Economic policy

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We shall now debate the Committee on Enterprise's report 17 on industrial policy. I naturally stand behind all the reservations from the Sweden Democrats, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of our reservation 22 regarding point 9 on the companies' capital supply.

With that said, I also want to express my approval of the committee's proposal in point 20 regarding the cash ban in trade with iron and metal waste. I express this clearly because SD and S alone constitute the committee's majority on this point and I do not want it to be forgotten.

When we are now to debate economic policy, it can first and foremost be stated that all parties, in their rhetoric, naturally want to facilitate entrepreneurship in Sweden. Most parties say they work for increased growth, which in practice generates prosperity and welfare and, in the long run, gives politics resources to distribute and invest. On the other hand, we often have different opinions on how politics best promotes the business sector in practice, which I will return to.

Madam Speaker! When I am out lecturing for our members around the country or in other contexts telling about the Committee on Industry, I usually say somewhat jokingly that we constitute a "slaskutskott" (a "slush committee"). By that, I mean nothing negative. I am rather trying to describe how broad our preparatory areas are, not least within industrial policy.

This becomes quite clear for those who read through this report. Today we are debating, among other things, the following: business-promoting, innovation-promoting measures, competition from public activities, corporate capital supply, the tourism industry, marketing of Sweden, industry-promoting measures, cultural and creative industries, and trade with scrap metal – high and low and a bit more. In other words, there are many broad, important, and varied subjects contained in this report, and I will not have time to touch upon all of them in detail.

For the outsider, there may also be no obvious common thread. But in my opinion, the common denominator in the Sweden Democrats' work in the committee is to try to promote the business sector and create good opportunities for those who in Sweden want to make their dream come true by investing in an idea, a thought or an innovation, further developing something else or doing the same thing as at their existing workplace but under their own management. Regardless of industry and size, there should be good opportunities to realize entrepreneurial dreams in our Sweden.

The conditions for the business sector in Sweden are, however, not only affected by the issues in the business policy report we are debating today. Nor are they limited to the issues handled in our committee. More or less all of the Riksdag's committees handle issues that have a direct impact on the conditions for entrepreneurs in their everyday lives in Sweden.

The report that was just debated here was from the Education Committee. It is natural, of course, that if we do not have a reasonable supply of skills that provides entrepreneurs with the key competencies they need to grow and create the next technical innovation, or whatever it may be, if there is no suitable labor force on the labor market, it does not matter so much what we do in the Committee on Industry.

In exactly the same way, the Transport Committee must ensure that we have a good infrastructure so that both goods and services can be transported around Sweden so that they are there where they are needed when they are needed.

In the same way, the Committee on Justice works with issues that have a direct impact not only on my everyday life as an individual but also on the everyday lives of entrepreneurs. It is about the insecurity that has spread across Sweden. It costs business owners up to 100 billion annually to compensate for the thefts and vandalism that occur and to invest in security-enhancing measures. With this exposé to other committees, I want to emphasize that these are broad issues that have implications in all of the Riksdag's committees.

What we want to focus on today is perhaps above all the dividing lines when it comes to industrial policy specifically. In my opinion, and the opinion of the Sverigedemokraterna, the task of politics is to create good conditions for the business sector to operate. It is about securing the competence supply I mentioned and about guaranteeing a well-functioning infrastructure and a fair and predictable tax burden. It is about guaranteeing security by maintaining law and order, abolishing unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape, and ensuring low and stable energy prices, among other things.

This, in turn, Madam Speaker, constitutes the foundation upon which the business sector stands and operates from. Actually, these are quite fundamental market economic views, which admittedly have never been shared by all parties, but which I judge today to be increasingly conspicuous by their absence.

Historically, a political dividing line has existed between right and left regarding what politics should do to facilitate for the business sector, how one should intervene in the market, and so on. The sugarcoating of the so-called green industrialization has, however, also caused even staunch advocates for market economy to open up for increased state involvement and, in practice, provided opportunities for the destruction of the market's function. This applies both in Sweden and in our surrounding world.

Now it is, just as we point out in reservation 22 regarding the companies' capital supply, difficult to oversee which public supports exist. When the question is asked to the Riksdag's investigation service, even they find it difficult to ascertain the total sum, all recipients, and all payers. What comes from the EU through a Swedish authority? What do we unlock with Swedish funds from the EU? According to the researchers and authorities who have reviewed the effects of the public support to the business sector, it is even more difficult to both measure the effect and – if it is possible to measure the effect – ascertain that it gave any effect that the state engaged in that way.

It is against that background that the Sweden Democrats want to safeguard good conditions for the private venture capital market in Sweden. It functions best when politics stays away. Perhaps the clearest and most recent example of this is Northvolt's bankruptcy. From beginning to end, it was an unhealthy lobbying effort from an ideological conviction. This contributed to politics and the private business sector making decisions that they would not have made for another business in another industry, but not for these green, glittering words surrounding the project.

This ultimately led to the state paying out over 600 million in handouts. It led to almost 6 billion of AP-fondernas common pension management going to waste. It led to a destruction of capital likely exceeding 100 billion that we will not get back, capital that perhaps instead would have gone to the small and viable company if it were not the case that politics misled and deceived into investments in these projects. Not least politics, state agencies, state and municipal companies and others contributed and inflated that bubble which then burst. We must avoid this in the future. It is against that background that we also make this dividing line in Swedish politics when it comes to the view on politics' role and the view on what we should do and how we best create conditions for the business sector.

I am convinced that we best do it by taking a step back, letting the business sector do its thing and letting the market handle it all without politics intervening too much.

I would like to conclude by mentioning the announcement proposed with the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats as the senders in the committee regarding the cash ban in trade with iron and metal waste. This is an important issue. Industry and police have raised it for a long time. Stolen goods can be sold and cash can be obtained for the criminal. We believe that digital tracks make it much harder to get away with those types of shady deals, and I look forward to the government's feedback and action on the matter.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! There is, as always when Tobias Andersson gives speeches in economic policy debates, much to say. I would, however, like to stick to the Sweden Democrats' reservation linked to a national innovation strategy, also with reference to what Tobias Andersson just said about the Sweden Democrats' view on the involvement of politics in precisely the market.

We Social Democrats have proposed an innovation strategy in three committee motions now, Madam Speaker, and we are quite proud of it. We have been ridiculed by the government parties. It has been said that politics should not point out technology areas and that politics should not interfere in the market.

I therefore became quite thoughtful when I saw this reservation from the Sweden Democrats. I believe it is reservation 22 which concerns precisely innovation strategy. I would like to hear a little from Tobias Andersson what the Sweden Democrats mean by innovation strategy, given that one has also opposed a great deal of the initiatives in the Swedish innovation system that are carried out by, among others, Vinnova.

It may not have been reservation 22, Madam Speaker. I apologize. I believe that Tobias Andersson knows which reservation I mean.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question. I choose not to guess the exact figure, but I know that it was in any case not 22. I absolutely understand what Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro is referring to.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, it is actually quite simple. It is clear that we safeguard that Sweden shall also in the future be an innovation country in the absolute world class. The more historical debate in this – which I had with the previous Minister for Enterprise from Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro's party when they held that position – was about what creates innovations. Is it an individual small company, or is it an agency that can choose and point out the next technological breakthrough?

What has been done so far from the government base is that, in dialogue with the industry, Vinnova has been tasked to identify what the major technical areas are, where we see global gains that Sweden should become better at adopting technology from or where Sweden should be part of driving the innovation forward. Against that background, Vinnova has also limited its mandate slightly regarding where it places its focus. I think that is positive.

I will be clear that there are parts of Vinnova's activities that I know are valuable. There have also, at least historically, been parts that my party has been strongly critical of. I debated this once with the minister at the time – I believe it was Ibrahim Baylan. At that time, I had gone through the projects that were outstanding from Vinnova's side. I noted in that debate that money had gone from Vinnova to a Swedish forestry company to work with gender-certified forestry. That perhaps was not what I thought was creating strong innovation capacity in Sweden.

With that said, there is also other work the authority does that is good. That is also why we have streamlined the authority's work and resources.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! The assignment that Vinnova received from the government parties and the Sweden Democrats has presented its final report. There, they have also concluded which six prioritized technology areas they believe the government should focus on. This is something that, among others, Tobias Andersson gave the assignment for, as Tobias Andersson also signed the debate article that the government's supporting parties wrote in Dagens industri.

It is clear that one becomes curious. Vinnova has now done this work, and the Sweden Democrats want an innovation strategy to be developed. Yet, it is not proposed in the government negotiations the Sweden Democrats have. One thus has the ambition to have an innovation strategy, but when it actually comes down to it, one chooses not to propose it – even though it is what Svenskt Näringsliv, Swedish Incubators & Science Parks and the industry partners are requesting, that is, that Sweden should speak about which direction we should take so that we can become the most innovative country in the world.

One must remember that Sweden has been the world's most innovative country. But now we are falling behind, because other countries are catching up. An innovation strategy would have truly ensured that we accelerated that work again in a situation where we are being outcompeted by other countries and their technological leaps.

Therefore, I would like to know why the Sweden Democrats choose to propose it in their committee motion but not to prioritize it in the government negotiations that have been held. My impression is that Vinnova was given a mandate, that Vinnova presented it, and that one now wants to see an innovation strategy. Will the Sweden Democrats present it and fight for an innovation strategy – and does Tobias Andersson then mean that this is not a way for politics to interfere in the market?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by stating that I am becoming a bit confused in this debate when Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro stands up and says that the Sweden Democrats do not advocate for an innovation strategy. He does so in an exchange of remarks regarding an innovation strategy, based on a reservation from the Sweden Democrats where an innovation strategy is proposed. It becomes a bit difficult to reflect on why we are not driving an issue when we are debating how we drive that issue in the committee report that we are debating here today.

With that said, it is naturally the case that one does not get one hundred percent of what one wants when collaborating with several parties. It is also the case that this is an issue that must be considered to lie outside the Tidö Agreement that we have signed – if budget funds were not to be added, because it would then become a budget negotiation issue. But it is obvious that the Sverigedemokraterna are driving this issue, because otherwise, Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro would not have had a reservation about the issue being raised and replied to me about.

Since then, it is always easy to be wise in hindsight, and it is well positive that the Social Democrats are now pushing for promoted innovation. It is also the case that we can observe that over eight years, one chose not to move forward with the proposals that one today is very proud to represent in the role of opposition party in the Swedish Riksdag.

With that said: I stand by what I said about the fact that politics cannot determine exactly what the next innovation will be. On the other hand, politics has a responsibility to listen to both industry and authorities when it comes to what they believe Sweden can benefit from in the innovation development occurring worldwide today. Instead of telling an authority that it should tinker a bit with innovation, I think it is reasonable to say: Where are the great opportunities? How do we focus on taking advantage of precisely those? Thus, it becomes a small framing of the focus for this authority. I think that is perfectly reasonable.

I thank Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro for these questions, Madam Speaker.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! It has almost been three years since the Tidö government took office, and it is simply a matter of stating that things are going poorly for Sweden. High unemployment and low growth have been constants throughout this government's rule. It is hoped that the market itself will solve the problems that Swedish companies face.

We Social Democrats have repeatedly during the mandate period delivered several proposals that would strengthen Sweden's competitiveness and facilitate things for entrepreneurs in times of inflation and, now, tariff chaos. It is a worrying world that Swedish entrepreneurs and wage earners face, and unfortunately, they are met by a government that does not have the ability to respond to that worry.

We Social Democrats have proposed a broad energy agreement so that we can stop polarizing electricity and start producing more electricity in our country. The old trenches need to be abandoned, and we must instead agree on one of Sweden's most important prerequisites for growth and prosperity in the electrified society that is emerging.

We have also proposed a reformed system for short-time work. The 2008 financial crisis showed how poorly equipped Sweden was to support companies so that they would not have to lay people off. It was one of the most used crisis supports during the pandemic, and therefore we Social Democrats have proposed it as a measure to support companies in the new turbulent times we find ourselves in. The business community and the unions want to see a reformed system for short-time work, and a completed investigation lies on the government's desk – but nothing happens.

It is obvious that we are in a technological shift and that Sweden, which has been the world's most innovative country, is being challenged by other countries. This has been ongoing for a long time, and therefore we Social Democrats have for nearly three years proposed that the government develop an innovation strategy. It is fortunate that other parties have also woken up on that front.

We need an innovation strategy to manage the green transition, strengthen Swedish competitiveness, and create new jobs across our entire country. Our neighboring countries have developed offensive innovation strategies, and organizations such as Svenskt Näringsliv, Swedish Incubators & Science Parks, and many others have pointed out the need for exactly such a strategy to strengthen Swedish competitiveness. But the government chooses not to do so. We believe it is a misprioritization.

Madam Speaker! Many entrepreneurs are worried about what this turbulent time will mean for their businesses. Many wage earners are worried about their jobs. Will they become just another figure in the high unemployment that only continues to grow? When that anxiety spreads, politics would need to show leadership and direction toward a future where people get jobs, not lose them, and where companies grow, not go bankrupt.

Madam Speaker! The turbulent times we live in are a result of right-wing populist politics. Many in this chamber, especially the Sverigedemokraterna, accused us of painting Donald Trump in a bad light. We were portrayed as alarmists. Then people in this chamber chose to nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The party leader for Sverigedemokraterna chose to call Donald Trump a breath of fresh air.

Unfortunately, it turned out that all of us who warned about what Donald Trump and right-wing populism could entail were right, Madam Speaker. We are now seeing what happens to the world when right-wing populists are in power: chaos – complete chaos. Culture wars, impulses, and increased protectionism are the result. The Moderates' sister party in the USA has completely abdicated to the forces that they themselves have made themselves dependent on here at home in Sweden.

The world economy and companies – above all Swedish companies, Madam Speaker – need predictability, long-term perspective, and functioning democratic principles that dictate the conditions in a global market. This is something we in Sweden must demonstrate, and we need to take the lead when more and more countries turn to protectionist solutions. That is not achieved with more right-wing populism, Madam Speaker.

Even here at home in Sweden, populism has led to uncertainties in the business sector. At the beginning of the mandate period, the Sverigedemokraterna announced that they could consider closing down the agency Vinnova, i.e., our innovation agency. In the first budget they presented in the Tidö cooperation, they also made significant cuts to Sweden's innovation system. The government chose to accommodate the Sverigedemokraterna, and they shook up the entire ecosystem that has built a well-functioning Swedish innovation system.

In later budgets, one chose to reintroduce those funds, and it was called an initiative. A jerkiness has been created, Madam Speaker, which means that the business community cannot trust politics' ability to create a robust system that promotes innovation and entrepreneurship. Sweden does not need populism or jerkiness; Sweden's business community needs robustness, long-term perspective, and stability. It does not get that with this government.

Madam Speaker! I have set out what we Social Democrats want to do to strengthen Swedish business – not only to save jobs but to create more jobs in Sweden.

We want to support small and medium-sized enterprises through a customs duty. It is welcome that the government has complied with that proposal from us, but point by point, the government seems to continue to have its ideological blinkers on instead of realizing the fact that things are going poorly for Sweden.

Swedish business needs a government that can provide support so that the entire bill for the crises we see is not paid through layoffs of Swedish workers.

Instead, we see how the government's policy further worsens the situation in Sweden. Now, Swedish entrepreneurs and wage earners need to pay the price. It is sad to witness, Madam Speaker, but it makes me even more determined regarding the fact that Sweden needs a different direction and is in acute need of a change of power by 2026 at the latest.

In conclusion, I would like to move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 1 in the report.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! Now it is time for the economic policy debate again. I begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.

What is industrial policy? Well, it is policy that should provide the best possible conditions for our companies to operate in Sweden in a competitive market. It is, however, purely harmful when the policy intervenes with targeted money in various industrial projects. It harms the business sector, and as Tobias Andersson just mentioned, that happened with Northvolt. State aid should go to research, not to companies. The result is often something completely different than what the purpose was. Market economy is replaced by command economy, which limits free competition. Such an economy belongs only to totalitarian states, for example China.

Small businesses and export companies are the root of Sweden's economy. Among the world-class export companies we have in Sweden, Volvo, Scania, ABB, Atlas Copco, Epiroc, Ericsson, and Astra Zeneca can be mentioned. Our export industry accounts for 52 percent of GDP. It is not the expansion of the public sector with more agencies that provides growth – on the contrary.

It is important that we now link aid to trade on a larger scale. This is now being done via our Trade Minister Benjamin Dousa, among other things through new trade agreements outside the EU and USA, for example with Latin America, Asia and New Zealand.

We must travel more in the world to bring orders home to the companies. We must fly more, travel more by train and travel more by car.

What is it that builds companies? Yes, it is people with creative thoughts and entrepreneurship who are prepared to risk their own capital. It is people who are prepared to take greater responsibility. We must give small businesses better conditions to grow. We must facilitate through fewer regulatory burdens and obligations. We must build a better business climate with fewer regulations that facilitate entrepreneurship and new companies.

Madam Speaker! What should we in the Riksdag do to facilitate things for the companies? The low growth – it has been around 1 percent in recent years – is a major challenge for both the EU and Sweden. It also does not look much better ahead, especially not now when it is so messy out in the world – it has an impact. The EU has produced the Draghi report for increased competitiveness. It is a step in the right direction; we shall see how far it goes.

The EU is lagging behind the USA, which leads the world's growth with a growth of about 3 percent. Now that Trump is pouring on tariffs and taxes on free trade, it remains to be seen where it lands. What Trump is doing now will hit very hard against the USA itself, not just against other countries.

The tariffs from the USA hit the Swedish export industry hard. Right now, the tariffs are 10 percent, with some exceptions. They are 25 percent on steel and aluminum as well as on derivatives. They are also 25 percent on passenger cars as well as on certain vehicle components and certain trucks. So far, the service sector has managed without tariffs, and I hope it continues that way. It is whispered sometimes that the EU wants to impose counter-tariffs on the service sector, but I do not think that would be particularly good.

Madam Speaker! USA develops, China copies and the EU regulates. That is how it has been over the last ten years. Unfortunately, the EU Commission devotes far too much energy to introducing various types of regulations and controls. For example, the Commission wants to regulate our forestry into oblivion. We must put a stop to that. Our forests are among the best managed in the entire world. They have been managed for generations by families and entrepreneurs.

This makes Europe lose competitiveness. We need to develop more reforms for growth. We also need a simpler permit process for the mining industry and other industries. For example, the Environmental Code should be significantly reformed and simplified. Here we have a job to do. I believe, however, unfortunately, that this is one of the hardest laws to change and reach a consensus on in the Riksdag.

We must facilitate innovation and development of companies and, for example, open new mines in order to become more self-sufficient in metals and reduce our dependence on China and Russia.

LKAB is a powerhouse in Norrland and delivers 70 percent of Europe's ore. The quality is of the highest world-class standard. Now a new mine in Kiruna, the Per Geijer mine, is nearly ready to be opened – perhaps within five years. Sweden's steel industry shall continue to focus on quality. The quality of the steel that SSAB produces right now is the highest in the world. That is not bad! It is a strong competitive factor.

Madam Speaker! Smaller companies are hit hard by red tape. We want to see less hassle, more opportunities, and more room for entrepreneurship.

Several companies in my home municipality, Norrtälje, with whom I still have very close contact, tell me how they are met by state authorities, who come out and threaten them. Arbetsmiljöverket is said to be the worst. They say that the companies have the wrong work environment plan. It is, therefore, a folder on the shelf that is wrong. When they ask the handling official what they are doing wrong, they are told that the official is not a consultant. It is not so easy to be a small business owner then, I want to assert.

Reduce red tape! Several – not least the EU – are pushing forward with new rules. There are an insane amount of rules. For example, companies with ten employees must have a work environment plan and an equality plan. It is highly questionable how this would be good for small companies. I see no benefit in it. It means that many companies today choose to have a maximum of nine employees to avoid this hassle.

Furthermore, both municipalities and state agencies should have service guarantees. The County Administrative Board and the Swedish Mapping Authority are examples of agencies that have long processing times.

Madam Speaker! Property rights are part of the Moderaternas DNA. This applies to all issues, whether it concerns forest policy or representation on corporate boards. It is a major issue for us that property rights are sovereign in society.

A question that has been highlighted is that landowners in northern Sweden are seeing their land being claimed by other businesses with the approval of the County Administrative Board and other authorities. Reindeer husbandry is a part of Swedish culture, but it must not encroach on property rights and other areas of society.

Madam Speaker! I move on to speak about disloyal competition. We should develop clearer legislation to limit competition from municipalities and the state against companies. This applies, for example, to municipal gyms. Some state-owned companies compete, for example Arento, which is a rental company in lower Norrland that competes by renting out construction machinery. Svevia also competes to some extent with the contracting sector and does a lot of work for Trafikverket.

This afternoon, the decision was made here in the chamber regarding the sale of yards. It was long-awaited. Unfortunately, the Public Health Agency is involved and is going to grind down the best of this. We will have to see how everything lands – I hope that they limit their double-control over this.

What does a company do when profitability goes down? In the first instance, one reviews its organization and its costs. A company cannot do what politically steered organizations do and simply raise taxes. Companies must be competitive and must sometimes lower the price of their goods to get them sold. That is the difference between a market economy and a planned economy.

Madam Speaker! It is of the utmost importance that we in the Riksdag take responsibility for the infrastructure so that it functions for our companies. The road network is under heavy criticism in parts of Sweden. Therefore, it is very good that the government is increasing the appropriations for the maintenance of the road network. Perhaps it should have been done earlier.

The Eastern Connection should be built here in the Stockholm region, which accounts for 40 percent of the GDP in Sweden. The Södertörn Cross-connection should be built to connect Norvik's port with Stockholm so that one can avoid driving all cars into Stockholm and around and southwards. Arlanda must be strengthened and reclaim its place on the map as an international airport. We have lost a lot of power there in recent years. In short: more flights, more cars and more trains.

Madam Speaker! Energy policy has collapsed because of the red-green parties. They have shut down six of our twelve reactors – fully functional reactors. The same parties have had a dream of replacing them with wind power – which works well when it blows. For approximately 60 percent of the hours of the year, it works. Then it does not work at all. It is not sufficient to have wind power, which is weather-dependent. We must have robust energy in the form of hydropower and nuclear power.

The most important thing for entrepreneurs is lower taxes, lower taxes and fewer regulations.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kjell Jansson for the speech.

As I highlighted in my speech, we live in restless times where very many see their jobs disappearing. We see companies that unfortunately need to lay off very many people. We have experience of what can happen when Swedish companies are as vulnerable as they are right now. During the financial crisis in 2008, up to 100,000 people became unemployed as a result of the crisis. Therefore, it was good that we during the pandemic introduced a system for short-time work. According to Tillväxtverket and Tillväxtanalys, 40,000 jobs were saved during 2020 because of this system.

The system was not, however, flawless. Therefore, we Social Democrats appointed an inquiry to reform the system for short-term work. That inquiry has presented its proposals, which we Social Democrats have repeatedly motioned in the Committee on Industry for the government to proceed with. Now, the industrial parties have also appealed to the government. In the chaos that has been created by right-wing populists on the other side of the Atlantic, the industrial parties, both companies and unions, appeal to the government to proceed with the proposals for a reformed system for short-term work.

I would like to ask Member Kjell Jansson, who represents the Moderaterna and sits in the government: Why does the government choose not to proceed with the investigation's proposal on a reformed system for short-term work? What other concrete measures do the government and the Moderaterna have to ensure that companies do not need to lay off people in the potential trade war that we see emerging?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Daniel Castro for the questions.

We begin with the pandemic. Stimulus measures were introduced – that is absolutely correct. They were good at that specific time, but it was a matter of stopping the blood flow with a bandage. The consequences of everything that was done during the pandemic for companies – one avoided paying tax, received deferrals and so on – are arriving now. It is now that the waves of bankruptcies from the pandemic are arriving. Many companies are going bankrupt, even in Stockholm's city center. This applies in particular to personal-oriented activities such as shops that are open and sell products. They are having a tough time.

Unemployment has absolutely increased. It costs a lot of money when companies go bankrupt. Therefore, the government has now introduced the rotavdrag (deduction for home improvements) to stimulate the construction industry, which is also not doing particularly well given that one must build when there are people who want to buy or live. One cannot just build just for the sake of building. One must ensure that there is a return on the construction. You Social Democrats criticize the rotavdrag harshly. It is incomprehensible to me. Construction workers get jobs. Families with children can renovate the bathroom and so on, and half of the labor cost comes back. Yes, it costs a few billion, but it is still not a large amount of money. It is a reform being made to curb this.

Then one cannot do everything, and I do not think the government should do everything. We are trying to wait and see where this lands. I do not think it will hold with such high tariffs as they are currently. I actually believe that Mr. Trump will have to back down.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! It may well be that the tax deduction that the government has presented would create more jobs within the construction industry. But to highlight this as the government's major housing policy reform is remarkable in a situation where our country has an acute housing shortage but absolutely no housing is being built. Now, however, we shall stick to the Committee on Economic Affairs' report on economic policy, Madam Speaker.

I asked about short-term work. What Kjell Jansson says is very interesting. It is almost as if Kjell Jansson wants the industry to become religious and believe in Kjell Jansson. Kjell Jansson does not believe that Donald Trump will proceed with these tariffs, and the industry must hope that Kjell Jansson is right. But I believe the reason why the industry's parties want to proceed is that they see the many crises emerging. A potential trade war between the USA and China also affects Swedish companies and the entire value chain.

That is precisely why it has been highlighted that one should proceed with the proposals for a reformed system for short-term work so that it is in place when the crisis eventually comes. The risk is that it will not be in place, and then one needs to act promptly. But one cannot do that. It could also happen that the system for short-term work fails because one has not proceeded with the proposals that the investigation has presented and which are now on the government's table.

I can understand that the government does not want to proceed with proposals that we Social Democrats put forward, even though I think it is foolish. But I cannot understand that the government completely neglects the industrial parties. Both unions and employers, all industrial companies in Sweden, appeal to the government: Proceed with the proposals for a reformed system for short-term work, otherwise it will cost Swedish companies dearly! Why do Kjell Jansson and the Moderaterna not want to do that?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! Short-term work can be a part of it. Now I cannot go into details, but the costs will surely be investigated now.

If Member of Parliament Daniel Castro is up to date, he knows that Sweden faces a very serious situation and must upgrade its defense, which will cost many billions. We cannot prioritize everything else in this situation. One actually must prioritize. Defense outshines everything else right now, if we are to save our country's security first and foremost.

Of course it is a recession. I have run companies myself for 26 years and know that it is sometimes tough. It is a matter of saving in the barns so that you can manage. It goes up and down. That is what it is like to be out in the business sector. It is not just gold and green forests, as many believe.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to request the floor, but Kjell Jansson's speech raised quite a few questions for me. I will ask two short questions.

Kjell Jansson said that state aid had gone to Northvolt and other industries and that it must never happen again. At the same time, the government retains both Klimatklivet and Industriklivet as two important cornerstones. Then I wonder: If one is never to be able to give state aid to Swedish industry again, what are these funds to be used for then?

My second question is how this matter of state aid never being granted aligns with the government's investment of 600 billion for new nuclear power. It is twice as much as the investments in defense right now, which Kjell Jansson just said is the most important and that which absolutely comes first.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Katarina Luhr for the questions.

We begin with the state subsidies. I did not say "never again." I said that I hope there won't be any more of this. Does Katarina Luhr know how much state subsidy is given every year by the state? I have received an investigation from the Riksdag's investigation service. It was not easy to get it crystal clear how much it is, but at a low estimate, it is 150 billion a year.

It is unhealthy. Many of the grants are unhealthy and need to be reviewed. It is the authority mentioned earlier, Vinnova, and others that distribute grants. Energimarknadsinspektionen with several parts distributes grants.

We must be extremely cautious with subsidies to companies. We shall, primarily with tax revenue, invest in research and education. We must ensure that we have a robustly educated population with high-tech skills in order to be able to meet global competition.

When it comes to nuclear power, it is a matter of loans. They are not grants but loans. This is reported in the financing of it. We will make decisions about it in the near future. The state borrows cheaper than anyone else does. No one can borrow cheaper than the state. It is then financed via electricity fees.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell Jansson, for the answers!

I still think my question remains. What will Klimatklivet and Industriklivet be used for going forward?

Kjell Jansson pointed out that we must fly more and drive more by car. There is my first question actually: Why?

My second question is how we are going to drive cars if we have no battery production ahead in Europe.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Katarina Luhr!

If we start with Klimatklivet and Industriklivet, I hope, as I said, that one is restrictive with distributing money. They exist, and parts of them are EU money. One must be extremely restrictive. There is now a company, which the member is aware of, that is knocking on the door and wants money. It is Stegra. I hope that it does not get it, if I am to speak plainly.

The next question concerned that we should fly more. Sweden is an export country. If we are to bring home business, we must go out into the world and do business. We cannot sit at home and believe that they will come here and want to buy things from us without us making agreements. The companies have always been out in the world and made agreements and business. That is what we must do.

We must also have a population that can drive to work so that people can support themselves and their families. There is no subway further than up to Mörby and down to Norsborg or Alby, where it ends. We must also have cars, especially in Stockholm County, for it to work to get to work.

The car is an engine for the business sector. It is extremely important for the business sector that people can get from point A to point B. Everything else is imagining things that do not work. Should people ride bicycles, or how does the member imagine that?

We must travel more by plane and more by car – and also more by train, if they work. The problem with the trains is that they never run on time. We have many colleagues down in southern Sweden who have huge problems getting up to the Riksdag.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! The subject of debate is now industrial policy. It concerns a report that contains as many as 150 motions which have resulted in 53 reservations under 22 decision points. It is a formidable report.

There is no doubt that the parties mean well and that everyone has their solutions, which obviously differ. It also becomes clear when it comes to the announcement, which was also mentioned here, which the committee proposes to the Riksdag regarding the cash ban for trade with iron and metal waste.

All parties are actually in agreement that it should be introduced. But to create a special solution in the area of environmental law is perhaps not so appropriate since an investigation is ongoing there where proposals will be referred during the spring and hopefully include more areas than scrap metal waste. Anyway, I do not intend to make any big fuss from myself or Vänsterpartiet on the basis of this announcement.

Historically, the business climate has been good in Sweden and has followed the changes that have occurred in society. What has happened, however, since the belief that deregulation will make public services better and cheaper, is that unserious companies and actors have entered the Swedish labor market and are profiting enormously, and the money can even finance crime.

Today, there are major problems with how public procurement is applied. All too often, the lowest price is the guiding factor. This leads to unserious companies winning procurements by keeping prices down at the expense of a good working environment and reasonable working conditions.

In recent years, criminal gangs have also established themselves in the welfare sector after winning tenders. The development is a threat to the system and must be stopped. Within public procurement, there is, among other things, a lack of national coordination between the contracting authorities. This means that unscrupulous companies that are detected in one municipality or region can continue to conduct their activities in other parts of the country.

Madam Speaker! To address these problems, the government should investigate the possibility of establishing systems where all procuring authorities and state and municipal companies must participate, as well as investigate the establishment of a so-called blacklist of unscrupulous companies.

Here, Madam Speaker, it is appropriate for me to move for the approval of our reservation 15, which concerns precisely how public procurement is handled and how the rules are applied. We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but we highlight reservation 15.

Economic policy has an enormous impact when it comes to how a society can develop and how small businesses can be started and developed. There is a lot to say about how the state could actually support, encourage, and promote growth with relatively small means from a state budget if the view on what constitutes unhealthy competition were handled soundly.

There is sky-high unemployment in Sweden, but the best this government can come up with is to increase the rotavdrag from 30 to 50 percent up to a maximum of 50,000 kronor per person and year. Who are the ones who most make use of the deduction? It is not the unemployed construction worker or the agency nurse. You should keep that in mind. They cannot afford it.

Sweden is a country that has natural resources that are in demand all over the world. Sweden has world-class heavy industry, which has also been mentioned here by other members, and wants to carry out a green transition as one of the first countries in the world. But the government spends billions so that wealthy people can renovate their villas or vacation homes in Spain. Talk about priorities!

Initiatives should obviously be made in areas such as renewable energy production and smart power grids, railways, electric roads, expanded cycling and public transport in large cities, energy renovations and new construction of premises and climate-smart housing. That billions are spent on "rot" does not provide housing in Malmfälten so that people can move to the industrial jobs or the mines in the north.

The state-owned industrial companies should furthermore be used to build a safer, more equal and ecologically sustainable Sweden and to increase competitiveness in order to level out unjust differences between city and countryside.

Many of the products that come from industry are of a socially critical nature. It can be materials that are needed for welfare, for construction, or for the transition. Industry also, of course, provides many jobs. There must therefore be a collective responsibility for the socially critical industries.

There should be an explicit strategy for how the state manages the industries that are of great importance over time. The Government should therefore be tasked with mapping which society-critical industries and natural resources exist and providing proposals on how a long-term plan for industries and natural resources could be established.

There is another interesting reservation in the report on competition. Vänsterpartiet has not been involved in writing it, but I still want to mention it.

Vänsterpartiet was clear when we supported the boycott of the food giants in March this year, but from some parties it was a bit unclear how one should act and react.

When the monopoly is too large and competition on equal terms is lacking, it is clear that it is the consumers who are the losers and a few supermarket chains, in this case, the winners. It is the same thing when it comes to the banking sector and the energy market.

Vänsterpartiet has long pursued the issue of how, for example, SBAB could be proactive in lowering the return in order to lower interest rates for mortgages. This is just one example of many. It is the same thing with the energy sector. How do you press down the grid fees when consumers cannot choose a grid company? Other measures are obviously required so that consumers have some protection against extortionate prices. Unfortunately, there are insufficient tools to protect electricity consumers from high electricity prices and high grid fees.

Madam Speaker! It is, as said, an important aspect that is highlighted in the reservation, but we have not seen any workshop for a long time, even though the possibility has existed for several governments historically speaking.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your speech, Member Birger Lahti!

I have a question. The member raised the food prices and the boycott. We have quite a few food giants. It is not just Ica, but we also have Hemköp and not least Coop, so I want to assert that there is still some competition. The return for a retailer lies between 2 and 4 percent. I think that is highly reasonable if one is to run a business.

On the other hand, up there in Norrland, where Birger lives, there are quite a few small and local Icab stores. And they are not doing as well. Icaförbundet has to provide money to many of them so that they can remain and maintain the service in the countryside.

It is important to include this, because it is not gold and green forests for all ICA retailers. It is for those who have large supermarket halls all around the Stockholm region, in Gothenburg and so on. They absolutely earn a lot of money; there is no doubt about that. But we must include the whole picture.

I wonder why Coop is doing so poorly. Ica earns billions, and Coop is running at a loss. It is interesting, I think. Why? What is it due to?

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell Jansson, for the question!

I have not delved into how it is going for Coop, but I want to assert that they are equally good at "kålsupare" (making a profit). I see how it is with their own brands. Let me take an example: bread that comes from gluten-free products. When you look at the package, you see that it comes from Poland. Then it has been labeled with Coop. It is the same thing with many other goods, and it is the same thing with Ica. The large chains buy in large quantities, and the wholesale chain pressures the producers and says that they cannot sell to anyone else than just them. This is the problem: The wholesale chain has the entire chain.

I know that there are many small shops that are not having it easy. But I definitely assert that it is a problem in Sweden with the large actors. I made a comparison in November 2023, when I traveled over to the Finnish side and bought exactly the same oranges and apples that came from exactly the same places in Spain and Italy as those sold in Sweden. They were 30 percent cheaper in Finland, and even then I bought them with my weak krona.

I claim that there is a problem somewhere. The Finns cannot buy them much cheaper. But someone made a good hack on these fruits; I am convinced of that. Not to delve into why food prices are rising would be a mistake of all those who can do something about this. There are many families struggling with the costs.

Since then, I have no problem having the same view as Kjell Jansson on the small shops. It is not the same thing. But when it comes to the wholesale side and the large chains, what is happening is not sound.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! To Member Lahti, I would like to say that I unfortunately believe we will have to learn to live with somewhat higher food prices. I believe that is how it looks. We are also dependent on the rest of the world. Many prices are going up. This applies, for example, to the price of coffee, and that is due to poor harvests in Brazil. It is the same thing with vegetables and fruit; the price is affected by this.

We must also take into account that farmers in Sweden do not become billionaires. They have it tough. They have large investments in machinery, and most have quite low profitability. A farm that is smaller than a couple of hundred hectares is not profitable today. I believe we must be prepared to pay a little more for food than we do if we are to have a living agriculture and be a bit more self-sufficient in food.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Kjell Jansson, for the views and the question!

I completely agree that it is not the farmers who are the problem in Sweden. We actually have too few farmers, and we have too few food producers. The problem is that the trade agreements include food, and they should not. It is wrong when someone who can produce cheaply in Spain becomes dominant and one then imports these products. That is what is knocking out our farms in Sweden.

It is not the farmers who are the problem with the high prices. It is the wholesale chain. The producers themselves say that they are being pressured by the wholesale chain saying that they must sell everything to them. Then they are stuck in the contracts with the large wholesalers. I agree that it is not about the farmers.

But we will never increase our self-sufficiency rate if we continue with trade agreements that include food. That is the problem: that we are not moving further up the value chains with food.

There is much that I agree with. But I believe that Kjell Jansson must read up on the problem and learn where the fault lies. It is not about the farmers; I completely agree with that. We would need more farmers and food producers. But then we must see how the trade agreements look where production is cheapest. And that is when we are vulnerable.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! Unemployment in Sweden is high – the second highest in the EU. GDP per capita is at a record low. The strange thing is that eight out of ten companies want to hire, and half of these want to double their operations. But it is only one out of ten companies that actually does so.

When I was born – it was quite a long time ago – Sweden was in 3rd place in the prosperity league. Since then, it has apparently gone downhill. Sweden has been down in 12th place many times but climbed up again. But now we have parked ourselves in 13th place.

It is as if Sweden is fully connected to a broadband but still uses a modem. The companies are ready to download the future, but the system is buffering. It doesn't matter how fast you are if the network never lets the signal through.

What can we do about this? The key lies in growth and entrepreneurship – that more people can work more hours in a productive way. There is no shortcut to growth and jobs.

The mission of politics is to build long-term, fair and sustainable rules of the game. We shall not, as many here have touched upon, single out individual companies that are to succeed. We shall not try to micro-manage the development. But we have a responsibility to ensure that all companies, especially those that have not yet secured a place on the market, actually have a chance to participate and compete.

Those who have power today have the resources to ensure that legislation and practice benefit precisely them. But they also have the resources to adjust when needed. Those who, on the other hand, stand for renewal, those who carry the most groundbreaking solutions, often stand alone – without established networks, without established market shares, and without the security required to dare to challenge. It is precisely for that reason that innovation must receive some help, and precisely for that reason must the competition rules also be protected.

Madam Speaker! We in the Center Party see an acute need to strengthen the Swedish innovation chain, which, under current policies, is falling apart. It is not enough that we have world-class research if we do not have the conditions to scale up, test, and commercialize the solutions needed for the transition to a net-zero society, for industrial transition with AI, and for developing new medicines and therapies to cure diseases we never thought would be possible to cure.

Startup and scaleup companies are small in size but large in significance. Despite making up only a fraction of the total business sector, they account for a disproportionately large share of employment growth.

We know this, but I must still repeat it: the OECD estimates that startup companies, especially those with high ambitions, are responsible for half of all new jobs in the modern economies. In Sweden, more than half of the new jobs are created in companies that are younger than five years and have fewer than 20 employees. That is: More than half of all jobs in Sweden are created in companies that are max five years old and have fewer than 20 employees.

Therefore, the innovation system must not stop at the prototype. It must carry all the way to the market, especially for companies that solve the future's enormous challenges. Therefore, the Center Party wants to strengthen the research institutes and the incubators all over the country so that more get access to testbeds and support, regardless of geography. We see now that regions with poor economies – and there are quite a few – choose to scale back the investments and dismantle their incubators. I understand that. It is difficult to think long-term when healthcare today is not getting what it needs. Therefore, it is important that Vinnova can continue to support the unique incubator network that we have built up in Sweden.

We also want to ensure that there is state co-financing to scale up groundbreaking innovations. It is important to say that it is precisely groundbreaking innovations and not just any activity or production.

This is not just industrial policy. It is also climate policy investments. A strong, regionally anchored innovation system ensures that we get more fossil-free solutions faster. The ideas can come from a garage or a laboratory. What we know is that the capital is still in the large cities, and therefore we must continue to work on bridging the large gaps.

Madam Speaker! Innovation power will, however, be of no use if the market is not accessible. Here we unfortunately see more and more often how the public sector becomes an actor rather than an enabler.

All competition from public actors must be scrutinized. We see a growing problem where municipal companies, regions, and other public actors use their special position to compete in markets where private companies could otherwise have offered better, more innovative, and perhaps more sustainable solutions.

We therefore demand a national review. The public sector shall focus on creating good conditions, not take up space as a business actor where others already exist. Public power must never become a tool that stifles new thinking.

Madam Speaker! This is fundamentally a story about the companies of the future – those companies that today are only an idea in an office in Malå, an experimental facility in Småland, or a prototype in a student dormitory in Lund, those companies that do not have sales figures or PR agencies but who possess technologies that can halve emissions, electrify the transport sector, or create circular production flows.

It is these companies that can make a net-zero society possible. But it cannot happen without fair rules, without access to test environments, without financing, and without functioning competition. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that these doors stand wide open. It is a market for the future, not for yesterday.

We believe in entrepreneurship, but not only for those who already have power. We believe in the climate transition, but know that it will never happen if we do not make room for the new. Therefore, we want to strengthen and decentralize the innovation system, open the market for new actors, ensure that public actors focus on their core missions, and stimulate competition that rewards sustainability, not convenience.

Madam Speaker! That is how we build a modern economy. That is how we create growth and jobs. That is how we reach the climate goals.

I move for approval of reservation 3 under point 1.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 48, which concerns the cash ban in trade with iron and metal waste. In other respects, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

Sweden shall be a country where it is easy to run businesses, where innovation flourishes and where competitiveness gives us long-term welfare. A strong industrial policy is the very backbone of our social construction. Therefore, I am proud to stand here today and speak for a report that clearly shows that the government and we Christian Democrats take the conditions for companies most seriously.

As a Christian Democrat, I see entrepreneurship not just as an economic engine but as an expression of people's responsibility, creativity, and the longing to build something that lasts. Companies are not just figures in statistics; they are families making life work, young people who dare to invest in their idea, towns that flourish thanks to a local company that believes in the region, and experienced entrepreneurs who for decades have kept their business alive and become a self-evident part of the backbone of society.

Madam Speaker! There is a simple connection that we must not forget: without companies, there is no welfare. It is the companies that create the jobs, generate the tax revenues, and uphold the common good. But it requires that we politicians do our part. We must not place obstacles in the way. We must not micro-manage. We must enable. More bureaucracy, more rules, and increased state control are not the way forward. Our task is to create a climate where entrepreneurs dare to take risks, invest, hire, and succeed.

As a Christian Democrat, I feel at home in the dialogue with family businesses. There, we share a common outlook where responsibility, ethics, and long-term perspective are central. Family businesses see the family as the foundation of society, with a focus on community and values that are passed down over generations. Family businesses are characterized by a strong sense of responsibility, both for employees and for society, and strive to create sustainable values rather than focusing on short-term profit. By being locally anchored and contributing to the public good, family businesses exemplify the principle of decisions at the lowest level and freedom under responsibility.

We politicians shall support this long-term and ethical view of entrepreneurship with proposals that secure the entrepreneur in their will to invest in people so that welfare and Sweden's prosperity shall become even stronger.

Madam Speaker! We have on several occasions here in the chamber highlighted the government's targeted work, where we Christian Democrats have been proactive, when it comes to regulatory simplification. Swedish companies, especially small businesses, still devote an unreasonable amount of time to administration and reporting. It is time that should be spent on customers, innovation, and development.

For all too long, entrepreneurs have carried a heavy burden of red tape, uncertain permit processes, and an unpredictable political climate. This has hindered growth and innovation and, in the long run, welfare. Now we are settling this. The Government has given the authorities clear mandates to not only reduce the regulatory burden but also simplify the language and ensure that new rules are reviewed from the companies' perspective. Common sense shall be in, and red tape shall be out.

Madam Speaker! The entrepreneur is affected by permit processes in the municipality where they operate. Free entrepreneurship in combination with an active but coordinated supervision has long been a strength. Today, many entrepreneurs experience being met by a patchwork of controls from different authorities and from their municipality, which makes the supervision both labor-intensive and costly.

We Christian Democrats want to see a supervision that is legally secure, effective and unified. Here, the cooperation between authorities and the municipality plays a decisive role.

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs more growing small and medium-sized enterprises. They are the backbone of our business life and a key to jobs, innovation, and regional development. But many experience today that it is too complicated to participate in public procurement. Red tape, lack of resources, and unfair competition mean that smaller companies are being pushed out. We must change that.

Free and fair competition is crucial for a well-functioning business sector. The Government is now proceeding with the proposals from the Supplier Control Inquiry. This means that Bolagsverket is tasked with providing a national IT system for coordinated register control of suppliers in public procurement. This is an important step. Through a unified control, we can guard the taxpayers' money and ensure that it goes to serious companies, not to criminals or unscrupulous actors.

We know that organized crime today is not just about violence and drugs. It is infiltrating our welfare systems, our workplaces, and our procurements. Therefore, we must act forcefully. By developing our control systems, but also through broad cooperation between authorities, the business sector, and academia – as in the initiative Sweden against organized crime, SMOB – we are building a stronger society that aims to strengthen Sweden's ability to combat the criminal economy, to strengthen the capacity to investigate economic crime, and to promote cross-sectoral cooperation between relevant societal actors.

But it is also about safeguarding healthy competition. We must stand up against cartels, against unprofessional methods, and against unhealthy pricing that distorts the market. Here, the Competition Authority has a key role, not least in its work to develop better tools to identify suppliers that do not meet the standard and to more easily be able to reject unreasonably low bids.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has long been one of the world's most innovative countries. We shall continue to be so. But innovation does not occur in a vacuum; innovation occurs when companies feel confidence in the future, when research funds are used wisely, and when the public sector collaborates with the private sector. The Government continues to invest in research and development, among other things through Vinnova and other actors. We are open to partnerships with the business community, but we are also clear that the results must be of benefit. Research should not only remain in report form, but it can also become real products, services, and jobs.

Mr. Speaker! Industrial policy is not a side activity. It is the foundation for us to be able to have hospitals, schools, and elderly care. Therefore, we must always have a business-friendly perspective in our policy. Our vision for Sweden is clear: We want a country where people dare to start companies, where innovation is allowed to flourish, and where all of Sweden thrives. Therefore, a strong, responsible, and future-oriented industrial policy is absolutely crucial.

We Christian Democrats will continue to work for a world-class business climate where hard work, creativity and responsibility are rewarded. We say yes to faith in the future, yes to entrepreneurship and yes to a business policy that carries Sweden into the next generation.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The business sector has an immensely important role for how Sweden functions and how Sweden develops. This applies to everything from our large corporations to cooperative enterprises, social enterprises, and sole proprietorships. It applies regardless of whether they are located in our large cities or in the countryside. Sweden is shaped, reshaped, and developed by its companies and its business sector, and we are all affected all the time.

Business also has a key role for the green transition and for the climate transition. But the climate transition also has a key role for business. When our business sector has a clear direction and long-term rules of the game, the companies' competitiveness increases. When the policy is clear and long-term, one knows what the playing field looks like and can therefore create a strong strategy to be at the forefront both nationally and internationally.

If the rules of the game change, or if they are unclear, it becomes much more difficult to plan or to dare to invest forward. Right now, we see many business actors emphasizing the need for a strong environmental and climate policy with clear frameworks and goals so that they can continue their important work for innovation, business development, and climate transition. It is a task that we need to do together. Politics needs to deliver the prerequisites so that the business sector can take action and transition.

Right now, many investments are on hold. One does not know which direction we are heading. It harms us, not least economically. Competence supply is one such part. Our Swedish business sector is screaming for staff, and so is the public sector. Unfortunately, the government is putting up obstacles for people who want to live and work here. One example is the wage requirements for labor immigration which stop many from coming here and which are now apparently to be reviewed again. It is no long-term policy or clear frameworks.

A one-sided focus on nuclear power also creates great uncertainty regarding the electricity supply in the near term that the business sector demands, while at the same time the rug is pulled out from under renewable electricity production.

We also need support for those municipalities that have faster growth than they can handle on their own. Here, increased clarity is also needed and that the state can be involved and take risks when important projects, for example metal extraction, carbon-free steel or green technology, are rapidly built up in the wake of the green transition. There are more examples of when municipalities need to take all the responsibility for infrastructure projects that all of Sweden or Europe can benefit from. Here, too, the government is slow and reluctant.

Today we can read in Dagens industri about a secret, or perhaps not so secret, agreement between the Tidö parties about not paying out state support to an individual company. It was something that Kjell Jansson also raised, namely that he does not want Stegra to receive any money. What practice underlies this is extremely unclear, but many companies could be affected. We do not know that. This messy communication also does not create security for the companies that want to establish themselves in Sweden.

The government's uncertainty regarding the climate goals harms not only the climate work but also the companies that want to be at the forefront. It creates an uncertainty for the entire Swedish business community and reduces the chances that new companies will want to establish themselves here. The conditions that the business community demands for strong economic development and to manage the climate transition are not being delivered by the Tidö parties. It is problematic. The state needs to take an active role in leading the positive societal development. It requires political leadership, a leadership that is lacking from the current government, which instead places the entire responsibility on the business community and the municipalities. It is a government base that also sends strongly contradictory signals about which activities one wants to welcome to Sweden.

Politics needs to encourage, support, and urge the green industrial revolution and the sustainability work within all industries. Automation, continued digitalization, and the development of artificial intelligence are challenges that the state needs to help both companies and workers with. Collaboration is completely central to the climate transition. Everyone needs to do their part. It is therefore important to build further on the cooperation with and within the business sector to solve the climate issue.

Sweden has good opportunities for large-scale environmental exports, and the government should also support this by increasing the appropriations for research and innovation together with support and credits to both startup companies and other companies and industries at the forefront of climate work.

When industrial processes, transport, and the energy sector are transformed, there is potential for strong societal development. This should be further facilitated by supporting digitalization together with green and social transition for small companies.

Small companies sometimes have insufficient resources to manage the transition to becoming fossil-free and circular on their own. Therefore, it is important that the government creates better conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises to receive state support and more help, for example, to apply for EU funding with a focus on innovative technologies for climate transition. If we do this, we can benefit from the momentum that the climate transition brings for innovation and development. Therefore, the government should also take measures to improve access to venture capital and opportunities for corporate consulting.

Mr. Speaker! The conditions for loans for investments in companies in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas also need to be improved. Investments are needed both to maintain existing operations and to develop new ones. Today, it can be difficult to obtain loans for investments in rural areas or in sparsely populated areas, and there is therefore a risk that the investments and reinvestments needed in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas will be missing. It is something that I believe everyone in here thinks is problematic.

Good public services and digitalization are important for the development of businesses in rural areas. Therefore, measures should be implemented that aim to strengthen digitalization for small and medium-sized enterprises in rural areas. Through digital services, one can simultaneously improve the conditions for the tourism industry.

Finally, I want to highlight the need for consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions to decrease. That work also needs to be strengthened at all levels. Political interventions are required at the global level, EU level, and national level so that the global value chains between production and consumption can be transitioned to fossil-free.

Policy instruments need to promote the consumption of climate-smart services instead of resource-intensive products. Policy needs to promote the sharing economy so that it becomes easy to share things and to own together. The Government should therefore come back with proposals to promote the sharing economy and consumption of climate-smart services.

The climate transition is a positive and strong driver for a strong business development and a strong societal development in the entire country. Entrepreneurs and creative people across the country ensure that there are new innovations, new startup companies, new business ideas, and new business models ready for the future. At the same time, we are creating a safer and better world to live in. But that requires that politics keeps up and creates the conditions. I therefore want to move for approval of the Green Party's reservation 43.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by linking to the decision that was taken here in the chamber earlier today and that it is now possible with farm sales – finally! The Liberals have worked for this for a long time.

We believe that it is an important step so that both the business sector and entrepreneurship, not least in the countryside, can continue to run and develop their business and, above all, their craftsmanship within the area. That now being allowed to also sell beer and wine where it has been produced will strengthen these operations.

Furthermore, it represents a great opportunity for the tourism industry and for Sweden to position itself and gain market shares in the area. This is enormously important, not least for southern Sweden. I am convinced that it will result in increased tourism, not least from Denmark and Germany.

The Liberals see the decision on farm sales as very positive. But we also see it as a first step. We want to go further and allow the sale of beer and wine in license stores. I believe it would be a fine complement to the farm sales and make it possible for companies to sell their products to a larger customer base.

Since we are on that track anyway, we could also have abolished the food requirement, in order to make it easier to conduct business within the food and beverage industry.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs more liberal reforms that strengthen our competitiveness and create conditions for Swedish business, Swedish industry, and Swedish companies. There is much that can be improved regarding running a business in Sweden, not least in light of the turbulence of recent months with an almost yo-yo-like development in the customs area and a subsequent uncertainty both geopolitically as well as economically and politically in general.

We also see that increased prices and world events, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, continue to pose significant challenges for large parts of the Swedish business community.

We also have a rather rigid bureaucracy, an agency culture, which makes, for example, permit processes take an unreasonably long time. Sweden is at the bottom of the league in Europe in that regard. It is, of course, completely unreasonable.

The overarching goal for industrial policy must be to strengthen Swedish competitiveness. It must be to create conditions for more jobs in more and growing companies. We perhaps need to push even more clearly than before for international cooperation, for continued free trade, and for a strong export industry in Sweden and in Europe.

We also need to look at the Swedish energy system from a growth perspective. And we need to look at investments in infrastructure expansion and reductions in bureaucracy and administration.

From a political standpoint, I believe it is particularly in infrastructure that we need to ensure that Sweden does not fall behind the major investments that are currently being made in the rest of Europe. They will also be able to have a great significance for Swedish exports. Especially the Fehmarn Bält connection between Denmark and Germany, which is soon heading towards completion, will further shorten travel times between Sweden and the continent.

We therefore need to address and build away the bottlenecks we have on the Swedish side. For a small and export-dependent country like Sweden, it is absolutely necessary that we do not fall behind when other countries see a large and increasing need to strengthen infrastructure for growth and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker! It becomes clear that Sweden's position as a leading knowledge nation is no longer entirely self-evident. We need to continue with the structural reforms and liberalizations that this government has initiated.

Business policy

We also need, which I have returned to many times in this chamber, to continue 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. It is also desirable that, among other things, more young women apply for engineering programs. The established STEM strategy is not only welcome but also necessary, even from a labor market and business perspective.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to specifically young women and differences between women and men, we see that Sweden has come a long way. But there are still too large differences even within the business sector. Men still have significantly more capital, invest more, and run more companies than women. There is something unhealthy about the large imbalances between men's and women's participation. It is potentially destabilizing when it comes to issues concerning capital and ownership.

Business policy

Within the government, work is underway aimed at mapping and, in the longer perspective, leveling the differences we see between men and women. How do we get more women to want to take a place in boardrooms and management groups? How do we get more men to work for equal boards and management groups? These are questions that we in politics and the business sector need to continue to drive together.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Free markets, free trade and free individuals are values that the Liberals have fought for since our start as a party. We will continue to push for these even in turbulent times.

Mr. Speaker! I therefore move for the proposal in the report to be approved, with the exception that I support reservation 48 under point 20.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 24 April.)

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