Economic policy

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are, as stated, debating the Committee on Industry's report 14, Industrial Policy. I would initially like to move for approval of the committee's proposals in the report and for the rejection of all reservations.

I want to specifically demand the rejection of the Left Party's reservation 2, where, under the heading of business promotion, they want to terminate a cooperation project with Israel and call the country an occupation state. The Left Party's constant flirting with the growing islamofascist and antisemitic movement is deeply indecent. The Left Party's actions make life difficult for Swedish Jews, and it is difficult to see it as anything other than intentional.

Madam Speaker! For a long time, the regulatory burden on companies, that is, costs for rules and administration, has been a focus area for the Sverigedemokraterna. For many years, we took the lead in these issues and ensured that they were discussed and debated, when other parties had lost their grip on the subject. When I look back at the motion that the Sverigedemokraterna wrote in 2016, I cannot be anything other than quite satisfied. At that time, the Sverigedemokraterna spoke about systematizing the government's and the administrative authorities' work with regulatory simplification.

In June 2024, the Simplification Council was established, which can well be considered to be working with precisely this. The Council shall, among other things, obtain and analyze proposals for simplification measures from the business community and other stakeholders, identify and analyze areas of particular interest for the business community from a simplification perspective, and submit concrete and well-elaborated proposals to the government. This is likely to be music to the ears of every entrepreneur in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The results have not kept us waiting. Following a proposal from the aforementioned council, the Sweden Democrats and the government are now removing the old food requirement for alcohol service. Consequently, both the requirement for an own kitchen and cooked food, as well as unnecessary rules regarding seating and drink bars, will disappear. The fact that we established the Simplification Council and that the council has subsequently investigated and proposed this reform is nothing less than a great triumph. This is not just about small, technical adjustments; this is a real gamechanger for the entire restaurant and entertainment industry.

According to the Simplification Council's investigation, the reform implies cost savings of up to 3.9 billion kronor annually for the industry – no expensive kitchens standing half-empty, no mandatory kitchen staff during low traffic, significantly reduced food waste, and more flexible staffing.

For an individual restaurant, the savings are believed to be up to half a million kronor per year, money that can instead be invested in new concepts, better service, and lower prices for the guests. Without the food requirement, entrepreneurs can test new ideas that are currently stifled by the aforementioned regulatory red tape, for example, pure wine bars, specialized cocktail spots, pop-up events, and much more that can focus on experiences instead of steaks. In smaller towns in Sweden, it may very well be a matter of being able to open the first gathering place with the necessary rights.

We can now look forward to meeting places where people can meet, socialize and create memories without the state forcing expensive kitchen staff on anyone who does not need them. The Sweden Democrats and the government are delivering exactly what we have promised here: fewer regulations, more growth and a more modern business sector.

Madam Speaker! Dramatic world events are currently unfolding that have a clear impact, not least on Swedish business. Regarding this, we may perhaps have little or no opportunity for influence in this chamber, at least not in our committee. Therefore, I actually intended to leave that aside and instead devote my time to something that we unfortunately also have no significant opportunity to influence, namely the EU and Brussels and the bureaucratic machine that the EU has grown into and which is strangling Europe's business with additional burdens and regulations.

What was once sold as a free trade union has instead become a bureaucratic colossus, a bureaucratic monster that, not least with its climate and energy policy, forces industrial manufacturing out of our economy, naturally completely without any benefit whatsoever because we instead import the things from less accountable countries.

If we look at the economic development and compare ourselves, for example, with the USA, we can state that the EU's gross national product in 2008 was approximately 10 percent larger than the USA's. Today, it is approximately 35 percent smaller. During the same period, China has undergone a dramatic economic growth and more than quadrupled its economy. In context, it may be interesting to point out that for every ton the EU has reduced its carbon emissions, China has increased its by 5 tons during the same period.

Our geopolitical relevance is shrinking and non-democracies are being given muscles. It is worrying.

Madam Speaker! I am leaving the EU for the moment and will instead take up some things that we can and should do something about here in Sweden. Something one sees in today's Sweden is that we seem to be incapable of learning from Stålverk 80, Svenska Varv AB, Sekab and the ethanol infrastructure and most recently Northvolt. Alongside these, we have further examples of bubbles that are just waiting to burst.

Time and again, politics takes on the role of selecting industries and subsequently pumping in billions in subsidies. This costs significantly more than just the billions the state plows in. On the one hand, there are opportunity costs, money that could have been used, for example, for tax cuts, which would have lifted the rest of the business sector; on the other hand, we see how municipalities indebt themselves over their ears, how companies and subcontractors follow suit, how pension funds go up in smoke, and how private individuals end up caught in the middle.

There are unhealthy drivers in these projects. Politicians often act in synergy and allow themselves to be seen and photographed in lavish settings with ribbon cuttings and first spades, while at the same time the contribution capitalists who receive all the support are allowed to become wealthy without having to risk their own money or even demonstrate any results.

The political and the contribution-capitalist synergies also manifest themselves when former politicians unreservedly allow themselves to be employed in these subsidy-heavy companies. The former S-minister Anders Sundström is one of the more well-known cases with a network that has been able to be exploited by both Northvolt and Stegra, where he is described as a bridge-builder between politics and the subsidy companies. Another clear case is when the former S-minister Ibrahim Baylan became a lobbyist for the aforementioned Stegra's majority shareholder Harald Mix. There is much to say about this.

Madam Speaker! When the Northvolt bankruptcy became a fact, it turned out that no one actually had a comprehensive picture of society's total contributions and risk. In politics, they almost competed to throw the most money at these shaky projects. Nor were any critical questions asked by public service, which instead cheered on the carousel of grants. We simply cannot have it this way.

A simple way to at least try to get this moving in the right direction is to increase transparency and apply the EU's prospectus regulation to private companies seeking public support over a certain threshold. The prospectus, which would then become public, contains details about the company, its owners, agreements, conflicts of interest, and strategies, and one gets the opportunity to demand accountability in the event of inaccuracies. Unfortunately, that is not how it looks today. But this is still the least one can ask for – or what do you think?

Madam Speaker! One last thing I want to mention in all haste is the problem with the growing corruption and crime. We see how entrepreneurs in a long line of more or less creative ways are subjected to crimes from organized crime. We also see how organized crime uses companies as criminal tools against the state, the citizens, and other entrepreneurs.

This is a large and broad subject that requires a long series of measures, and I mean therefore that from the government's side, these issues should be viewed as a larger whole. It is something that I believe we all in here will be forced to tackle during the next mandate period.

In this speech, Johnny Svedin (SD) agreed.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Josef Fransson, for the speech!

I would say that the speech was an illustration of the skepticism that exists within the Sweden Democrats towards our climate goals and towards the Swedish industry, which in any case previously grew strong and competitive.

The Sweden Democrats have been critical of industrial establishments, and Josef Fransson called companies that receive state support "subsidy contractors." I can inform Josef Fransson that the government continues to provide support to companies in Sweden. We heard Josef Fransson express his approval of the proposal in the report. It is, therefore, a policy that he himself pursues.

The Sweden Democrats have nevertheless made it their specialty to criticize Swedish industry, Swedish innovative power, and the support that the industry needs and receives to be able to cope with the increasingly tougher competition we see from the rest of the world.

Swedish industry is falling behind. Many companies are going bankrupt, and the transition is stalling. The government has praised carbon capture, but we have now seen that this is not proceeding as planned because they are not prepared to share the risk in the way that would be needed.

My question is: Is this what the Sweden Democrats want to see? Do you want to see increased emissions, low growth and high unemployment?

It seems difficult for me to understand how Sweden can compete if it is not within the climate transition. I would like to get some clarity on how the Sweden Democrats believe Sweden can compete if it is not precisely within the climate transition.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is not least telling that the Social Democratic member equates industrial development, companies and innovation with subsidy taps.

Swedish industry is not based on any subsidy taps. Our Swedish crown jewels, which many call the large companies that emerged during the 20th century, were built on inventive people and innovations. They sold a product that someone wanted, and therefore the companies were able to grow.

Now we are doing exactly the opposite. We are going to contribute tax money and pump billions after billions into products that no one is actually willing to buy. That is the whole point; otherwise, the business community would have taken care of this themselves.

The first time I heard about the Hybrit project, my reaction and my first question was: Well, how much does this cost? Who is going to pay? And we perhaps haven't seen the end of the Hybrit project yet. If Stegra follows the same pattern as Northvolt, we have another gigantic bankruptcy with major repercussions ahead of us. It will once again be a large political castle in the air that will drag down both certain municipalities, people who have invested their own money, and companies that have invested.

In the end, this is exactly what we are doing: We are driving Europe's industry out of Europe, and then we import from less accountable countries such as China. As I said, China has therefore quadrupled its economy based on coal power. I do not believe, Madam Speaker, that the climate has any particular benefit from us working this way in Europe.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! This is fascinating. It is as if the Sweden Democrats are giving us a list of which companies definitely should not receive support from the Swedish state.

I actually do not understand how a party that has previously nevertheless protected Swedish growth, namely the Moderaterna, can cooperate with a party that, in the chamber of the Riksdag, points out certain companies and says that they should not receive support, that we do not believe in them and that they should leave.

I do not think it is serious. I think it is dangerous for Swedish industry, and I do not think that is how one debates in the chamber, Madam Speaker.

Let us go back to Swedish industry. The investments were needed. The OECD has said that the state must share the risk in the new markets that are emerging because the business sector under-invests in that type of risk. This is obvious to everyone.

Why do we need to do it then? Well, if we are to have a transition where people do not have to give up their way of life, we need an industry that moves to net-zero emissions quite quickly – if one believes that the climate crisis is real and that we need to do something.

But one might not believe this, and one does not believe that a climate catastrophe will occur soon. That is fine, but then my question is: How is Sweden to become competitive if we make ourselves dependent on fossil fuels that we do not have?

It is not a natural resource that Sweden has. What we have is fossil-free electricity, mines and other things that are needed in the climate transition. We have natural resources that we can utilize in the climate transition.

Madam Speaker! I did not receive an answer to my question. Which industry do the Sweden Democrats want to see if one no longer believes in the climate transition? You can call it new industrialization or whatever you want, but I choose to call it the climate transition. How is Sweden to become richer if we make ourselves dependent on natural resources that we do not have?

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is fascinating to hear this. It almost appears as if the Social Democrats do not believe in market forces at all, but rather that it is the government that is to set the framework at a very precise level of detail. At least, that is the impression I get.

It is not least funny when Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro says that the Sverigedemokraterna want to list a number of companies that shall not receive support. It is a totally reversed reasoning!

This is about general rules of the game for all companies. It is about that, from the political side, one should not point out which companies should emerge victorious from a certain matter. We have made this mistake over and over again – with the shipbuilding industry, the steel industry and the ethanol industry, which was thought would take over from gasoline. Then it went, as everyone knows, to ruin with several tens of billions into a black hole. Had we instead used those funds for general reliefs, for example tax reliefs to run companies in Sweden, the companies would with great probability have flourished in a completely different way than they do today.

We can talk about the climate transition here in Sweden and that we should do our homework. But we are doing that now by restoring the nuclear power that the Social Democrats so unfortunately decommissioned. It was good for the climate. Then we can produce things in Sweden with a very good climate profile. But when we move our industry to China, the result is the opposite.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker and Member Fransson! The member began by pointing out one of our reservations, reservation 2, certainly with the intention of getting a retort. The member said that it was a provocation. I want to assert that it is a provocation when a member from a party that has emerged and grown with hatred towards Jews as its foundation accuses me of provoking when I speak about a trade agreement, something that is used in the world to put pressure on countries that one does not think are playing by the rules we have set up in the world.

I think Israel is a good country. There is much good there. But the leadership in that country is behaving badly today and has done so for decades.

Has the member ever met people who were at Israel's checkpoints in the 80s and seen how Palestinians were treated and how they were degraded? I hope that the member will at some point meet these people and speak with them.

I am not looking to seek conflicts, but trade agreements have always been used. They are used today. It would be appropriate to show that what the country is doing now is not okay. It is a crime against humanity and much more. Now they are also receiving good help from a large state on the other side of the Atlantic.

I just want to hear what the member thinks about their own party's foundation and origins. It did come from the hatred towards Jews.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I just want to remind that this debate is about industrial policy, so that it does not go too far beyond that.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is not without a certain historical revisionism here. We have recently, with our white paper, clarified exactly what our background looks like. We have distanced ourselves from it. I may have met an antisemite, someone who has made antisemitic statements, in my party during my entire career, and I have been there since 2012. That is history, and it is nothing I am ashamed of. I have never been a part of it.

We are today one of the few pro-Israel parties. We stand up for Israel's right to exist – unlike the Left Party, which has had to exclude at least two members of parliament due to issues regarding connections to groups that express very clear antisemitism.

I see the Left Party's reservation as part of a larger whole. The Left Party out in the country has big problems with antisemitism. You rely on people who have very strong antisemitic views voting for you. This is a flirtation with that movement, I would say.

I am not saying that Birger Lahti needs to take this upon himself on a personal level. But the problem in his party is completely obvious to me.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to stick to the industrial policy. The reservation that the member points to also concerns a trade agreement.

As I said, trade agreements are used to pressure states to do what is right in light of our international commitments and rules. Our party's view is that Israel is not doing so today.

The chairman brings up two members who have been excluded. It was for exactly that reason: We do not think it is the right way to go to end up in that situation. But I will leave it at that.

My question remains: Has the member met people who were at these checkpoints in the 80s and 90s and saw how people who were trying to get to work through the wall and try to be human on the other side were treated? Palestinians have been pushed out for decades. It is an occupation that is occurring, but few take that part to heart.

I do not place any values on what Christian view one has, but when a country is occupied and a D4 comes and pushes over your house, it is not strange that there are conflicts there.

What is currently happening will not solve these conflicts in the long run. Therefore, our ambition was to point to trade agreements as a tool to show that we can do better.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Israel–Palestine conflict has many layers and is in many ways complicated. I do not know if I get a better overall picture by talking to exactly those people that Birger refers to. There are many stories to talk about.

What is completely obvious to me is that Israel is a country where one can be an Israeli Arab and have the same rights and opportunities as any other Israeli, as long as one does not try to stab and kill or belong to such a movement, for example Hamas.

Unfortunately, we could see after October 7, when Hamas together with an additional number of groups attacked innocent civilians in Israel and committed the most bestial crimes, that even Swedes, or Swedish immigrants one might say, went out and celebrated on Sweden's streets, not least down in Malmö. This is a group that does not vote for Sverigedemokraterna, I can say. It is a group whose votes Vänsterpartiet in Malmö probably counts on and does not want to offend. It is worrying.

As I said earlier: This reservation, which is supposed to be about industrial policy, is a flirtation with these groups. That is my absolute opinion.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Josef Fransson for the speech.

When I listen to Sverigedemokraten Josef Fransson, in many passages he appears as a nationalist and an isolationist. We are talking about the EU and Sweden's role in the EU. Member Fransson thinks that the EU steals our money and that the European Union does more harm than good.

I am thinking of the USA, which under Donald Trump's leadership has taken a national path with America first. So it is possible – for a while – if you are a very large economy, have a large domestic market and have an obvious place as one of the world's power centers. But for Sweden, which is a very small country, it will quite soon become economic stagnation and no growth if we were to isolate ourselves and not ally ourselves more closely with our European neighboring countries.

For the Centre Party, it is clear: Given the new geopolitical situation and given the eroding rules-based order in world trade, we European countries must come together. In the EU, we can be strong together. We have a good economy and good conditions with many inhabitants. But for us in Sweden, a single small country, it is completely impossible to manage on our own.

Therefore, I would like to ask Member Fransson if I heard correctly when the Member expressed a wish that we should have a smaller engagement in the European Union going forward.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question, Anders Ådahl.

The answer is short and simple: yes. I would have wished for a much smaller EU. Had it been up to me, and I believe I have many within my party who share my opinion, even if we do not push the issue, the EU would have been a significantly smaller club dealing with significantly fewer things.

I am a friend of free trade and the free trade union – that which the EU was once sold as, the free trade union we once joined. But since then, the EU has grown into something completely different. It is social redistribution, industrial policy, and tinkering with energy systems that should be national competence – a good deal of things. Then come all the burdens that are placed on all Swedish and European companies with an ill-considered and impossible climate policy that drives our industrial companies to countries that do not care about the climate. It is no win at all. Here, one really must take a new approach.

If I had been allowed to decide, Madam Speaker, the EU would have been just a free trade union. If we had wanted to cooperate in other matters, we would have guaranteed to do so in any case, but then it would at least have been voluntary based on our own conditions.

I think that the EU ruins a lot. In my home municipality, Skövde, the EU is going to interfere with our waste management. We have very fine, developed systems for how we handle our waste. Then they will no longer work because the EU has decided that we should have the waste management in a different way, which does not suit us in Skövde at all.

Yes, absolutely! I would have wanted to see a significantly smaller EU.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if I am surprised, if I am struck by amazement, or if it is an entirely expected answer. The first thought that strikes me is how the Sverigedemokraterna will enter a second phase in the Tidö cooperation with Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and perhaps Liberalerna, whom I do not at all perceive as parties that want to isolate the country, close borders, turn their gaze inward, and move back to the 50s, 20s, or the 1800s. How that direction looks for the Tidö assembly, I do not understand.

Member Fransson also says roughly: If I were in charge. But, Madam Speaker, he is. Member Fransson sits on the government side. He is one of the members who votes through laws. Member Fransson actually gets to take responsibility. He decides right now. The message to us is that our engagement in the EU shall decrease, growth shall decrease, and the green transition shall decrease. To be honest, it is a staggering message.

Let me ask about the green transition. I understood from the speech that the member is upset that we are investing too much state money in companies that do not deliver successful industrial projects. I can also sympathize with the fact that we must be careful with state funds.

Let me instead ask a searching question. If green transition really, as the business community says, is necessary for tomorrow's entrepreneurship, what then is the Sweden Democrats' recipe for an offensive green transition and for building tomorrow's enterprises?

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Member Ådahl may be overestimating my role in the Sweden Democrats. I do not sit on either the party board or in government negotiations.

I believe it is a fairly common perception that one wants a smaller and sharper EU, at least in some parties in the Tidösamarbetet. It is usually a common campaign slogan every five years when it is time to elect members to the EU. Then there are many parties that want a narrower and sharper EU. I do not think it is a very controversial perception.

We in the Sweden Democrats often point out that power is being handed over to leaders or politicians whom we cannot vote for or whom we cannot remove in elections. Somewhere in Brussels, far away from our everyday lives, there are people who, at an incredible level of detail, decide how Sweden shall develop in various ways. Many wonder if this can even be called democracy. The learned may certainly dispute that.

I actually do not understand, Madam Speaker, Member Ådahls' claims that I would advocate for growth to decrease. It is rather the opposite. In my speech, I said precisely that the EU lies like a wet blanket over Swedish business with surcharges and regulations, all of which causes companies to be held back relative to other continents, for example, the USA and Asia. That is what the Member should take away from my speech, rather than that I would advocate for our growth to decrease.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Josef Fransson for a speech that provided quite broad boundaries for what one can request a reply to. I nevertheless intended to try to stick to the topics that we are discussing today.

I find this interesting. Josef Fransson pointed out that the climate work within the EU is negative for Sweden and Europe. I see myself that it has become clear that the Sweden Democrats have a new view. Previously, the Sweden Democrats' view on Sweden's climate work was that the climate work should be handled within the EU. Now, the Sweden Democrats want to weaken and loosen the climate goals within the EU, postpone legislation, and weaken the work being done there.

We see in the current world situation that our dependence on oil makes us vulnerable. This applies to both private individuals and Swedish business. When gas is throttled due to an uncertain world situation, the electricity price goes up because electricity becomes more expensive in Germany. We see that oil prices cause gasoline prices to vary greatly. This also applies to the price of diesel. If we had had a sharp climate effort both in Sweden and in Europe, where we, for example, had saved a lot of energy through energy efficiency or built up production of our own biofuels, it would have made us much more resilient to the changes we see today. We could have protected the economy of Europe, Sweden, and the citizens in a much better way. That is how I and Miljöpartiet see it, and also many others.

Don't the Sweden Democrats see that a sharp climate work could protect us moving forward and would have protected us in the situation we find ourselves in right now?

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The straight answer is no, Katarina Luhr. I do not see that.

That we should not have stricter climate requirements than the rest of the EU, which we compete with in many cases, I see as a matter of course. We cannot impose a greater number of additional burdens on our companies than those that come from the EU.

There is also no contradiction in subsequently saying that the EU must sober up and have frameworks, goals, and visions in climate work that are realistic and rhyme with our global environment. Then we would not end up in the situation we actually are in now, namely that other continents are growing and we are standing still. In 20 years, our gross national product has grown by 13 percent – if I remember correctly. That is too poor. At the same time, China has quadrupled its economy, and at the same time, the USA has increased its economy many times more than we have.

We are becoming geopolitically irrelevant, and the only thing we have done in the end is to weaken ourselves by suffocating ourselves and our business sector. Carbon emissions do not decrease globally just because we do all these things and because we say: Now we are no longer going to build cars in the EU – something that both Sweden and not least Germany have been so good at.

Suddenly we are to ban the sale of petrol cars. But we have no domestic battery production; instead, the cars are imported from the USA and China. That is not very good national policy. Then the jobs move. Then one continues on the path already taken.

Madam Speaker! I see a more sober and realistic climate policy from the EU as absolutely necessary.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! This exchange raises many questions and thoughts. But I understand it as that Josef Fransson considers that we currently have nothing to gain from transitioning, neither in Sweden nor in Europe, and that the climate transition is actually just an unfair burden that will not benefit us.

I believe exactly the opposite. I believe that we have everything to gain from a good climate transition. I believe that both Swedish and European companies have everything to gain from being at the forefront and actually transitioning to a more modern production of products that people will demand in the future.

But this discussion is actually about the fact that even if we were not to win economically by transitioning, we have extremely much to lose when the world becomes warmer and actually changes and we all will be hit by the effects of climate change. Therefore, I want to ask Josef Fransson if he believes that climate change will lead to something bad or if he does not believe that they are a problem at all.

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Katarina Luhr!

It is said that one believes in church. That we believe so much about the future is problematic. The climate religion that has grown up always has the worst scenario as a starting point, and the rest of the politics shall be shaped accordingly. I believe that it is unfortunate in several ways. It becomes expensive, and when we in practice sabotage ourselves through far-reaching political reforms that force our industry out of Europe, the carbon emissions do not decrease in any way. The carbon emissions increase very fast. It is just that it happens somewhere else.

I may not quite share Katarina Luhrs' image, as I was getting at. One should take the issue seriously – that is not it – but one should perhaps not start from the worst-case scenario every time. I believe the member is worried about the climate to the same extent as I believe most environmentalist-party members do. But then they should perhaps not shut down Swedish nuclear power and replace it with so-called renewables, which force us to use a backup, which is coal power from the continent. Then we remove clean electricity that is not burdened with these carbon emissions and create a very problematic electricity system, which definitely emits significantly more carbon dioxide.

I don't think perhaps that Sweden's contribution to the rest of the world is the transition that involves building battery factories and changing our stance regarding coal. I believe that we should simply find technology that can stand on market grounds and then export it to the rest of the world.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Social Democrats' reservation 10.

"It is brightening on the horizon," said Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson to this chamber. Since that statement, over 30,000 small businesses in Sweden have gone bankrupt, and nearly 100,000 more people have become unemployed. We have a government that has not at all benefited Swedish wage earners or Swedish companies, and Swedish prosperity has decreased.

Madam Speaker! However, I do not intend to dwell on the government's failures but rather speak about the Social Democrats' industrial policy, what we want to see and how we want to invest so that Sweden will become strong in the future.

Sweden shall continue to be a strong innovation country. We are well positioned in the technological transition that is occurring right now. But we must invest a lot in it. It is about Swedish independence and resilience. We shall not participate in the subsidy race that China and the USA are engaged in.

We must be strategic with our resources and focus on our strengths. Therefore, Sweden, together with the business sector, labor market partners, and academia, needs to identify important strategic technology areas that are translated into a unified innovation strategy with clear sub-goals that are resourced. That work must be led by the Government Offices in close cooperation with strategic agencies, such as Vinnova.

Sweden's ecosystem around AI needs to be strengthened. The goal needs to be to create conditions for using the technology in a way that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the risks. The target vision therefore includes strong cooperation between the private and public sectors as well as academia and the business sector. They should together drive innovation and strengthen Swedish competitiveness.

Access to data must also be improved, with continued great respect for privacy. It is important that citizens have knowledge of AI's possibilities but also of AI's limitations. It creates the conditions for an open and informed dialogue and discussion about the technology's role in society. Therefore, we Social Democrats believe that the proposals in the AI Commission's roadmap for Sweden must be taken out of the drawer and moved forward, in order to strengthen Sweden's position in the technological transition.

Within life science, Sweden has a strong position. It needs to be developed and become more robust and long-term. Therefore, we Social Democrats want to see a goal for life science exports, create conditions for more clinical trials in Sweden, and have a national coordination for the introduction of new medicines.

A unified grip on the life science industry is good not only for our competitiveness but also for our health. We want our innovation agency to receive more unearmarked funds that can be directed where they do the most good. In a business climate with rapid fluctuations and with an unpredictable global situation, there needs to be a flexibility for our agencies.

A special initiative is needed to increase the proportion of women in our innovation system. It is important for two reasons, Madam Speaker.

Number 1: It is an injustice that capital and networks continue to be distributed to a large extent between men. It means that a large part of the population is shut out and that we can lose important innovations for our country.

Number 2: Research results and reports from among others The Peterson Institute for International Economics show that companies that have a larger share of equality also have a larger share of net turnover. We Social Democrats see it as an important strategic part in strengthening Sweden's innovative power and competitiveness.

Unfortunately, too many entrepreneurs see their businesses collapse. The record number of bankruptcies must be curbed. We have learned from the pandemic and the experiences with the electricity support that our support systems need to be designed in a different way so that companies receive the support they need. Too many have gone bankrupt due to unnecessary liquidity problems. We therefore want to review the support systems so that they work for the companies.

It is not, however, the subsidies and support systems that are the fundamental problem. It is the faltering economy and the uncertainties that geopolitics creates in the market. In these times, the country's small business owners need education and support in economic planning in the form of courses, mentorship, and simplified administrative routines to reduce costs and regulatory burdens. This is what we want to offer through a bankruptcy emergency fund, which entrepreneurs can turn to.

We also want to secure the Swedish workforce through a reformed system for short-term work. The industrial parties request such a system, and there are ready investigation proposals that we Social Democrats want to move forward with. We unfortunately live in an uncertain world. Therefore, we must do what we can to secure the Swedish workforce and save Swedish jobs when the crisis eventually comes.

Madam Speaker! In a situation where the world is becoming increasingly unpredictable and where reliable friends are unfortunately difficult to find, it is important that Sweden positions itself in world politics. We shall safeguard free trade by entering into more partnerships with countries but also by pushing for the EU to enter into more free trade agreements.

To ensure that more small and medium-sized enterprises can take part in the many advantages of free trade, we want a coordinated effort for export promotion initiatives. We therefore want to further develop the model for export centers across the country so that more companies from all over Sweden are given market access. Export cooperation reduces companies' risks and promotes long-term partnerships.

There are many proposals from us Social Democrats to increase growth, create jobs in Sweden and improve Sweden's prosperity. Together, they constitute a promise to invest in Swedish industry. We believe in the innovations of the future and see how they can create a new wave of prosperity in our country.

We safeguard Swedish interests in the EU by improving our regulatory frameworks and making them more understandable and transparent, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. But we also want our ambitious climate goals to remain firm. Changes of course can be good, but not if that course is changed towards the Gulf States and their oil. We shall become more self-sufficient and resilient and shall not be dependent on foreign fossil fuels. We combine significantly reduced emissions with increased growth. Here, a broad energy agreement would have been very good to have in place.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country, one of the world's most innovative. It is bursting with entrepreneurs who want to contribute to Sweden's prosperity. We Social Democrats believe that the state plays a decisive role for the new markets that are emerging. Together with the business sector, we share the risks to create a stable foundation upon which growth and prosperity can be built. Municipalities and regions can participate and contribute to creating robust systems for business development where jobs are created locally. We need to correct market failures by improving competition in those markets where structural problems lead to reduced competition and increased prices.

There are incredible opportunities for our country, and we need to seize them. We Social Democrats have an industrial policy with a focus on making Sweden a winner in the transition. We are the alternative for those who want an industrial policy based on facts, competence, and innovative power, not on culture wars. It is a policy that takes on the goal of full employment by investing in Swedish industry, Swedish innovation, and Swedish companies. We Social Democrats want to invest in a strong Sweden where all people reach their full potential.

(Applause)

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro for the speech. I intend to ask questions about a subject that I took up in at least one small passage in my speech. I consider it to be very problematic when one moves from high positions within politics to certain other activities, not least when it concerns activities that are heavily dependent on subsidies.

I raised a couple of examples in my speech. There are more parties that are at least equally guilty, but here it was a question of former S ministers who had taken positions in very subsidy-heavy operations in the form of Northvolt and Stegra. There is a law with certain restrictions regarding ministers and secretaries of state's transition to non-state operations. But curiously, there are no sanctions linked to the law. It thus becomes more like a recommendation, one could say.

Is this something that the member, like I, regards as a problem? There may be unhealthy connections, which do not serve Swedish taxpayers particularly well. Are there problems here that one should do something about? Should one, to begin with, ensure that there are sanctions for violations of this law? Should one perhaps develop the law further?

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! These almost conspiratorial theories from the Sweden Democrats, that the Social Democrats in some way would have gotten themselves into a lot of companies in order to take a share of state funds, are actually remarkable. There is no truth in them at all.

On the other hand, we can talk about the investments in the industry that is emerging in Sweden but is being left behind because the Sweden Democrats have gained influence. In my speech, I pointed out that 30,000 companies have gone bankrupt since 2023. Actually, it is many more than that. But that does not worry Josef Fransson. Our growth has been at the bottom of the EU. We have been the worst, but that does not worry Josef Fransson. We have an industry that pleads for us to stick to our climate goals at the EU level – if we do not, the Swedish business community will be disadvantaged. We just heard about the skepticism towards the EU that Josef Fransson has. Obviously, this does not worry Josef Fransson.

All of this combined constitutes the major problems we see in Sweden and the Swedish business sector right now. But it does not worry the Sweden Democrats at all. Instead, they sit in their chambers and think up various conspiratorial attacks against us Social Democrats while they hold significant power in the government support in Sweden. The result is a record number of bankruptcies, record-high unemployment, and no green investments in Sweden. Well done, SD!

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

Josef Fransson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe the member turned the conspiracy theory a bit around here. It is not that I believe ministers enter certain companies to take part in various corporate subsidies, but rather it is more likely the opposite: One can think – perhaps it is even unspoken – that those who receive all these large subsidies take care of you afterwards, after your political career. It is rather that connection that can often be suspected in these contexts.

I do not know why the member does not think this situation is problematic. We have legislation that, for example, says that there should be a waiting period, so that one does not simply jump into any company when arriving as a former state secretary or minister. But there are no sanctions, so it can be seen more as just a recommendation. I think, as I said, that it is problematic.

I do not think we should be doing this at all. It is completely obvious that the member and the Social Democrats believe that we are building a strong business sector in Sweden by pouring tax money into companies and believe that it is crucial for Europe's and Sweden's competitiveness that we stick to a climate policy that is, in fact, so strict that companies are driven out of Europe. This is a perverse reasoning, I must at least say, because this is what is actually happening.

I also want to emphasize that there is a political correctness that is harmful. I notice this, not least I, who do express other types of opinions in different contexts than the member does. I often hear that entrepreneurs say one thing internally and another thing externally because they are bound by a kind of political correctness. That is also a pity.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! As usual when Josef Fransson debates, it is difficult to really keep track of what the member wants to have said. But let me focus on Sweden's strengths and the EU. Josef Fransson says that companies are fleeing the European Union because of our high climate goals, which is not true. There is no evidence for that. It is Josef Fransson himself who has come up with this. So this is the case every single time Josef Fransson debates.

When we listen to Swedish business and how they want Sweden to position itself in the EU, it is about holding firm. As I also pointed out in my speech, we obviously need a streamlining of our regulatory frameworks. We must not disadvantage European competitiveness. That is why we also adopted a competitiveness compass, which we had a debate about in this chamber about a year ago. We all agree on all of this.

What we do not agree on is what strengthens Swedish self-sufficiency and resilience. If we do not invest in the climate transition, then the question is what Sweden should invest in instead. This is not a question, but I still find myself wondering: How can one reason in a way that implies we make ourselves more dependent on the Gulf states' oil than on Swedish fossil-free electricity? I find that remarkable for someone who calls themselves a nationalist.

If we are to safeguard Swedish jobs and Swedish growth, we must also begin to produce more electricity here and now in Sweden. We must transition our industry and ensure that we emerge stronger from the many crises we face. But with the Sweden Democrats' policy, we will only become more dependent on the Gulf states. That is not what I want for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech! There was much that I thought was good in what the Member raised. Not least, we need to repeatedly highlight the deficiencies we see regarding equality, especially in that which the state controls. This is something all of us in this chamber need to pay more attention to.

But it is a rather gloomy picture that the Social Democrats seem to have of Swedish business and entrepreneurship. It is bankruptcies. Swedish companies are falling behind. One asks when the crisis will come, not if.

I believe that I have a significantly more positive view of Swedish business, and that is shared by my party. It is a forward-looking business sector. It is growth. In many cases, it is world-leading. It has highly educated and incredibly skilled staff and employees.

I want to give the member an opportunity to clarify the Social Democrats' position towards Swedish business. What does the member see as the three most important structural reforms the Social Democrats want to drive to facilitate for Swedish industry?

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Louise Eklund, for the question! I got a bit stuck on what Louise Eklund said about how we Social Democrats ask when the crisis will come while the Liberals ask more about whether the crisis will come. I thought Simona Mohamsson had made it clear to everyone that there are many crises that Sweden is facing and that is why the Liberals have now shifted on the issue regarding the Sverigedemokraterna. But Louise Eklund obviously does not think so.

I see, in any case, that the climate crisis is here and now. We have a failing economy. I think it is a crisis. I think 100,000 more unemployed is a crisis for Sweden.

As I said in my speech, I want to achieve full employment. Do the Liberals want to achieve that? That is a follow-up question.

I have also clarified which priorities we need to make. We need to share risks. We need a broad energy agreement in Sweden. We need to safeguard Swedish interests in the EU and ensure that we do not, as we do now, get a system with instability where we change rules and regulatory frameworks based on how the balance of power in parliament looks during different terms.

We Social Democrats, together with Louise Eklund's parliamentary group in the European Parliament, extended a hand to the EPP to reach an agreement, so that we would not experience this abruptness. Is Louise Eklund not in agreement with me that these are three important areas for Swedish industry and for European competitiveness?

These are my three important priorities. In addition to this, I want to state that I am not speaking ill of Swedish business, but what I am saying is fact. It is almost 40,000 companies that have gone bankrupt during the parliamentary term. What is the government's answer to all of them? How will you support them, and how will you ensure that the bankruptcies are stopped?

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer, even though it was not an answer to my question at all!

Again: I am not seeking conflict, but ahead of the election campaign I really want to understand what the Social Democrats' policy is regarding Swedish business and Swedish industry.

So, not a single proposal is coming from the Social Democrats' side on how to facilitate so that there won't be bankruptcies or lost jobs. What I see is a risk that the Social Democrats as a whole will become like the Social Democrats in Malmö. There, one has seen it as an opposite relationship between being a knowledge nation and having a functioning industry. It would not be good for Sweden if this were the Social Democrats' line and also became Swedish politics.

I repeat my question: What do the Social Democrats in Sweden want to do to facilitate for Swedish business and Swedish industry on a structural level?

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if there is perhaps something wrong with my microphone, but I actually stated which three priorities I wanted to see. I said: risk sharing, an energy agreement, and that we must push in the EU to protect Swedish business. Those were the three things I mentioned. I absolutely answered the question that Louise Eklund asked.

I can continue and speak about how we shall curb the bankruptcies. I said in my speech that we Social Democrats in our budget have allocated 25 million kronor to Tillväxtverket to establish a bankruptcy emergency clinic that small businesses can turn to to hear how they can get support and advice so as not to end up in acute liquidity problems. It is a proposal, unlike what the government has to offer.

We also want to see an innovation strategy that includes startup companies and scaleup companies. That is also what I said in my speech. But I can move on. If Louise Eklund reads our committee motion, she will see that we also want to establish various national knowledge centers to collect data on how our highly innovative companies are performing. It is about seeing why we in Sweden have problems with companies not being able to scale up. I don't know that, and neither does Louise Eklund. Therefore, we want to collect data on this in order to be able to help the companies. Now I think I have mentioned several proposals here.

The basis is that we have a unified picture of what the business sector in Sweden needs – from the small and medium-sized companies in traditional business to startup companies and scaleup companies that want to go out and accelerate – so that we can get help in managing the transition. It is about taking advantage of the innovative power that exists.

But here, the government fails time and again. There is no innovation strategy. There is no bankruptcy emergency plan. There is no energy agreement. There is, therefore, no foundation upon which prosperity and growth can be built. That can only be achieved if the Social Democrats are in power.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of all motions.

Industrial policy – what is that? One might wonder. It is that the policy provides the best conditions for running companies and operating in Sweden. It is not about pumping out subsidies to individual companies, arbitrarily.

However, it is extremely harmful for industrial policy when the Social Democrats in Stockholm city want to limit freedom of choice, together with the rest of the left. It will lead to long care queues and to the closing of health centers. It is also the greatest threat to female entrepreneurship in Sweden.

It is also extremely harmful when politics provides state support for projects simply because certain political figures think the projects are interesting. Enormous support is provided. This happened during the last parliamentary term and has continued during this term.

I am speaking about how the AP fund has invested just over 4 billion kronor in Northvolt. Furthermore, the fund has invested 6 billion in a water project in the United Kingdom. That money is gone now. Over 10.5 billion of the pensions are gone. It concerns generations of hard-working Swedes who have worked in both elderly care and Sweden's industry. Their pension money is gone. It is extremely serious, I believe.

This undermines the market economy and risks the taxpayers' money and, not least, pensions. Command economy is another word for this. This harms free competition. Such industrial policy only belongs in totalitarian states, such as China.

It is frightening that hard-working people are being robbed of their pension funds. I think it is really bad. Therefore, it is very good that the government has now frozen all these payments – very good.

Madam Speaker! Our export industry accounts for 52 percent of the gross national product. The export industry is doing, contrary to what has been stated here, very well despite that we have had a faltering economy. It is above expectations. This applies in particular to the defense industry, which is booming. Saab builds fantastic fighter jets, the world's best, and submarines. Now, there is a delivery of three submarines to Poland. Bofors and Hägglunds are also booming. There will be a lot of new jobs. I cannot say how many, but there will be very many new jobs in these companies. They are strong. They also have strong owners. It is important with strong owners and capable boards.

We must strengthen companies and industry with both regulatory simplification and lowered corporate tax. We could go down to the EU's minimum level – today we have 20.5 percent, and the EU's minimum level is 15. It would be great for the business sector when it comes to securing more investments. The money does not disappear because one lowers the tax, as some believe. The money remains. But then it stays in the companies, which can make new investments, which creates new jobs.

It is crucial that we have a robust energy supply, and that is what the government is working on now, with new nuclear power. It is an exemplary job by Niklas Wykman.

Sweden's growth has increased during the last year. The forecast is that it will increase even more in the coming years. We have been at the bottom of the EU. Now we are starting to approach the top. We are not at the very top yet. The countries that are at the top are Estonia, Ireland and Poland.

Do you know that a large part of the industrial workers in Poland work twelve hours a day? They want to do it. I have a good friend who opened a branch of his company in Poland. He informed the staff: It is a Swedish company, and we work eight hours a day. Then he was called by the union, who said: Now you are in Poland. Here we work twelve hours a day.

It is interesting. Some in Sweden do want to reduce working hours.

Madam Speaker! The government has restructured the aid policy. It has been a grotesquely generous aid policy without control over who has received the money. Now, aid is linked to having trade agreements with the recipient countries. I think that is very good; it is sound.

The government has opened two new consulates in the USA – in California and Texas – to facilitate trade and business relations with the USA.

Research and education are enormously important for us to be able to maintain our competitive companies. It is about more education of electrical engineers and nuclear technicians. A stronger governance of the education system is actually important at this stage, if we are to manage the next generation with well-educated and capable people. I believe that the youth are hungry for this – that is my view.

We must be at the world's top when it comes to technological development. Today, unfortunately, it is the case that the USA develops, China copies, and the EU regulates. Many are beginning to realize that the EU regulates far too much. I completely agree with that criticism, I must say, even though I am a friend of the EU.

Unfair competition from municipalities and the state is a problem that hinders our business sector, especially locally in the countryside. This concerns, for example, municipal gyms and the state-owned company Arento, in Hälsingland, which rents out construction machinery. They are competing out small businesses and family businesses.

The threat from the criminal economy is another major threat to our serious companies. It is therefore good that the government is now strengthening the work with controls and tools to combat this crime. Skatteverket, Kronofogden, Finansinspektionen, Bolagsverket and Spelinspektionen have received substantial reinforcements in their budget to manage this.

Then it concerns infrastructure. The eastern connection should be built as soon as possible. The Stockholm region accounts for 40 percent of GDP. We must have this orbital road. Stockholm is soon the only capital in Europe that does not have one. I actually believe that Stockholm is the last.

Arlanda Airport needs to be developed further, so that it becomes a hub and so that we get direct flights to both Asia and the USA, not least, and do not need to make intermediate stops in Frankfurt or Copenhagen.

The Malmbanan needs to be expanded and renovated with meeting places between Kiruna and Narvik, so that it functions. It is about the best state-owned company we have. It is going like a train. On average, it has had a 37 percent profit over the last ten years. 37 percent profit over the last ten years is fantastic.

Finally, I want to say a few words because this is my last term – I am not running again. I truly hope that we get a country that strengthens education for our youth regarding both technical industry and other industry, so that they get a good future and so that Sweden maintains its competitiveness in the world.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I like Kjell Jansson as a person, but I could not help but request the floor. We stand in different political camps, and I would like to ask the member a few questions.

The member of Parliament stated in his speech that we are building up a robust energy system, once again. I understand that it is about nuclear power. When the rest of the world looks at Sweden's electricity system, they say it is the most robust in the entire world today. Does the member of Parliament have a handle on how many hours we did not, so to speak, have enough capacity last year? It is usually said: We have electricity, but we do not have capacity. How many hours were we net importers? Does the member of Parliament have a handle on that?

Then the member raised this by saying that they want to work twelve hours in Poland. It is possible. I have worked a lot myself, perhaps too much sometimes. But does the member think that everything is fine now and that we should not have any more reforms for workers in Sweden?

It is no secret that I have a long list here, which I can read out, of what the Moderaterna have been against when it comes to making reforms for ordinary people. It concerns everything that has made things better for those who work out there. Does the member want me to read out the list? It is long, but I can read it out if some want to hear what the Moderaterna have been against.

Does the Prime Minister mean that we should have a twelve-hour workday for our workers in Sweden?

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lahti, for the questions!

We can start with a robust electricity system. It is naturally about nuclear power and hydropower. They are also fossil-free and release practically nothing. It is a robust electricity system.

Wind power emits more if you count transport, manufacturing and so on. Furthermore, the problem with wind power is that it only provides energy when it is blowing. Otherwise, it stops. In that case, it is fortunate that we have hydropower, I say.

How many hours did we import power? I don't know that, but I recall it was very few hours. I think it was approximately ten hours. I don't know exactly, but I have heard the figure.

Then it concerns Poland and twelve hours. I am not asking at all that we should work twelve hours. On the other hand, I think we should work eight hours. Why do I bring it up? Yes, I do it because Poland is performing best of all countries in the EU. They have 5 percent growth when it comes to GDP. From the left side, a discussion is being held about us working six hours a day. Therefore, I raise this. I think, in fact, it is important that we continue to work eight hours if we are to be able to be competitive in the world.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

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

I asked because many other countries, and especially our neighboring countries and countries on the continent, say that Sweden has the most robust electricity system in Europe today. We had a power shortage for 50 hours last year. That is very little of the over 9,000 hours that is spoken about. They try to give the impression that we are in a crisis, but that is not true.

I leave the energy issue. The member mentioned which companies are doing very well. I agree regarding LKAB and also regarding those who manufacture war materiel. One must remember that the money that one buys war materiel with comes from our common tax funds.

There is an unfortunate event in the world that makes everyone now want to buy bombs and grenades. It is clear, as Kjell Jansson says, that we have use of it today.

We can take the question of the eight-hour workday. It is very possible that there are countries where it goes better. I have seen it when I have met machine operators who come from other countries. They don't even have teeth left. They have sat in the machine for so long that they haven't even had the means to go to the dentist, but they work hard. That is not what I want to see in my Sweden.

I can mention a few things that the Moderaterna were against. They said no to universal child allowance in 1947. They said no to three weeks of vacation in 1951. They said no to free healthcare in 1953. They said no to ATP in 1959. They said no to four weeks of vacation in 1963. I can continue for as long as I want.

The citizens have always been against what the majority of our workers would profit from. I think it is a pity that one ends up there again.

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

Kjell Jansson (M)

Madam Speaker! When we sell war materiel and receive payment, it is from tax revenue, absolutely. But it is also a security. It is fantastic that we have such skilled engineers and are so far ahead that we can earn money in these companies. Otherwise, someone else does.

We are even competing with the USA to some extent with the F18 planes today, thanks to the fact that the Jas Gripen is so well-developed. I think we should be proud of that. That is why I highlighted it. That is what we agree on.

I am not asking that we should work longer than eight hours. But I think that we should continue to do so.

When it comes to history, I wasn't even born when many of the things you listed happened, Birger Lahti. That is how it is. It is clear that there have been things that I today, when I look in the rearview mirror, am critical that we have not been part of. So that is absolutely the case.

Without being rude to Member Lahti, whom I think very highly of as a person, I can say that his party does not have such a fine history either if we look at it historically. It was the cooperation with the Warsaw Pact and everything that took place until 1990, I believe.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Industrial policy is the subject of the debate that we have already begun. There is no doubt that the parties mean well, every party in its own way. Everyone has their solutions, and they differ from one another.

Historically, the business climate has been good in Sweden and followed the changes in society. What has happened, however, since people began to believe that deregulation would 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 guiding, which 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 discovered in one municipality or region can continue to conduct their business in other parts of the country. It is completely absurd, if you ask me.

To address these problems, the government should first investigate the possibility of establishing a system that all procuring authorities and state and municipal companies must participate in, and investigate the establishment of a so-called blacklist of these unscrupulous companies.

Madam Speaker! This is a good time for me to move for approval of our reservation 5, which concerns precisely how public procurement is handled and how rules are applied.

Business policy has an enormous impact on how a society can develop and how small businesses can be started, operated, and developed. There would be plenty 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 high unemployment in Sweden. But the best thing the government is doing is letting the craftsman's deduction continue with a deduction of 30 percent up to a maximum of 50,000 kronor per person in a household. Who are those who make the most use of the deduction? It is not unemployed construction workers or laid-off nursing assistants. They cannot afford it.

Add rut, so that these persons can add an additional 25,000 kronor per person in deductions so that they can have their shirts ironed or have their home cleaned during the time they are on holiday abroad.

We must remember that these "contributions", something that this government is so opposed to, and which only a small part of the population can take part in, also cost.

It is a bit difficult to get exact figures, because the government obviously wants to make it look like a win-win. There is a bit of that in it. I must admit that. There will be less undeclared work, and then revenues from the employees and the companies that hire them will also come in. Yes, you understand. It is about employer contributions and all of this.

But however kindly I try to interpret the figures and statistics, I land on that rot cost the state just over 20 billion kronor for 2025. For rut, I find a figure of 7.4 billion for 2023.

If these deductions were the solution to unemployment or growth, we would not be sitting here complaining about a strenuous unemployment or how we best get the business sector to flourish, would we?

Sweden is a country that has natural resources that are in demand all over the world, which has heavy industry of world-class standard, which we have also heard from others, and which wants to carry out a green transition as one of the first countries in the world. The government spends billions so that wealthy people can renovate their villas and vacation homes in Spain. Talk about priorities!

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

The state-owned industrial companies should further be used to build a safer Sweden. Here we have LKAB as a good example. This obviously makes Sweden more equal, ecologically sustainable and competitive and levels out the unjust differences between city and countryside.

Many of the products coming from industry are of a socially critical nature. It can be materials needed for welfare, construction, or the transition. Industry also provides many jobs. There must therefore be a shared responsibility for the socially critical industries. We do not have that today.

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

There is an interesting reservation in the report regarding competition. Vänsterpartiet supported the boycott of the food giants. It is clear that when the monopoly becomes too large, competition on equal terms is lacking. Then it is the consumers who lose, and a few – in this case, food chains – become winners.

The government should introduce a market investigation tool that gives the Competition Authority the opportunity to identify and address structural problems in markets where competition functions poorly. It would enable in-depth analyses of market dynamics and give the authorities the power to recommend or take measures such as requirements for divestments or the introduction of regulations to counter unfair business practices and increase competition. Similar tools are already used successfully in countries such as the United Kingdom and Denmark. Recently, the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority proposed that such a tool should be introduced to address the problems in the veterinary market. The government should return with a legislative proposal that involves the introduction of a market investigation tool.

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 the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of all motions.

Sweden is a country built by people who dare to start companies, develop ideas and create jobs for others. Entrepreneurs, small business owners, family businesses and industrial companies have laid the foundation for the prosperity that today finances Sweden's common welfare. For it to continue to be so, politics must do its part, but for far too long politics has made it harder than necessary to run companies in Sweden. There is too much bureaucracy. There are too slow permit processes and too many rules that hinder initiative.

This government has begun a major reform work because Sweden needs continued increased growth – not for the sake of statistics, Madam Speaker, but for the jobs, to be able to finance healthcare, school and elderly care, so that families can live secure lives and so that our country can be strong in an increasingly insecure world.

Madam Speaker! Too many entrepreneurs testify that time is spent on administration, forms, and regulatory requirements instead of developing the business. When an entrepreneur spends hours on bureaucracy, both the company and society lose valuable time. We Christian Democrats work systematically to reduce the regulatory burden and simplify regulations that prevent companies from growing. We are driving a broad work for regulatory simplification.

Red tape costs our Swedish companies 400 billion kronor. We are paying off these hurdles bit by bit. We have removed the requirement for paper receipts, which has resulted in companies saving 4 billion kronor. We work systematically through the Simplification Council, which consists of the industry in cooperation with relevant authorities and with the government. The results are already noticeable. It took less than a year to reach the decision to remove the food requirement, which saves companies costs of a full 4 billion kronor. At the same time, there are now more services, more standardized processes, and digital powers of attorney that facilitate the companies' everyday lives and free up resources for core activities, innovation, and growth.

Madam Speaker! We know that small businesses are the backbone of the Swedish economy. Four out of five new jobs are created in small and medium-sized enterprises. For many small businesses, the step from working alone to hiring their first employee is very large. Therefore, during this parliamentary term, we have lowered the employer contributions for hiring young people as well as strengthened the growth support, which provides an opportunity for young people to enter the labor market. We maintain the expert tax so that Sweden can compete for competence.

When tax rules become unpredictable or complicated, we risk pulling the rug out from under our companies, and therefore the work continues to improve the tax rules and strengthen the drivers for starting and developing companies. Fundamentally, it is about respect for those who take risks and create jobs.

Madam Speaker! Many of Sweden's companies are family businesses that have been built up over generations. They represent responsibility, long-term perspective, local anchoring, and care for both employees and community life. Family businesses build value over generations, not just for their own family but for entire local communities. Safeguarding family businesses is therefore not just good business policy; it is also part of a social construction that holds together. For the Christian Democrats, this is a matter of values.

Madam Speaker! Competence supply is a key issue for Sweden's business growth and competitiveness. We Christian Democrats in the government have during the year taken extensive measures to strengthen companies' access to qualified labor. Sweden shall be a country that attracts, establishes, and retains the competence needed for companies to be able to grow and develop. The competence that comes from outside complements our own talents and contributes to more jobs, more innovations, and increased growth. When a small company can hire, it is not only the company that grows, but the entire society.

Madam Speaker! Strategies are not enough. This is also about how we talk about our country. Politicians like me, but also many business leaders, have a responsibility to tell about the potential that exists in our beautiful country and the growth engine and the growth-producing parts that exist, not least in our northern regions. We need to market and tell about it. The tourism industry is therefore important for Sweden. It creates jobs across the whole country, not least in rural areas and smaller municipalities where tourism is often crucial for local development.

It is important that the policy focuses on the right things. In addition to the fact that we have implemented concrete regulatory simplifications, for example of the permit requirement for hotel and guesthouse activities, we have tasked Tillväxtverket, Visit Sweden and regional tourism functions to collaborate within the platform Smartare together. The platform is based on the national tourism strategy and focuses on the tourism industry's challenges and needs.

Visit Sweden markets Sweden as a tourist destination to both foreign and domestic target groups and carries out initiatives in markets where there is growth potential for tourism. They do this together with the Swedish Institute and Tillväxtverket, which have national responsibility for knowledge and quality development as well as cooperation and coordination within tourism.

Madam Speaker! Our young people are our most important future. For every young person who gets their first job, the door opens to self-sufficiency, faith in the future, and community in society. Work is more than an income; it is a path into society. By lowering employer contributions for young people, we make it easier for companies to give young people their first jobs. We Christian Democrats want to go further and lower the employer contributions for employees starting from the age of 16. It is important so that young people can get the opportunity to enter the labor market early and gain experience and the opportunity to grow into the adult world with responsibility and interest in a future with education and new jobs.

Madam Speaker! Ung Företagsamhet is on the march. There is great potential to equip our young people and increase their opportunities to start companies. We Christian Democrats also drive the issue of the importance of all upper secondary schools in Sweden being required to offer Ung Företagsamhet. Today, entrepreneurship is missing in, for example, practical upper secondary educations, and there are great opportunities to open paths for these students to start companies.

Sweden is one of the most innovative countries in the world and shall continue to be a high-tech country that competes with knowledge and innovation capacity. We shall also be internationally attractive for investments in research and development.

Madam Speaker! In order for innovative companies to be able to grow, a policy is needed that ensures there are test and demonstration facilities. They contribute to shortening the time from research to utilization. They enable test and research results early in the development process and contribute to Sweden being able to attract researchers, entrepreneurs, and knowledge-intensive business.

Vinnova and Rise have received increased opportunities to stimulate new establishments of test and demonstration facilities in private and public sectors and to increase access to testbed environments for young innovative companies, for example, startup and scaleup companies.

Export is a fundamental pillar of Sweden's prosperity. Through exports, jobs, growth, and resources for the welfare state are created. The Government strengthens Swedish exports through Business Sweden, the Export Credit Agency, and targeted support measures, as well as by driving trade issues at the EU level. Through Business Sweden, it is facilitated for companies to establish themselves internationally and navigate regulatory frameworks and find business partners. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular are the focus for support to reach new markets, which is crucial for Sweden's competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! Economic policy is ultimately about what kind of society we want to build. The Christian Democrats see entrepreneurship as a part of the social contract in society. Companies create jobs, jobs create tax revenues, and tax revenues finance our common welfare.

When companies grow, healthcare can be strengthened. When companies hire, the school can be developed. When companies invest, the whole country can live. That is why a strong economy and a strong welfare always go together.

Madam Speaker! I would like to once again vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all motions.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! If there is ever a time when one as a Swede becomes truly proud, it is when one looks out over Swedish business and notes the history. We have many global companies, and we are, as a small country up in northern Europe, very dependent on an intensive export industry.

The European Union has become completely central to Sweden's opportunities to develop economically and achieve growth. Our exports to the EU constitute 75 percent of our total exports. The EU is the internal market that we can operate in. That we have a strong Europe and that Sweden is a strong voice in Europe is completely central to Sweden's ability to continue to develop economically.

In my speech, I will also touch upon something as strange as the second law of thermodynamics; I will return to it.

There are some clouds of concern out in the world and at home. Today we received news about the state of democracy in the world through a survey from the project Varieties of Democracy. In it, it is reported that there have never been as many countries being de-democratized simultaneously as right now.

Democracy in the world is back to 1978 levels for the average global citizen. The world has 92 autocracies – non-democracies – and 87 democracies at the end of 2025. But perhaps the most shocking figure is that only 7 percent of the world's population live in liberal democracies.

If we look across the Atlantic towards the large country in the west, the USA, we see, for example, that President Donald Trump himself has made 225 decisions on new laws via his possibility with presidential executive orders. At the same time, Congress has only decided on 49 laws during the same period.

For Sweden's part, it looks significantly brighter, but there are also clouds of concern here. We are admittedly second on the list of countries with the highest democracy index, but what we have seen during the parliamentary term calls for some reflection and some concern.

When we are to adopt new legislation, the Council on Legislation has in many cases had remarks. In propositions coming from the government, they have not listened to the Council on Legislation or to referral bodies. The government tries to cut corners, have shorter processing times, and have shorter and more far-reaching investigations.

This is, of course, very worrying for the future. This applies in particular to a business sector that needs to have a rule-based order with order and tidiness and be able to feel trust in politics. It is here that we come upon the second law of thermodynamics.

It is considerably easier to create disorder than order. The second law of thermodynamics stipulates that the natural path leads toward disorder. Think back to when you were small and built a Lego tower that was two meters high. It took longer to build a two-meter-high tower than to tear it down. Another example is when one mixes milk into coffee. It is considerably easier to mix the milk into the coffee and get a beige mixture than to separate them afterwards. It becomes increased disorder.

This is deeply risky for industrial policy. Just look at urbanization. It is a force that causes us to have greater differences between city and country. How does that affect our economy and our cohesion in the long run? We see what impact isolationist and nationalist policies have on world trade. What will it do to our opportunity for growth? We see it also in industrial policy. We have competition legislation, working environment legislation, the green transition, and an equal business environment to hold the movement towards chaos at bay.

We in the Centre Party have during the mandate period chosen to focus on four areas for our business policy.

Firstly, it is about the chain of research, innovation and entrepreneurship. I will return to that.

Secondly, we want a transition, both a green transition and an AI transition. These are the two major global trends that Swedish business must embrace one hundred percent.

Thirdly, we want to reduce the geographical differences in entrepreneurship. The conditions should be the same regardless of whether you live in a small town or are located in an innovation cluster in Stockholm or Gothenburg.

For the fourth, we want to see an increased focus on regulatory simplification. The Government has, in that regard, made a number of good efforts. We would like to go further.

Today there are three different councils to improve rule management. It is in itself ridiculous that it is complicated and that there are three councils that can give different advice and have different types of tasks. We would wish that there instead was a council that had a larger mandate.

For research, innovation, startup and scaleup companies and commercialization, we need to focus more clearly on providing increased freedom to the researchers in the research stage. We need to be prepared for nine out of ten projects to fail and see that it is worth the risk. Greater freedom in research is needed than what we have today.

Regarding the innovation part and the startup and scaleup part, we may perhaps have to expect a 50-percent outcome. It is completely okay that tax money is used for this because half of the projects that will be implemented will be able to lead to fantastically good business.

When it comes to commercialization and entrepreneurship, however, we need to be more vigilant and careful than we are today and not spend money in a way that may have been somewhat careless in recent times.

The research, innovation, and business chain is entirely dependent on all three parts being equally strong and that there is a seamlessness between them.

Then there is another aspect. Sometimes we have organized ourselves foolishly. We know that if it is to become a really good venture after an idea has emerged in either a research lab or a garage somewhere, the idea must follow the person. We cannot hand over an idea from a research lab to an institute and then to a company. It disappears along the way. Still, we have organized ourselves that way.

We need to have an organization that any entrepreneur can understand. If you come up with an idea, it is you who must see it through to completion. I am aware, for example, of some hesitation regarding our organization around institutes. We have a number of proposals there, and I want to call for support for reservation 3 in the report.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it is about how we get the economy moving. Actually, there are three parts we need to focus more on. It is about education, labor immigration, and greater inclusion. We want to see a more equal entrepreneurship – an entrepreneurship where we see how our foreign competencies more clearly come to their right and which also levels the differences between city and country.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I will keep it extremely brief because I know that we all need to rush to party group meetings in just a moment.

Sweden needs more liberal reforms that strengthen the country's competitiveness and create conditions for Swedish business, Swedish industry, and Swedish companies. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! If we are to have a strong and sustainable business sector in Sweden, many parts need to hang together and many areas need to cooperate. But there are clear common denominators that almost all of the business sector's entrepreneurs highlight as major challenges when we meet. It is no news for those of us who are here. It is about skills supply, secured energy supply in the near term, clear and fast permit processes, and not least long-term perspective, where clear political goals and reduced volatility within politics are of very great importance. If we are to maintain a strong business sector in Sweden, these are things we need to spend time and energy on solving.

The business sector is crucial for Sweden's climate work and competitiveness to be strong. Sweden's climate work and climate policy are simultaneously crucial for the competitiveness of Swedish business, for example when Swedish companies drive a strong sustainability work which in turn opens up for new innovations, business development, new jobs and new companies.

Clear, stable, and long-term objectives for the climate transition are a prerequisite for the business sector to dare to invest and transition. If the rules of the game are constantly changing, there is a risk that all development will stall. At the same time, it is of crucial importance that there are clear and long-term conditions to be able to transition to fossil-free at a rapid pace. There is therefore a great need for politics to steer in a clear direction and simultaneously support the green industrial transition and the sustainability work within all industries.

Since I know we are short on time, I would just like to say one small thing about the societal transformation that is taking place right now. A major societal transformation is underway as industrial transition, mining projects, expansion of the defense, and other projects suddenly gain momentum. The municipalities today take on both responsibility and risks when societal planning needs to keep up. This applies, for example, to housing construction and new infrastructure. We believe that the state needs to take a much greater responsibility than today when it comes to supporting municipalities.

Madam Speaker! With this said, I simply wish to move for the approval of the Miljöpartiets reservation number 22.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 18.)

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