democratic government created several supports for small businesses to apply for, including via Vinnova and Almi Invest, and started the state capital company Saminvest.

Now, the Sweden Democrats write in their committee motion that they want to limit the possibility of financing for what they call subsidy entrepreneurs. Then I must ask: What do the Sweden Democrats mean by that? Which companies are it that should not receive support? The business community says themselves that without state support, there will be no startups. Are they to disappear then? Or rather: Will Swedish startups be disadvantaged when others give them support? And how is the definition of a subsidy entrepreneur made – is it independent schools that use state money to buy waffle stands that are intended? Is it only small businesses or are there also large companies that can be such subsidy entrepreneurs? I would like to have answers to that, Mr. Speaker.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This highlights the difference that exists in the view on business between the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats.

From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we are of the opinion that it is private capital that creates growth in Sweden. We are of the opinion that it is private actors with good ideas who are allowed to operate in a competitive market, which then generates the growth that we are so dependent on. For if it were the case that one is completely dependent on the public support that I am accused of questioning, then there is no purpose with us even having a private business sector, if it is the case that it is directly dependent on alms from the public.

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro mentioned that startups, according to him, cannot emerge if the public sector does not support them. Then they should not emerge either, Mr. Speaker, is my opinion. If one does not have the prerequisites to stand on one's own feet, if one does not have a business idea that withstands the competition that exists on the free market, one will be outcompeted. That is market economy. That is what I believe in. That is what this government basis believes in. Then politics should create conditions for the business sector through deregulation, by offering good infrastructure and other things, but it should not be the public sector that feeds the private business sector through alms.

There are far too many examples of subsidy entrepreneurs, as prominent researchers like Christian Sandström have highlighted, not least linked to the climate area - the green bubbles that have emerged when politicians have wanted to play judge of where the best business idea lies and then poured millions or billions into these projects. We in the Sverigedemokraterna want to put a stop to that. We believe in the private sector, not in Social Democratic political hacks.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am to understand then that the Sverigedemokraterna's starting point - that is, the largest party in the government support - is that the business sector shall be left entirely on its own in the climate transition. The state shall not invest any money in the climate transition - or is it the state that shall do the climate transition and not the private companies? Tobias Andersson is also welcome to answer that.

What Sweden has done is fantastic. We have more green companies than ever. There are problems that need to be solved with the climate transition, I do not deny that. There are problems that we need to tackle, but we need to tackle them together. Either you tackle them by putting on a leadership jersey and wanting to solve them, or you get stuck in problematizing things without offering any solutions whatsoever. That is what is happening now.

What is happening is that these startups, which account for a large part of the strengthened Swedish competitiveness, especially when it comes to the tech sector and digitalization, will be left completely on their own, because according to Tobias Andersson, the state should not have an active role in the transition we are to make – or is it that the state is to do it itself entirely without the business sector.

What do the Sweden Democrats want to do to invest Sweden out of the climate crisis - if one believes that such a crisis exists? What policy does the Sweden Democrats have to promote new innovative ideas that accelerate the climate transition but, above all, strengthen Sweden's competitiveness? Or are all companies that contribute to the climate transition - which very many receive support from, not only in Sweden but in the whole world - seen as recipients?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I happen to be of the opinion that I suspect that Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro has not taken part in the many reviews that academies and authorities have conducted of public corporate support. As recently as some years ago, we took note of how the Swedish National Audit Office – perhaps the primary auditor of public activities – went through reviews of public support to the private business sector and established that their impact assessments did not meet the standard.

We have time and again seen how, for example, the Agency for Growth Analysis has cut Vinnova's support where one either cannot see any effect of the support or cannot measure it. We have received information on other audits that have criticized that some of the agencies' own audits have consisted of asking the companies that they have given money to. One has, in other words, given a handout to a company, and then come back and asked: Do you think it was good that you received free money? Then they have answered: Yes, I think it was good that I received free money. Based on that analysis, that audit, one has concluded that this is an effective support program that we shall continue to devote ourselves to.

It may be that the Social Democrats want to continue wasting money in a situation where we need to save, where we do not want to drive up inflation, where we find ourselves in a difficult situation and where the public sector needs to prioritize its resources.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, I believe that every wasted tax krona is a loss that could have gone to something else, for example, proper investments or tax reliefs to benefit the Swedish business climate. In that case, it is an insult that we at the current moment are spending unknown billions to support the private business sector.

I asked the Riksdag's investigation service how large an amount of funds goes from the public sector to the private sector. They could not give me an answer, because there are so many actors involved and no reasonable follow-up takes place. It is a problem. We need to be careful with tax money, not least in this situation.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! A truth that we can never get around is that jobs can never be dictated into existence, they are created. Four times out of five, jobs in Sweden are created by small and medium-sized enterprises.

After having worked with the business sector before entering the Riksdag, I see myself as a gardener. I cannot create the jobs, but I can, as a good gardener, create the conditions for companies to bloom, and that is my task as a Christian Democrat.

What I want to say here is that new jobs cannot be commanded into existence by politicians, whether in the Riksdag or the government. They are primarily created when people find it worth the effort to start and develop a company, realize an idea, and risk their savings. It is the human being behind the system who builds the nurturing climate. The individual's initiative and entrepreneurship give Sweden a strengthened welfare. To that, I, as a gardener, want to provide nourishment.

In this garden, I see the large, impressive plants that are there, but I also see all the small plants that are there, and those are the small and medium-sized companies. For the most part, they are family businesses, and it is they that should be at the center of the design of the industrial policy - the right guidance and the right conditions to grow and create more jobs.

Mr. Speaker! We must not take Sweden's competitiveness for granted. Like a gardener, we must nurture the plants that have grown strong and let them grow even stronger. But that requires that we understand and constantly review how we can get Sweden's companies, which create prosperity, tax revenues, and jobs, to develop, and how we can get the new entrepreneurs who are willing to risk their savings because they have an idea they want to realize to dare to take that step.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, several tools and initiatives exist. We have, among others, Vinnova, Sweden's innovation agency, which, through cooperation with regions and municipalities that operate close to our companies, finances, for example, initiatives through projects between companies as well as between companies, research organizations, and other types of innovation-related actors. It is a supplement that provides acceleration for fast-growing companies. We also ensure the business sector's supply of competence, not least in Gävleborg where I come from and even further north in northern Sweden, among others through transition study support and education for transition.

An important piece of work currently underway is also to review unnecessary rules and burdens that today stifle entrepreneurship and new business establishments. An initiative currently in progress is to simplify and facilitate ownership changes both within family businesses and to employees so that viable companies are not shut down unnecessarily. Ownership changes, Mr. Speaker, should be able to occur simply and free from unnecessary regulatory burdens that prevent companies from transitioning and continuing to exist.

Last time we stood here in the chamber, we debated regulatory simplifications for companies, and it is just as relevant today as we debate industrial policy. Regulatory simplifications are a key, in Sweden as within the EU, to strengthened competitiveness. We Christian Democrats safeguard the cooperation within the European Union where Sweden is now chair for half a year. One of the government's priorities in the EU chairmanship is competitiveness. With that priority, Sweden changes course in order to strengthen Swedish interests by entering processes initiated in and by the EU at an early stage.

EU's share of the global market has shrunk during the last decade. Sweden has had the EU Commission develop a strategy that focuses on reversing these figures. The strategy contains important proposals on regulatory simplification, where the focus lies not only on the increased regulatory burden on individual companies but also on a new goal to reduce costs resulting from reporting requirements by 25 percent.

Mr. Speaker! We know, through among other things a report that the Equality Commission has prepared, that measures for increased diversity and equal ownership and entrepreneurship are something that gives us a strengthened GDP. With the aim of achieving increased diversity and equal ownership, the government therefore today has a stated goal to specifically highlight women's conditions by improving the conditions for women's entrepreneurship and business ownership. The truth is that only 30 percent of Sweden's companies are owned by women. An important explanation for that is precisely women's lack of access to capital. But it should not only be those who were born with capital or good economic conditions who should have the opportunity to own and run companies in Sweden.

In Sweden, one of the world's most equal countries, 93 percent of invested capital goes to men. It is completely unacceptable. That women are underrepresented among entrepreneurs needs to be addressed for many reasons. Above all, it is a sign of underutilized potential and a deficiency in the business climate. The conditions for women to start, build, and own companies must be improved.

That is why I am now extremely pleased that the government has addressed the issue and tasked Tillväxtverket with compiling current research on women's entrepreneurship and previous initiatives in the area. Additionally, Tillväxtverket shall assess what results have been achieved and which measures best promote an increase in women's entrepreneurship. As a Christian Democrat, I have the ambition to follow up on this important issue.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and reject all motions.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that we Social Democrats have a different view on industrial policy than the government base. We have several reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 4.

I would like to stop at the climate transition and its opportunities for Sweden. The S-led government presented a number of reforms aimed at creating good conditions for the business sector to be able to invest in the green market. It has been necessary for Sweden to participate and contribute to the global transition, but it has also strengthened Swedish competitiveness. We Social Democrats know that active industrial policy, where the state and the business sector meet challenges together, is best for jobs, growth, and Sweden.

But now a new government is in power, and from several parties, various moves have emerged recently that have not turned out well. In the Swedish business community, there is concern about the long-term perspective in Swedish politics and the conditions for future investments.

In the green transition, we also need to consider the small and medium-sized enterprises that are responsible for job creation and the innovative ideas that will make us a technological leading country with digital solutions that reduce emissions.

That is why we Social Democrats advocate for state support for startups and scaleups to ensure that they can grow to become competitive and in that way contribute to the common good. An investment in a small company can sow seeds that will later allow us to reap fruits with a taste of green jobs and growth.

As early as 2018, we Social Democrats presented an offensive package aimed at making Sweden the world's first fossil-free welfare nation. The green transition, in fact, creates the conditions for the welfare of the future and makes us as a society richer and better.

In the EU, Sweden has distinguished itself as an offensive climate nation that does not fear the transition but sees the opportunities within it, and we Social Democrats have been proactive regarding the various offensive plans presented in, among other things, the work with Fit for 55, Green Deal Industrial Plan, and the EU's green deal.

Now we see how the EU no longer views Sweden as a pioneer in environmental and climate issues, but rather as the brake in the negotiations taking place. What is decided at the national level has effects that later affect the work of transitioning the entire European Union and in that way strengthening the entire union's competitiveness. It is that responsibility that the presiding countries need to carry on their shoulders during their six-month mandate.

No climate measures are too small or insignificant in a situation where we need to reach net-zero emissions. Industry needs to transition. People's consumption needs to become more environmentally and climate-friendly, and transport as well.

The outcome has been something else in Sweden when the government does the opposite, because it is about having a holistic view. One needs to have an understanding of the business community's challenges and thereafter review how we can strengthen Swedish competitiveness and create new jobs. That is what the transition is about: increased prosperity. If Swedish jobs are to remain Swedish, the transition cannot wait.

Here, small and medium-sized enterprises become incredibly important. We Social Democrats have already made a number of efforts to ensure that more companies are created. We have also ensured that authorities are helpful in the companies' contacts with the EU.

The state can be an enabler for profitable industries that contribute to a rapid climate transition. It is therefore why we Social Democrats request a special initiative at an early stage of the development and business development process for startup and scaleup companies with climate- and environmentally friendly solutions.

It is needed so that more people will contribute and so that we achieve the desired effect. Through such support, we ensure that Sweden takes the lead in the climate transition. We ensure that Swedish companies are at the forefront. In this way, we win market shares, strengthen Sweden's competitiveness, and contribute to a strong welfare.

It is a matter of daring to lead Sweden out of the crisis, demonstrating leadership in international contexts and being the locomotive in the green transition. It is unfortunate that this has not been the case during the Swedish presidency, a presidency that could have meant that it is Sweden that sets the agenda for Fit for 55, harmonizes future rules that will apply in the EU, and ensures that the Swedish business sector becomes the starting point in the EU's climate negotiations.

We need to pull out all the stops. The state, the business community, and civil society must all carry out the transition for the whole of Sweden. Everyone is needed, and everyone shall be included!

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Speaking of startups, the most prominent startup under the previous government was the launch of the oil-fired Karlshamn power plant. But that is perhaps not quite the energy debate we should have here and now.

I have a few questions in light of what was just said and in light of the fact that over the last eight years, Sweden has gone from being the country in the EU with almost the highest growth to being the country with the absolutely lowest growth. It is perhaps not a brilliant track record if one says that one should have a great understanding of the industry's conditions and the importance of our ability to pay for the Swedish welfare.

I can also say that when it comes to simplifications for companies, the past eight years are four lost years. I can only go through a portion of all the major initiatives that were made. It was about the simplification journey when Ibrahim Baylan was to travel the country and the world to see how he could simplify. It was about the introduction of an industrial chancellor. It was about the introduction of a future minister. None of this actually led to anything at all.

I would like to ask a question. Which part of the Social Democratic election manifesto for the 2022 election – that is, the one that would have been issued if the Social Democrats had received renewed confidence during this mandate period – does Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro consider to be the best part when it comes to regulatory simplifications for companies?

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can remind Mats Green that during the pandemic, Sweden was the country that fared best economically. It is clear that it is very unfortunate that we have diminished growth now, and I wonder what Mats Green and his colleagues in the Government Offices intend to do about it. He is welcome to answer that.

Regarding simplification of regulations, we have had this discussion in this chamber quite many times. I can also remind that in the regulatory letter to, among others, the county administrative boards, the Social Democratic government sent directives that one should work with simplification of regulations at the county administrative boards. Many of the regulations that exist are at local and regional levels. But what does the government basis do? Well, it lowers the grant to the county administrative boards instead. Mats Green is welcome to answer how one is to work with simplification of regulations at regional and municipal levels if one has less money to be able to work with at all. It will be exciting to see.

When it comes to regulatory simplification, we also have simplification policy goals that were established in 2021 and which, as far as I am aware, all parties stand behind, but which the Social Democratic government put forward. It is these goals that we are to work towards, and it is these goals that I hope the government works towards now that it has the power of government, so that one does not just say that one will introduce an implementation council and then say that one has checked it off from the Tidö Agreement. It must also have a real effect.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must admit that I asked a rhetorical question about which part of the Social Democratic election manifesto ahead of the 2022 election Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro thought was the most important part when it comes to regulatory simplification for companies. It was a rhetorical question because there was not a single proposal in the Social Democrats' election manifesto regarding regulatory simplifications for companies - not a single proposal at all. This is what we are standing and discussing now.

I state once again that after eight years of Social Democratic rule, we have gone from having almost the highest growth in Europe to having the EU's absolute lowest growth. We also had the highest unemployment ever in Sweden during an economic boom. This means that we are poorly prepared to handle a recession when we already had high unemployment.

But again: What are the concrete changes that the Social Democrats now want to make when it comes to regulatory simplifications? Now it sounds very ambitious all of a sudden. I think that is good. It is a sign of health that one has high expectations of a non-socialist government. But it would have been more respectable if one had achieved something during their own eight years in power.

Regarding the discussion that one does not increase the appropriations to all agencies that need regulatory simplification, I can sometimes think that it becomes a bit strange that one is to give more money to agencies so that they shall do less but more efficiently. It is perhaps not quite the way to success.

Again: We need to remove rules and simplify rules. But which rules do the Social Democrats want to remove, and which rules do the Social Democrats want to simplify? We have not seen any proposal on this during the years of government, and we still do not see any proposals in the documents that we are now to take a position on. But what does Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro see for the future regarding rules that need to be removed or simplified?

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that one does not need to provide more money for them to work on regulatory simplifications. But one also does not need to remove money if one wants them to work on regulatory simplifications.

I believe that we have very different views on what yields the best effect. I do not believe, for example, that holding the opposition accountable yields that much effect for Swedish companies. On the other hand, if you sit in the government and send regulatory letters to agencies, have a political leadership and have simplification policy goals that you want to work towards, you achieve change.

What Mats Green is trying to do is to demand accountability from the opposition when it is Mats Green's party that sits in the government. I therefore suggest that Mats Green speaks with his ministers and asks how this is to be achieved. We have simplification policy goals. The Social Democrats wrote this into the letters of instruction where we saw that rule simplifications were needed. But what do the Moderates intend to do? Do you intend to introduce an implementation council, and when will it come?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I shall refer to reservation 15 from the Socialdemokraterna regarding women's entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs with a foreign background. It states, among other things, that according to the Socialdemokraterna, it can be observed that only a quarter of the entrepreneurs in Sweden are women. Then the Socialdemokraterna also write: "Furthermore, we see that a segregated labor market results in a segregated entrepreneurship, which with some generalization means that women run businesses within the industries where primarily women work."

Mr. Speaker! My question is why it should be a problem that women who choose to work within a certain sector also run companies within that very sector. That is what is being problematized from the Social Democrats' side.

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro answers that he and the Social Democrats know better which industries women should run businesses in because they see it as problematic that the labor market is so segregated that there is also a segregated entrepreneurship.

Mr. Speaker! I do not consider it problematic if a woman who, for example, currently works in the cleaning industry feels that she wants to take the next step in her career and start her own cleaning company and offer the same services but now as a self-employed person instead of as an employee. She may also have previously been employed by a man but now runs her own company within the cleaning industry as a woman. But it is precisely this that the Social Democrats problematize in reservation 15, which I highlighted. Then they call for initiatives from the government on female entrepreneurship.

The question is two-part: Why does Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro believe he knows better than women which industries they should run businesses in, and what measures do you want from the government for female entrepreneurship to steer women to run businesses within the industries that the member advocates for?

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is something that Tobias Andersson should ask Lili André, because in Lili André's statement we heard that 93 percent of all venture capital goes to male entrepreneurs and that it is a problem. I understood that it is something that the government wants to work on. I believe that the government has some problems here.

But what I believe the Sweden Democrats always miss is that they do not see the whole picture, that they do not see that it is a problem that almost half of the population is excluded from small business ownership, and that they do not see that there are problems with the fact that we have a very segregated entrepreneurship in Sweden.

In my speech, I spoke about innovations, tech ideas, and innovative startups. They come through by us providing support. But I believe it is here somewhere that we differ. We believe that the state should be an active actor when it comes to entrepreneurship, when it comes to an active business sector, and when it comes to ensuring that people get their innovations realized. But that is not what the Sverigedemokraterna do. They think that companies should manage on their own and then primarily want that women and foreign-born people should remain in segregation and that the business sector should become half as rich.

It will be exciting to hear how the government basis's discussions go on this issue.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have a full grasp of how the discussion is proceeding on that issue, because it is a party colleague of Lili André, in the form of Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch, who has tasked Tillväxtverket with investigating the background of why women are entrepreneurs to a lesser extent. It is an investigation whose need I myself have questioned towards the aforementioned Minister.

But the questions I asked Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro go further than that. It is one thing to want to have facts on the table and see if it is the case that women are disadvantaged when it comes to venture capital, as the member for example highlighted. That would be problematic, and then it is clear that it needs to be reviewed. Getting that type of basis on the table is, fundamentally, positive.

But that was not what I highlighted in my speech. I highlighted that the member considers themselves to know better which industries women should conduct business in than women themselves do. That is exactly what appears in your reservation number 15. There, you criticize that there is a segregated entrepreneurship. I interpret it implicitly as that from the Social Democrats' side, it is thought that women should not run companies within, let's say, the care sector, because they are overrepresented there. Instead, we should ensure that they become engineering consultants and run companies within that area.

The Sweden Democrats are fully convinced that women themselves can decide when, where and how they wish to run businesses.

Mr. Speaker! I have still not received an answer to this. Why does Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro think he knows better than female entrepreneurs which industry these female entrepreneurs should be active in? What concrete proposals are the Social Democrats requesting from the government regarding how, where, and when women, according to the Social Democrats, should be allowed to run businesses?

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe there is an incredible amount to learn from all the studies that show the following: If half of the population is not represented in an industry, that industry loses an incredible amount of competence.

I also believe, as I touched upon in my speech and in my reply to Tobias Andersson, that the state can play an active role regarding the climate transition but also when it comes to achieving an equal society. It is obvious that the Sweden Democrats do not think the state should have an active role when it comes to removing the inequality that prevails in Sweden.

But it is good that Lili André is on her toes, because what was also intended was that there is a basis when it comes to this. 93 percent of all venture capital goes to male-owned companies. That is a fact. It is nothing that one can get around. But it is obvious that the Sweden Democrats do not want to do anything about this. They do not think that society becomes poorer if women do not participate and contribute. They do not think that society becomes poorer if the entire population does not get the same opportunities to participate.

It is something that I think the government base should take with them. This is what the Sweden Democrats mean. One does not think that the state should interfere in women's living conditions. The Sweden Democrats do not think it is a problem that women are not entrepreneurs to a greater extent. That is what I think, and perhaps other parties in this chamber also think. But the Sweden Democrats and Tobias Andersson do not think so.

(Applause)

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! A free and strong business sector is a prerequisite for a free and strong society. Politics must create the conditions for this. Sweden needs more liberal reforms that strengthen our competitiveness and create conditions for Sweden's companies.

We see today that much of Swedish industry and production faces great challenges, partly as a consequence of the aftermath of the pandemic, and partly as a result of world events, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Increased energy prices and high inflation also constitute significant challenges for parts of the business sector. Therefore, it is of great importance that politics now focuses on what is required to support Sweden's entrepreneurs and Sweden's business sector.

We need international cooperation for continued free trade and a strong export industry, a reconstruction of the Swedish energy system, investments in infrastructure development, relief from bureaucracy and administration, and decisive action regarding the supply of skills. And, I unfortunately must add, we probably also need to keep our eyes on how we can get more women to take risks, start and run companies, and increase their ownership and capital holdings.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish companies are dependent on international trade solutions and access to foreign markets. This applies to both imports and exports. An open and rules-based world trade is a prerequisite for a strong economy and thus also for the Swedish welfare. The Government emphasizes that this is more important than ever in a situation with geopolitical tensions and increased protectionism. We have unfortunately also seen increasing trade conflicts.

It is very good that the government marks its position in this way. Sweden will need to be a very strong and clear voice for free trade going forward, not least against the background we are now seeing.

We also need to monitor that Sweden does not fall behind regarding the infrastructure investments that are now being made in various parts of Europe and which will also have great significance for Swedish business. This applies in particular to the Fehmarn Belt link between Denmark and Germany, which is now being built and which will further shorten travel times between Sweden and the continent. Bottlenecks on the Swedish side – the clearest example being over the Öresund, naturally – need to be addressed and built away. For a small export-dependent country like Sweden, it is absolutely necessary not to fall behind when other countries build their markets closer together.

In a similar way, one of the most important tasks we face in politics is to simplify the permit processes for companies that want to expand, not least so that we can increase energy production.

This government wants to simplify and shorten, for example, the environmental permit process by making it more flexible, efficient, and predictable. The purpose is, of course, to strengthen the business sector's competitiveness and Swedish industrial production and also to promote a green transition with the export of, for example, climate-friendly products and technology that drive the green transition forward. It is excellent.

Mr. Speaker! It is becoming increasingly clear that Sweden's position as a leading knowledge-driven industrial nation is no longer entirely self-evident. We are falling behind, partly because the policy over the past years has failed with the long-term structural reforms and liberalizations of the business sector and the labor market that we needed, and partly because we are underperforming in the education sector.

It is absolutely self-evident that we need to address this. We must, to a much greater extent than before, plan the educational offerings within the upper secondary school and adult education based on the needs of the business sector. We also need to ensure that the labor market's needs are reflected in the vocational training.

And so I return to the point I usually stand here and talk about. We need to invest in technology and mathematics education in primary school. These are two completely central areas for broadening the recruitment base for the technical educations we need - this in order to be able to get more to apply for the engineering programs. In that context, I would like to again highlight the need for Sweden to establish a STEM strategy.

We have several times here in the chamber this evening mentioned women's entrepreneurship and the lack of venture capital for women. Without anticipating the investigation that is now to be conducted, I can say that the available statistics show that one contributing cause is that the capital is within the tech sector. Unfortunately, the women are not there. That more women and girls seek out mathematics and technology is a prerequisite for us to be able to change this in the long term. These figures are a very sad reading.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: Free markets, free companies, and free individuals are values that we liberals have fought for since we began organizing as a party. They are also prerequisites for an open and democratic society. The committee proposal on the table is a step in the right direction. I hereby move to approve the committee's proposal in the report Business Policy.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! As a country, we have the opportunity to continue to develop towards a future-building and modern business sector that does not carry the weight of, for example, a socially draining or environmentally compromising business sector. Those times should be over.

And as more and more companies realize it, it is also our responsibility as politicians to facilitate the opportunities for it. The companies that are at the forefront should not be competed out by companies that are not willing to do the right thing.

Many times we are accused as a party of not measuring up in business policy. I would like to show that is not the case. Today, for example, we have a government consisting of the so-called most business-friendly parties. Yet they fail to stop the bankruptcy curve among small business owners, even though they know what it means for society, the jobs, and the small business owners' personal finances.

What are difficult times are not difficult times for everyone. We must be very clear about that. While the local trader is forced to close down, the food giant makes billions in profit. The consequences of the pandemic and the economic crisis hit very differently depending on who you are.

Mr. Speaker! Jobs are created when innovations and new ideas are translated into new products and services and not by competing with lower wages and worse working conditions. We do not believe that lower wages, worse conditions or bypassing environmental and climate goals should be the global or national order.

We want to see a large green and modern transition of society that creates development and jobs throughout the country. In our policy, we have proposals that benefit small and medium-sized enterprises, that benefit the countryside and that strengthen women's entrepreneurship and, among other things, diversified entrepreneurship.

Companies need a stable democratic society with smaller economic gaps. They need qualified staff, and therefore educational initiatives and opportunities are important. Companies need a modern, well-functioning infrastructure to be able to transport goods in a safe and sustainable way.

Both workers and entrepreneurs themselves need to have somewhere to live without a large part of the salary or profit going towards paying the rent or the housing loan. If one is ill, one should feel secure that there is a safety net that catches them.

Mr. Speaker! The future lies in an undertaking that is sustainable. It is an undertaking where even sole traders can be on parental leave or receive protection when they become unemployed.

But it is also an undertaking where entrepreneurs who have worked responsibly with the transition, or who are investing in contributing to the transition, can feel that it is an advantage to go that way.

We face many challenges, and the time for growth-at-all-costs is over. We need to think seriously about how we extract our resources, what we use them for, and how much. Is there anything we can recycle or reuse? All of this must happen so that we can utilize what we have in the best way within the planetary boundaries.

That is why it is important that we review the energy market so that companies can afford the transition. We shall actively invest to move over to renewable energy production. We shall invest in railways, power grids, and energy efficiency. These are investments that will to a large extent affect our business sector.

To meet today's situation, both the economic crisis and the climate crisis, the state must invest. We already proposed in the autumn investments for the climate and to be able to accelerate the climate transition. These are the steps forward for Sweden.

Politics can and must demand that industry transitions and help the companies with a massive green investment program and initiatives on new technology. It should be a program based on updated climate goals so that all emissions we have influence over can be met.

It must correspond to the latest research and build on solidarity with future generations and other parts of the world. These are investments that increase state ownership and thus everyone's democratic influence. It is not possible to surrender the entire future to market forces, because the future belongs to us all.

Mr. Speaker! I want to present the proposals we have submitted in this area. Being self-employed and starting something new is associated with a certain uncertainty regarding both security and finances. For someone who wants to realize their business idea, it can be difficult to navigate among the different grants and support systems that exist.

Therefore, we believe that more training and information in connection with starting a company are needed. They need to be carried out in a more accessible way, and why not in other languages? It might be a bit scandalous to say that in this speaker's chair today.

Many of those who come to Sweden as adults start companies. They may have experience starting companies in their home country, or they may have difficulty entering the labor market due to discrimination. In that case, it is good if they receive knowledge about rights, opportunities, and obligations in order to be able to start their company in the best way.

Another area that we have pointed out is the cooperative and worker-owned companies. We have highlighted both that more research is needed for these forms of companies and that we need to raise the status for them. They should meet more open doors. It should be easier to start a cooperative company. The cooperative companies are more sustainable and have higher resilience during times of crisis. They are more democratic, and the workers have more insight and power.

Today we have several examples where entrepreneurs have not had the opportunity for a generational transition. They then choose to sell the company. Sometimes that works. But we have also seen that larger companies sometimes buy up smaller companies solely to shut them down and get rid of a competitor.

We also have the problem as, for example, in the case with Göteborgs Kex. They moved production to Latvia from the local production in Kungälv. Then the wage costs weighed more heavily than the staff's competence and the workers' loyalty. They had had 134 years of local production. It meant nothing for the transnational company.

We mean therefore that the government must investigate how the state can facilitate for worker-owned companies as well as worker takeovers of threatened production. There are examples all around the world. It is nothing new. We must dare to take that step.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 20 on cooperative companies.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I had not intended to take the floor. But I could not let it stand unchallenged. If I did not hear incorrectly, Member Lorena Delgado Varas chose to point out a single company from the parliamentary rostrum and smear it for its business decisions.

First and foremost, it is my opinion that it is something one should not do in the Riksdag. One should not point out either individuals or specific business actors in that way and with that reproachful emphasis.

I am also of a different opinion regarding such a decision. We are talking about a company that conducts business activities. It wants to do so not only to make a profit from it but also to be able to offer employment, a workplace, and thereby contribute to tax revenues which we politicians, among others, can distribute and which build the prosperity we all depend on.

They are forced to shut down their operations, which was what the member lamented, questioned, and attacked. It is not because they do not want to conduct their business. It is not because they do not want to offer a workplace to the employees. It is not because they want to fire anyone or want to shut down their production. It is because they do not have the conditions to make the mathematics work and to make the balance sheet anything other than red. That is the reason.

Would it have to do with that people are not valued, as Lorena Delgado Varas claimed? She meant that this specific identified company did not do that. I find that to be directly noteworthy. If someone has fallen short in this case, it is not the company in question, but rather that it is the politics that have not created the conditions needed for them to continue conducting their business. It could be due to the fact that we have such high fees on employees, just as with the high electricity prices.

Mr. Speaker! What we, in my opinion, really should refrain from doing is pointing out individual companies, saying that they are making incorrect decisions and blaming them for those.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that one can point out and not point out depending on what we are talking about.

So this is a company that created profit when it was located in Kungälv. The problem was that it was seen that one could get staff with cheaper wages outside of Sweden, and therefore production was moved. I understand that the Sweden Democrats think that it is a strategically good way to manage Swedish business, but the Left Party does not think so.

We believe that Swedish workers should have decent wages and a decent working environment. That is what one should be able to have in a Swedish business life. I do not want Swedish workers to have to sit with their mobile phones and wait for a call on whether they are allowed to work today or tomorrow. I do not want Swedish workers to come home at the end of the month and feel that their wages are not enough.

We shall have a dignified society where Swedish workers can pay their rent and their food when they come home after work.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I did not claim in my first speech that it was a good decision by the company in question. I actually have no opinion on that, as it is the company that makes decisions regarding its operations.

I do not think that either I or Lorena Delgado Varas should have a strict opinion on why Göteborgs Kex should move or has moved, depending on what has now occurred, its operations abroad. It is up to the individual company to make decisions regarding its operations.

What politics can do, for example, to avoid workers not having enough wages at the end of the month, which the member criticizes, is to make it cheaper for companies to hire.

Let us begin in that direction. What proposals does the Left Party have to ensure that it becomes cheaper? Shall we lower the tax on income, for example, to ensure that one keeps more of what one earns?

From our side, one can both lower income taxes as well as tackle the general wage contribution so that it becomes cheaper and one can ensure that workers can keep more of their wages and that employers can raise wages because the state does not take as large a part of the cost they now have for hiring. In the same way, we can take on electricity prices and lower them so that it becomes cheaper with the type of production that this company engages in.

But politics must absolutely not step in and say that a company does not have the right to, or should not be allowed to, make decisions about where they choose to conduct their operations. Let politics instead create the conditions so that companies like Göteborgs Kex and others maintain their operations and develop and invest in them, so that we create the conditions needed for that! Let us do that instead, rather than punishing them out of Sweden and then criticizing them for leaving the country!

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! No, I am sorry, but Sweden does not punish companies out of existence. There are very many companies that make a profit, and there are very many companies in Sweden that can retain their employees and still maintain a production and meet the customers' demands. That is not the problem.

The problem is when one is constantly trying to find different ways to make money from the workers. That is the problem; one did not earn enough money from the workers here. One considered that the wages were too high, and then production was moved outside of Sweden.

The opposition raises a reduction in employer contributions and so on. It has shown that that is not the way forward to get the companies to stay. We shall get the companies to stay in Sweden by building a secure and stable infrastructure where they can maintain their production and where electricity costs do not spiral out of control. We shall not create an electricity price subsidy where we do not know where the money goes anywhere.

We shall make Swedish workers feel dignity in their work so that they can work their eight hours - preferably six hours, but it is eight hours today - and at the end of the month be able to pay their rent and live a dignified life. We do not want any other type of business here in Sweden.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to follow the previous exchange. I can only state that companies are started for different reasons.

But as an entrepreneur, a dose of passion was needed, and also a thought regarding what return I get for a krona depending on where I invest it. It is exactly like when we ourselves choose pension funds: We choose those where we believe we get the best return given the conditions that a certain investment or fund provides.

I thought I would start by saying that the business climate has become so much better in Sweden over the last 20 years. There is much that is missing. It is not our committee that handles tax issues, but I must nevertheless mention the cost of hiring and that we still have a penalty tax on employment in the employer contribution, which makes that 220 billion that exists in the employer contributions a pure tax on employment. It is clear that it matters when one chooses where to locate their business. Anything else would be a lie.

Swedish companies have embraced digitalization and globalization. Larger companies showed the way as early as the 1800s for how to venture out into the world and do business. Family businesses and startups have followed suit today. Suddenly, niche, almost nerdy, knowledge has been able to sell products on a global market thanks to digital platforms. I have myself called this nerd economy.

I am thinking about those guys who were in the garage at Frösön at home in Jämtland and wanted to manufacture a better snowboard. They were working there and fixing things in the garage, just as we know companies do. They are garage companies from the beginning. Today, this is Åre skidfabrik, which of course is located in Åre. They have developed successively and today sell niche products with a quite high margin. They have a global market for a very durable product.

Knowledge about sustainability and the insight into sustainability's potential and opportunities does not only exist in a ski factory in Åre. It also exists at our universities and companies. It is about materials, energy efficiencies, new types of batteries, solar cells, or circular upscaling, that is, how one can add new substances to what we recycle in order to thereby increase the quality of what we recycle.

All this knowledge exists in both small and large companies. In the large companies, people work with innovation, research, demonstration, and pilots. It is part of their business idea. The new companies, startups, cannot quite manage the pilot phase without the help of our fantastic large companies. We have a unique opportunity in Sweden because we have world-leading companies in so many areas where our startups can work. They are completely dependent on there being incubators and accelerators where they can meet. It is not easy to get into the large companies.

But the competition is intensifying, Madam Speaker. I will return to IRA, the American Inflation Reduction Act, with 4,000 billion kronor going to companies that want to transition. It is like an injection of capital for the demand for technology for energy and climate transition. We are not going to participate in that race, but we must understand that it is happening and consider what we do smartest to ensure investments so that both large and small companies continue to grow and flourish in Sweden - for we have the conditions.

Even though the permit standstill is what the companies, especially the large ones, experience as the biggest problem in their growth curves today, capital is still a problem in certain phases. Organizations and agencies such as Vinnova, Almi Invest, Industrifonden, and Energimyndigheten are important in certain phases, in early stages and in scaling up. This applies particularly in tough times like now, when very few are interested in putting their capital into startup companies because today one gets quite good returns on capital elsewhere - especially in investments that are not so-called Saas functions, that is, software on subscription, simple business models that one can earn very good money on.

That is how it is with capital: It flows where the return is high. If the risk is high, one relies on proven business models and people one knows. It is completely logical to do so as an early investor. Therefore, it is difficult with capital for hardware, which has long periods before it reaches profit. Many startup companies have long periods before they reach profit, but these companies have even longer periods.

That is why these institutions that we have built up in Sweden exist. As long as they have good control over what the money is spent on, they function much better in the current situation than they have for a long time.

There are also certain geographical problems, and there are problems and challenges when it comes to capital between women and men.

When it comes to the geographical aspect, the networks are strong in large cities. That is where most entrepreneurs have sold their companies, and it is also where one invests in companies where one knows someone who has started a new company. Therefore, it is important that Almi Invest exists in all of Sweden. Therefore, it is important that the university incubators exist in all of Sweden. Therefore, it is also important that, for example, Norrlandsfonden exists for the type of perhaps not so fast scaling companies that they invest in.

When it comes to women and men, it has been said that approximately 3 percent of the capital goes to women. Then one can wonder why that is, and then we are back to the networks. The networks where one has met other entrepreneurs are the networks one invests in, and women have not been in those networks in the same way.

Madam Speaker! That is why it was a very driven entrepreneur named Anna Omstedt who started Pokerface. The name is best known as a song by Lady Gaga, but Pokerface was a network to teach women how to play poker. Then one might wonder: What does that actually have to do with entrepreneurship? Well, she realized that the women were not coming to the poker tables because they didn't know how to play poker, and that was where the business was being done. So she started Pokerface and taught 140-150 women – entrepreneurs, CEOs, and investors – to play poker. They came to the poker tables, and business was done. It has been a hub for investments in Stockholm.

With the state risk capital, especially regarding what Almi has done, one absolutely should not make any distinction between women and men. But one must have a little more patience. One must look a little further, and one must also understand business models that are not as easy to understand as others.

I was very pleased when Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch invited investors and entrepreneurs to talks to discuss why things still look the way they do, but also gave Tillväxtverket the assignment to understand what has gone wrong. Some things have improved, but it is still fewer women who start companies, especially growth companies, and the capital does not end up in the same place.

An area where women run many companies is the tourism industry - approximately 30 percent of the companies within hotel and restaurant and over 60 percent within personal and cultural services. It is important. The tourism industry is like an entirely separate ecosystem. Therefore, I am very concerned that the county administrative boards in several areas, especially when it comes to the tourism industry that exists within outdoor life, now seem to be incredibly defensive. On an area in Jämtland that corresponds to half of Denmark, there are ten tourist stations, i.e., the STF sites, which are now being criticized. The County Administrative Board in Jämtland thinks that tourism probably must take a backseat.

On an area the size of half of Denmark, there should be room for 20,000 reindeer and the tourists who actually make their way through marshes and along rather poor roads. The County Administrative Board's job should instead be to ensure that parking lots are built and trails are renovated to make the area even more accessible. Now that we can finally give so many the opportunity to be out in the great outdoors, one should continue to drive that development instead of stopping it.

I conclude by saying that I move for approval of reservation 3 under point 1.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! My dear party colleague Elin Söderberg had to travel north on this evening's session. Therefore, I stand here with a short version of what she had intended to say.

Madam Speaker! Swedish companies are conducting active sustainability work with the possibility of creating new innovations, business development, as well as new jobs and companies. The climate transition can lead to not only new opportunities and higher quality of life but also increased competitiveness. Our view is that in this situation it is important that politics supports this development. Miljöpartiet believes that it is necessary for politics to encourage, support, stimulate, and urge on the green industrial revolution and the sustainability work in all industries.

Furthermore, there is great potential for strong societal development through the transition of industrial processes, transport, and the energy sector. This should be facilitated by also supporting digitalization and a green and social transition for small businesses. Small companies often have insufficient resources to manage the transition to becoming fossil-free and circular on their own.

The government should for that reason continue to invest in and develop state initiatives, for example Almi's support for smaller companies, in order to help industries and companies reduce their climate impact.

Madam Speaker! Sweden and Europe need a diversity of large and small companies that create opportunities for livelihoods and jobs, as well as contribute to both quality of life and development. It can be stated that more and more Swedes want to start companies. We believe this power and creativity should be taken advantage of. Entrepreneurship needs to be secure and simple in order to in this way release and safeguard people's entrepreneurship, innovative power, and creativity.

Studies show, however, that stereotypical perceptions of women's and men's entrepreneurship affect how they are treated when applying for state risk capital. Female entrepreneurs receive on average 25 percent of their requested capital, while men receive over half. We therefore believe that the Riksdag should urge the government to task relevant authorities with reviewing the occurrence of unreasonable gender differences. Furthermore, we believe it is important to review how women's opportunities to start and run their own companies can be improved.

In that context, we must also ensure that cooperatives, employee-owned companies, and social enterprises have just as good conditions as limited companies to obtain loans.

Madam Speaker! Good access to digital services, regardless of where one is located, is a prerequisite for being able to live, work, and run businesses throughout the country. Good access to digital services also facilitates the transition to a circular economy with a sharing economy.

The green industrial revolution has begun. Swedish companies play a decisive role in it, and many companies are already actively carrying out sustainability work and contributing with new green technology and innovations that strengthen Sweden's competitiveness. Sweden needs many both large and small companies that create opportunities for livelihoods and jobs and that contribute to development and quality of life. This applies to all of Sweden, in cities and in the countryside.

The local business community is promoted through better conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises, for example, better access to venture capital and the opportunity for business consultancy.

Policy must promote the sharing economy so that it becomes easy to share things and own together.

Furthermore, we mean that steering measures must promote consumption of climate-smart services instead of resource-intensive products.

Madam Speaker! I stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 5 regarding corporate support for the climate transition.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 11 May.)

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