New authority for environmental assessment

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One of the agreements in the Tidö Agreement concerns simplifying and shortening the environmental permit process according to the Environmental Code by making it more flexible, efficient, and predictable. It is a task that has been ongoing intensively during this parliamentary term.

One of the most important initiatives is the appointment of the Environmental Permit Inquiry, which has taken a holistic approach to the environmental review. The inquiry presented its main report, A new coordinated environmental assessment and permit review process, in January 2025. Part two, Early notification on suitable use of land and water, was presented in July 2025. And earlier this year, part 3, A shorter instance chain for land and environmental cases, was presented. Currently, work is underway on the next part of this inquiry, which is to be completed in December this year. That assignment concerns making a review of whether more types of cases involving environmental issues should be moved to the new environmental review authority. The purpose is to achieve a more efficient and predictable environmental review. The Environmental Permit Inquiry shall also review the implementation of certain articles in the Water Framework Directive.

At the same time as the work is ongoing to design the future of environmental assessment, we can already now begin to reap the first fruits of this very extensive work. The decision that the Riksdag will hopefully make during next week means that we can have a new environmental assessment authority in place during 2027. Already when it came to the budget for this year, it was decided to finance the construction of this new authority.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal briefly aims to transfer the environmental assessment delegations at the county administrative boards to the new authority. It will create a more coordinated and uniform assessment, something that has been requested by Swedish companies for decades. The reform is based on the commission's proposal.

The formation of the new authority involves a fundamental reform of the administrative structure for environmental assessment. In order for the transition to proceed as smoothly as possible, the work will need to be carried out in stages. Further ahead, permit assessments that the Land and Environment Courts conduct will also be transferred to the new authority.

Mr. Speaker! The work to consolidate the Swedish environmental laws into a common Environmental Code began during the 1980s. The work was characterized by the major environmental problems of that time. For example, environmental toxins and pollution were central issues. The result became an Environmental Code that was adopted in 1998 and which entered into force on 1 January 1999.

A quarter of a century later, we can observe that new environmental challenges that were not known when the Environmental Code was enacted, together with the practice that has developed regarding how the Code is applied, give rise to inefficiency and sometimes counterproductive decisions from a global sustainability perspective. A long series of new legislations at the EU level have also, during these years, come to lie like a wet blanket over the Swedish regulations.

We mean that several important aspects are often overlooked when the Environmental Code is applied. It is not reasonable that the consequences of the application lead to a higher environmental burden in other countries in our global environment. The work, which has been initiated by the Tidö parties, to reform the Environmental Code and the environmental assessment is incredibly important. A heavy responsibility will rest on the next government to bring this work to completion.

Mr. Speaker! I can note that the opposition also appears divided in this important issue. Parts of the opposition want to reject the bill while others want to move forward faster.

If one wants to be sure that we will get faster, simpler and more efficient permit processes, it is, Mr. Speaker, fundamental that today's government basis continues to work and see these important proposals through during the next mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member for the speech!

My view is that the Sweden Democrats seem to be very satisfied with the work that has been carried out. But from the Social Democrats' side, I would like to emphasize that a new environmental assessment authority can be an important part of the solution, but that it must not become an excuse for not doing what needs to be done here and now. A new authority does not in itself solve the fundamental challenges we have with the permit processes.

This leads me to the question of previous announcements. In 2023, the Riksdag, on the initiative of the Committee on Industry, issued an announcement to the government concerning precisely the role of the authorities in permit processes.

This concerned something that we Social Democrats had submitted a motion on, namely that contacts between authorities and companies need to be simplified and that the authorities' methods of working need to become more solution-oriented and advisory.

The Sverigedemokraterna also stood behind that announcement, but now it seems they have changed their minds. In this report, it is not only the government but also the Sverigedemokraterna who stand behind the fact that the announcement is now satisfied and shall be considered finalized.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member, Mr. Speaker, in what way he believes that a new agency solves this issue. Do the Sweden Democrats no longer agree that more measures are required?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member for the questions!

It is quite true that the authority only resolves a few things. The majority of the work remains, and I refer, as I have said, to the work with the SOU:s that is ongoing, where we have received three different partial reports from the Environmental Permit Investigation. A fourth is in progress. Furthermore, the investigation has looked at precisely the questions regarding change permits and proposes an entirely new system that is to function much faster and which is specifically to be linked to the new authority.

I believe that one must look at the work as a whole. Now we are working on a completely new system for the Swedish environmental assessment. It would have been very good if the Social Democratic government had stepped in and fixed the well-identified deficiencies in the Environmental Code during the previous parliamentary term, but now the current government base has taken a holistic approach with a very extensive piece of work. If one takes part of the three, soon four, reports that exist from the investigation, one sees that it is an intensive work that has been conducted.

However, a great deal remains to be done. The entire overhaul of the Environmental Code is much more important than this authority, but the authority is at the same time a central part of the future environmental assessment system.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member for the answer!

I find it interesting that the member criticizes the previous government for being far too slow and then uses both their speech and this exchange of remarks to try to defend why the current government's work is not moving fast enough and why the reform work, after all, needs to happen step by step.

My question concerned the specific announcement regarding precisely the authorities' role in permit processes. The member can always say from the rostrum that more work remains and that a new authority is not sufficient. But in the report, there is not a single motion from the Sweden Democrats that more measures need to be taken.

There is also nothing that rests on the fact that the announcement needs to continue. But as recently as 2023, one stood behind this announcement and thought that the government needed to take measures specifically regarding the authorities' role in permit processes. Now, it is thought that the announcement is finished and done.

Mr. Speaker! During this mandate period, the Sweden Democrats could have used their role as the largest party in the government support to push for more measures. My impression, however, is that the Sweden Democrats seem to be very satisfied.

The member also seems very satisfied. If the member does not share that view, he is welcome to provide concrete examples of proposals that the Sverigedemokraterna are pushing for so that the authorities' way of working becomes more solution-oriented and advisory.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member once again for the questions.

As said, what we need is a complete review of the Environmental Code. We need to completely rework Swedish environmental assessment legislation. These are the proposals that are also found in the Environmental Permit Investigation, and those proposals are what the Sverigedemokraterna want to implement as quickly as possible.

The work is not yet completed, however, and we will see a fourth partial report from the commission in December this year, where they will specifically look at more work tasks to be moved to the new authority. They are also looking at a very important task regarding certain articles in the water framework directive.

This is a task that remains. We should have adjusted the Environmental Code in the way the member explains during the previous parliamentary term, but during this parliamentary term, we are working out an entirely new system. It is a system that will become much better but which takes time and which we will be able to complete only during the next parliamentary term.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are here to debate the introduction of a new environmental assessment authority. The bill on the table concerns the authorities taking over the tasks that the environmental assessment delegations at the county administrative boards are responsible for, which is only a part of the various environmental assessment processes that exist. This is intended to provide more efficient, simpler, and more equal assessments.

I believe that everyone here in the chamber and all parties agree on one thing – at least we usually do when we debate – and that is that we need faster, more predictable and more legally secure environmental assessments. It is needed so that we can manage the climate transition, so that we can get new electricity production, for industrial investments, to carry out water measures, for recycling and to address the circular economy. When we do this, however, it is incredibly important that we do it within nature's boundaries and the various frameworks that we actually have to protect and safeguard our nature, our health and our cultural values.

The question is not really why we need more efficient examinations, because we know that. The question is why today's system is so slow, and when one takes part of this proposal, one wonders if the government has really looked at it in the right way. Do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker: We stand behind the product, a new agency, but in several parts we think that one needs to come back to the Riksdag to explain how it is intended. It simply feels as if one is rushing forward a bit too fast and that it risks taking even longer if one does it in this way. The government itself also writes this in the bill.

If one looks at why the system is slow and does not function satisfactorily today and identifies the bottlenecks, one often sees that the problem is not how the organization is structured, but rather it is about other things. The question then is: If we do not solve those other things, will we achieve an effect by switching from one agency to another? Does it make a difference if we change the logo on the door?

Some of the referral bodies are involved in these examinations, and they speak of a lack of resources and competence. They speak of poor and incomplete applications, unclear process management, late supplements, and a lack of coordination between authorities.

There is, therefore, a whole host of bottlenecks that can be addressed, and they are not unknown. We have pointed this out throughout the entire mandate period: more resources, better competence supply, and better coordination were needed.

Mr. Speaker! However, that does not mean that a new environmental assessment authority is wrong. A unified organization can have its advantages, and if we get the whole package in place, perhaps it will be very good. Today, we have it out at the county administrative boards, and that means we have the regional and local knowledge. I cannot see that the product that is on the table today takes into account the regional and local expertise and knowledge, which is a risk. We hope that this is ensured when this is finally put in place, and therefore there is a reservation regarding that.

Mr. Speaker! When a new agency is formed, Miljöpartiet believes that one should return to the Riksdag to state how these parts are to function. If the new agency does not receive more money and if there is no competence, resources, and a local anchoring, then the processes can become even slower than they are today.

That is what our supplementary motion, which we have together with several other parties, is about. I hope that the government takes this to heart. Everyone actually wants to solve this, but doing something quickly and incorrectly does not help.

We need to have a holistic view so that it becomes correct, and there must be money involved. Without money and funding, this will become a flop. Then one remains in the same place. The Government writes, as stated, that this design can make the processes slower. Then nothing is achieved, Mr. Speaker.

With this, I make today's debate quite short from my side and move for approval of reservation 4.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is a question that I think more politicians should ask a bit more often: Is it reasonable?

Behind the decisions we make in the Riksdag lie good intentions to protect the environment, ensure legal certainty, and create order and clarity. But sometimes both regulations and the exercise of authority lead to consequences that I believe few of us would accept in reality.

All too often we hear horror stories from entrepreneurs across the country who have been caught in a bind. They have tried to do the right thing. They have followed the rules but missed a comma in the application. They have fulfilled all the requirements they knew about only to find out afterwards that other requirements were actually imposed. They have ended up in the lottery of Swedish bureaucracy and happened to get the wrong case officer.

The role of politics must be to create the best possible conditions for the development we want to see and to simplify and improve processes so that companies can continue to create value and contribute to our common welfare. When the bureaucratic burden becomes too heavy and leads to more and more people closing down, we have failed.

Rules are needed, but they must be understandable, proportionate, and possible to follow. It is a fine balancing act, but the system must never become so sacred that it takes precedence over the people it affects. Then the system no longer serves its purpose. Therefore, I return to the question: Is it reasonable?

I can take the milk producer Henrik in Östergötland as an example. In connection with a new environmental permit, he was required to contact 190 neighbors to be allowed to fertilize his fields. He also received restrictions which meant that it could not take place on Saturdays, Sundays, holiday eves, or holidays. Regardless of where we stand on any individual issue, we must be able to ask ourselves if such requirements stand in reasonable proportion to the benefit. If they do not, we risk creating a society where the regulations become more important than the results and where the bureaucracy becomes an obstacle for people who want to contribute, invest, and develop Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's proposal to establish a new agency, the Environmental Assessment Authority. The purpose is clear: to make environmental permit processes more efficient, simpler, and more uniform across the entire country.

The new authority shall initially take over the tasks that the environmental assessment delegations at the county administrative boards are responsible for today. At the same time, the foundation is laid to eventually consolidate more parts of the environmental assessment in one and the same organization.

It is absolutely crucial that the environmental assessment is legally secure, predictable, and efficient. We have strong environmental legislation, and we should be proud of that. It has contributed to sustainable production chains and given Swedish companies good conditions to be at the forefront. But the world looks different now than when many of our regulatory frameworks were designed. The Environmental Code was written in a time when the climate transition and electrification perhaps did not stand as high on the agenda. Today, we need regulatory frameworks that both protect the environment and enable development.

The Environmental Code is actually quite clear. Already in the introductory paragraph, it is stated that the law shall be applied so that long-term good management of society's resources is secured and that socio-economic consequences shall be weighed when decisions are made. The problem is that this balance is all too often lacking in practice. When the benefit of using a natural resource is weighed against environmental considerations, it is often only one side that gains traction. I ask the question: Is it reasonable? The Moderates believe that the Environmental Code needs to be reformed fundamentally.

Mr. Speaker! There is reason to also address the issue of standing in this debate, i.e., the right to appeal decisions and bring actions in environmental proceedings. Let me be clear: the Moderates do not oppose organizations being given the opportunity to represent their members' interests. On the contrary, it is an important part of an open and democratic society. At the same time, it is evident that the development of standing has moved in a direction that raises questions about proportionality. When environmental organizations based in Södermalm can appeal and stop projects in Umeå or Laholm, we risk creating processes that become protracted, expensive, and unpredictable. Again: Is it reasonable?

This is fundamentally about legitimacy. The requirements for what constitutes an environmental organization need to be clarified. There are reasons to set higher requirements for geographical connection and ownership. Legal certainty is not just about the right to appeal. It is also about the person seeking a permit feeling secure that the system does not automatically work against them.

Mr. Speaker! There are many parts that need to be improved to increase legal certainty, shorten the permit processes, and safeguard development forward. In this bill, we take an important step by introducing a new environmental review authority, but the work does not stop there. During the next parliamentary term, we want to take more steps to restore the balance in the environmental review. When people, companies, and landowners ask the question: Is it reasonable? the answer should more often be: Yes.

Mr. Speaker! This is the final debate for the mandate period for my part. I would like to thank the Chamber Secretariat, the committee's fantastic secretariat and not least the committee's fine members for good debates during the mandate period. We often have fun and pleasant times together, sometimes even with a twinkle in the eye. I believe that democracy benefits greatly from that.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Storckenfeldt, for your speech! I noted that it was much about different parts of the permit process but perhaps not so much about the new authority. Therefore, I pressed the button to ask a question.

As I said in my speech, the major Achilles' heel according to the referral responses is that one lacks competence, that there is a lack of resources, that there are poor or incomplete applications, unclear process management, late supplements, and a lack of coordination between authorities. These are things that a government can do as much as it wants right now instead of creating an entirely new organization.

I note that the Tidöregeringen has allocated fewer resources to the county administrative boards. In that case, it is difficult to do a better job. Nothing has been said about the supply of competence. One could have given a mandate to develop better guidelines and so on. In short, there are a lot of things that could have been done here and now to shorten processing times – even if one thinks that the new authority is the best alternative – which would have helped people. However, it has not been done.

This is not news. We have known about this. Why hasn't the government done these things? Until now, it has been said that they can be taken care of later. As I see it, nothing has been done to shorten the processing times, and the proposal on the table is unfinished. It even states in it that it will take longer.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just as it stands in the bill and as I mentioned in my speech, there is much work left to do. I think it is good that the bill points this out; we are not finished. It is a task that must continue.

We have during this mandate period received answers from a number of different investigations with different proposals and have implemented some of them. But that does not mean we are finished. They are of course to be implemented. Much more work remains, just as it states in the bill. An agency is part of that.

I, as a Moderate, may not usually think that more agencies are the solution to our problems. But we have, just as Emma Nohrén also mentions, seen that precisely the supply of competence has been part of the problem. It has not been possible to establish a good environmental assessment process when it has been spread across the country in this way. It has not been legally secure, and many different decisions have been given depending on the type of activity and the case officer. Therefore, a new agency is part of the important work. The competence should be gathered and ensure that the process becomes more efficient moving forward.

As has been said, it is not finished. We are going to implement more changes to streamline and modernize the permit processes. This is a part of that.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Helena Storckenfeldt!

We also see, as said, that there may be a need for a new authority. We do not motion for a rejection of the proposal, but we think it is a bit unfinished and that one needs to come back on several points.

The question remains, however: Why have the things that can be addressed not been addressed in the meantime? Both the courts and the county administrative boards have received fewer resources for precisely these parts, even though they are the resources they want.

I will proceed with the answer. The member responded, namely, that an authority provides a more equivalent treatment process. I can agree with that. At the same time, we see a risk that it could complicate matters for local and regional knowledge. In many assessments, one needs to have the regional knowledge. It needs to be staff who can go out on inspections and who can give advice, tips, and everything that is needed. We do not see how that is accommodated here.

Is there something that will be done? Does one see that it is an authority that is to be located in one place in Sweden, or is it an authority that will have regional offices?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just as it stands in the bill, it is not finished. The intention with the new authority is that it shall be able to be broadened in the long run. The design is therefore not set in stone. The idea is that it shall, over time, be developed into something that is better than the process we have today.

I believe it is a much better way to go than to turn the whole system around so that everything suddenly is to be included in the new authority and, with that, brings along a lot of bad habits from how things have been handled previously.

I believe that local anchoring is important. At the same time, we have seen that in the system we have had with environmental assessment delegations, many questionable decisions have been made even with the local anchoring and the competence that was spread across the country. I believe and hope that we will arrive at a better process when we gather the competence and ensure that people work in a better way.

A farmer, for example, should not have to ask 190 neighbors for permission to fertilize. It is an example that I believe we can agree is generally seen as bad for Swedish agriculture and for Sweden's development.

If we can avoid those types of questionable decisions by gathering the competence in an authority, I believe we have come a significant and good way.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

I agree with several parts. As I underlined earlier, we Social Democrats also see that a new, properly designed environmental inspection authority can be an important part of the solution. But that requires the government to provide the right conditions. There are several issues that we Social Democrats point out. It will be absolutely crucial that the government handles them in a wise manner for the reform to have the intended effect.

I would also like to ask about the supply of skills. We are already receiving reports today that skills are leaving the county administrative boards as a result of this reform. If the right skills do not follow, there is an obvious risk that the reform will instead have the opposite effect. I therefore want to ask the member what concrete measures the Moderate-led government is taking here and now to ensure that this does not happen. That is one thing.

My second question concerns the local anchoring, which is also very important for a well-functioning environmental review. One of today's twelve environmental review delegations is in my and the member's constituency, Halland. The member knows, of course, how important local expertise is to ensure quality in the review and the decisions.

The government has so far announced that the new agency's headquarters shall be in Stockholm. We Social Democrats want to emphasize that operations in more locations need to be ensured, for example through regional offices. I wonder if the Moderates share that view and if, in that case, an announcement can be made already now.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I begin with competence and the supply of competence and repeat what I said in the exchange with Emma Nohrén. I believe it is important that one does not transfer bad habits from one way of handling environmental permits to the new one. The idea is, of course, that something new should be able to emerge now. In that case, it is important that it is allowed to happen in different stages.

It is important that we have the competence that is needed. I am quite convinced that it will be more efficient when one gathers competence in one place. We have seen that in several other cases. It also becomes more equal. I believe that it will be the best way forward in just this case.

Until now, we have seen that the system is not working. The local anchoring and the competence that is spread across the country can in some cases be very important, but I am not convinced that it is the absolute most important thing when it comes to achieving effective processes. Obviously, it is something that has not worked. It is therefore important to now review what is actually needed moving forward to achieve more efficient processes.

As I mentioned, much more work remains. I know that the member also drives, among other things, amendment permits as a general rule. It is something that I will continue to push for.

When it comes to job opportunities and the supply of skills across the country, the member also knows that Halland is the only county that does not have a state agency. I think it would be appropriate to also mention in this debate that it is time for Halland to get a state agency. It is something that I believe we can take action on.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer! On that point, we agree.

We also agree that the purpose of the new environmental inspection authority is, in theory, to gather the right competence. But in practice, it is very serious that we are currently seeing competence leaving the county administrative boards. There is an obvious risk that the right competence simply does not follow and that we therefore get longer processing times.

I am aware that the organizing committee is to look into it. But it is a mandate that is to be final-reported on 30 June 2027, and the new agency shall be in place on 1 July 2027. It is approximately one year away. I want to emphasize that the government needs to take measures immediately to ensure that the agency gets the right competence and gets the right conditions from day one.

Speaking of the organizing committee, I have read the government's directive to the commission. It states that the commission shall consider whether activities should be located in more places, not that it shall do so.

That is why I am asking this question to the member. We Social Democrats believe that this should be a matter of course. I would like to ask the member to clarify this. Does the member mean that she and the Moderaterna are satisfied if it turns out that this authority only exists in Stockholm? Or does the member also want to see more regional offices to ensure local and regional anchoring? I believe that would have been a very welcome announcement, because the government during this parliamentary term has reduced the state presence and decommissioned state service offices, even in my and the member's constituency Halland, in my home municipality Falkenberg. It is a development that we Social Democrats strongly oppose.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Whether local offices are needed or not is something that an investigation must come to a conclusion on. As I mentioned initially, it has obviously not worked so far, even though one has had the local anchoring and the expertise on site in our regions and at our county administrative boards. It has been a system that has caused very large problems for very many entrepreneurs, not least in the countryside for our farmers. It has been deeply problematic processes, and this is an important part of getting the processes in order and ensuring that we get more efficient permit processes and a new system for the environmental assessment.

I repeat that the system we have worked with until now has obviously not functioned. Therefore, I believe it is time that we test something new. I cannot say here and now what is right or wrong, but my goal is for there to be as effective permit processes as are only possible, so that our entrepreneurs get a more legally secure process and so that we get better environmental assessment on site. Whether it should be an authority only in Stockholm or if there should also be local or regional offices, I cannot answer that today. I believe it would be foolish of me to speculate on that as well.

(Applause)

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! We need faster and more predictable permit processes. It is absolutely crucial to manage the climate transition, to create jobs and growth across the entire country, and to strengthen Sweden's competitiveness and resilience. All of this has become even more important in a changed geopolitical situation where global competition is hardening and we face large and rapid technological shifts. Therefore, the environmental review needs to become both simpler and more efficient while a high level of environmental protection is maintained.

Mr. Speaker! A new authority for environmental assessment can, as has been said, be an important part of the solution. But it requires that the government provides the right conditions, and it must not become an excuse for not doing what is required here and now. According to us Social Democrats, there are several issues that the government needs to handle for this reform to have the intended effect.

Let me first state that a new agency in itself does not solve the fundamental challenges with the permit processes. The Government cannot be satisfied with an organizational change but needs to simultaneously carry out the substantive reforms that are required.

There are actually several completed proposals that the government can proceed with here and now. One concrete example is to make modification permits the main rule in environmental assessment in accordance with the proposal from the Environmental Assessment Inquiry, which the previous, Social Democratic-led government commissioned. This is something that we have been broadly agreed upon in this chamber. But despite the fact that there is a completed and well-substantiated proposal, the government parties and the Sverigedemokrater chose not to implement it fully.

Another example is the investigation Wind Power at Sea, which proposes a more efficient environmental assessment for offshore wind power in accordance with how it looks in several of our neighboring countries. Even this has, at least for most of us in this chamber, been agreed upon, but despite that, no bill has been submitted by the government.

A third example is the issue of a pre-established municipal position on wind power, which would mean increased predictability for all involved parties without compromising municipal influence. There is a finished bill that we Social Democrats submitted for a decision but which was voted down by the government parties and the Sweden Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! My point is that we need to look at the whole. If the government is serious about shortening lead times, there are actually several concrete reforms that the government can and should proceed with here and now.

Mr. Speaker! That is one thing. The other is, of course, the transition to a new authority, which we have discussed here in our exchanges. The Government itself assesses that the transition period may lead to longer processing times. This is a risk that must be taken most seriously. Therefore, an orderly transition with clear governance and ongoing monitoring is required.

We Social Democrats would also like to emphasize that the major time savings can most often be made in the preparatory work, that is, before the application itself is submitted. Therefore, it is central to strengthen the consultation process by ensuring clear participation from the review authority.

Mr. Speaker! Another aspect that cannot be emphasized enough is the supply of competence. The Government must immediately ensure that the right competence follows, that it is developed, and that the authority receives the right conditions from day one, especially in light of the fact that it is already being warned today that competence is leaving the county administrative boards as a result of this reform.

A well-functioning environmental review also presupposes local and regional anchoring. The Government has, as previously mentioned, announced that the new agency's seat shall be in Stockholm. But we Social Democrats want to emphasize that operations in multiple locations need to be ensured, for example through regional offices. This is something that the Government should be able to provide an answer on already now.

Mr. Speaker! I would also like to say something about previous announcements, which I also highlighted in a previous exchange of remarks. Most recently in 2023, the Riksdag, at the initiative of the Committee on Enterprise, issued an announcement to the government regarding the agencies' role in permit processes. For those listening: An announcement is a formal request for the government to act on a certain issue. This time, it concerned something that we Social Democrats have motioned for, namely that the contacts between agencies and companies need to be simplified and that the agencies' methods of working need to become more solution-oriented and advisory.

Now the government and the Sweden Democrats mean that the announcement is satisfied and that it should be considered finalized, which we Social Democrats do not agree with. This issue is not solved by a new agency, but as said, more measures are required for there to be a difference in practice.

Mr. Speaker! That is exactly what my entire speech is about. A new agency can be an important part of the solution, but it cannot be the entire solution. It must not mean that we lean back in a situation where we need to increase the pace and where much work remains for the permit processes to become faster and more predictable.

Sweden has good conditions. We have an industry that wants to grow, invest, and transition. But it also requires that we show political leadership and that we show that we want the jobs, investments, and prosperity of the future to land in Sweden.

In conclusion, I would like to move for approval of reservation 4 in the report.

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

Anna Lipinska (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We Swedes often joke about ourselves and our administration with the expression "In Sweden we have a system". Most often, it is used in situations when one is talking about something a bit embarrassing.

When it comes to exactly this with permit processes, we can truly speak of having a system that unfortunately all too often takes far too long. It is far too expensive, far too complicated, and far too unpredictable. It is, therefore, a system that makes us able to truly mock ourselves.

Companies that want to invest in Sweden often face long and complicated permit processes. This applies in particular to environmental assessments which can take many years. We must, of course, protect the environment. But we must also realize that jobs, industrial investments, energy production and new infrastructure cannot wait for a decade for a decision.

Sweden needs faster and more predictable processes without compromising high environmental requirements. An immense number of actors point out how these complicated permit processes hinder operations that in many cases could become an important part of the transition.

Therefore, it is welcome that steps have been taken in the right direction during this parliamentary term and that we can now move forward with this bill.

It appears from the referral response that the support for the reform is significant. No land and environmental courts opposed the proposal, and many referral bodies approved it or had no objections.

The goal is, in fact, clear. We are now to receive a permit review according to the Environmental Code that is simplified and shortened by making the review more "flexible, efficient and predictable", which is a quote from the directive to the Environmental Permit Investigation. Given this, I think that the changes pointed out in the bill will help us well along the way.

The Government gave a special investigator the task of preparing the formation of a new agency for environmental review with a planned start of operations on July 1, 2027. The bill contains the legislative changes required for the agency to be able to take over the county administrative boards' current review tasks.

It is, however, important to note that this is primarily an organizational reform. The larger questions of how the environmental review can become faster, simpler and more predictable remain to be addressed.

What is most important and what we need to continue the work on is to make the environmental assessment more efficient, more uniform across the country, more predictable for companies and operators, and more legally secure.

The Government links this to the need for faster investments for industry, energy transition, and climate transition, while environmental protection must be maintained.

The new authority will therefore take over the tasks that are currently performed by the county administrative boards' environmental inspection delegations. These delegations currently make decisions regarding many environmentally hazardous activities according to the Environmental Code.

Instead of the assessment being carried out through these different environmental assessment delegations at the county administrative boards, this function is now being centralized at a national authority.

The proposition therefore primarily contains the legislative changes required to shift the responsibility. The rules themselves regarding which activities require a permit or which environmental requirements must be met remain largely unchanged.

Criticism has long been directed at today's fragmented system, as varying practices occur between different parts of the country. Difficulties are also seen in building up specialist competence. There are long processing times, much longer than what is needed. By gathering the competence nationally, it is nevertheless hoped to achieve similar assessments and more efficient processes.

Mr. Speaker! If Sweden is to be a country where companies choose to invest, where new industry is to be established and where the energy transition can be carried out, then the permit processes must also function. This reform does not solve all problems, but it is an important step towards a Sweden that unites high environmental ambitions with competitiveness, innovation, and growth.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats claim to be a rural party. Despite that, all new agencies during this parliamentary term have their headquarters in Stockholm.

We outside the Stockholm area pay the same state tax in the entire country. Still, more and more state jobs end up in Stockholm. Service offices are being closed all over the country. Now, there will be another new agency in Stockholm.

Where is the justice in that? Where is the tax refund outside the Stockholm area? That is what I wonder.

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

Anna Lipinska (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the question!

The most important thing in the issue we are debating today is that today's system in many cases takes far too long and that permit processes today drag on. This implies a risk that investments will be withheld, that companies choose other countries, and that important energy and industrial transitions are delayed. That is most important.

Where the authority is to be located is a secondary issue. What is most important is that the permit processes are shortened.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! If it is a secondary question where the authority should be located, why is an authority placed in Stockholm again, again and again?

How does it help a company in Western Sweden where we know the industry must transition? How does it help the new industrialization in northern Sweden that the company has to turn to Stockholm again, again, and again?

The Christian Democrats say they are a rural party, but they are obviously centralists. They want to nationalize most things, and then they place the authorities in Stockholm.

We completely agree that we should have fast permit processes. But the government has failed totally with that. Nothing else has happened other than that a new agency has been decided upon.

The big question is once again: Why is the authority being placed in Stockholm? It is not here that the heavy industry that is to receive environmental permits even exists. It should be placed somewhere out in the country. We heard the Moderaterna say that it should be in Halland, but they have obviously not received any support for that.

Why should the agency be located in Stockholm? I want an answer to that from the Christian Democrats, considering that they say they are a rural party but still centralize even more state jobs to Stockholm.

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

Anna Lipinska (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can say what I said in my first speech. There are more agencies located in Stockholm. The agency's task is, of course, to serve the interests of the entire country.

A decision on where the authority shall be physically located does not necessarily mean that it is worse for the countryside. The most important thing is to retain the expertise and that the expertise, together with the new authority, contributes to shortening the permit process. That is the absolute most important thing for the development of the countryside and for our companies.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! There are good reasons why we in Sweden set high requirements for those who apply for environmental permits. There is no lack of examples of companies and operations that expose the surroundings to risks, either deliberately or through negligence.

In order for authorities to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, a solid process is required that is in proportion to the risks that different activities entail. It is also central that the public is given the opportunity to participate and influence.

The government appointed a special investigator in 2023 to produce proposals on how the permit process according to the Environmental Code can be simplified and shortened. The investigation proposed, among other things, the establishment of a new agency, the Environmental Review Authority. We in Vänsterpartiet rejected the appropriation to establish the new agency in our budget for 2026.

In the very extensive report A new coordinated environmental assessment and licensing process, there are proposals that we welcome. But as a whole, the proposals would mean impaired environmental consideration and reduced opportunities for the public and the local community to participate in environmental processes. A contributing cause to this is that the government, in the directives to the inquiry, presents it as that the environmental assessment proceeds too slowly and needs to become more flexible. But previous inquiries show that the Swedish system for environmental assessments primarily functions well and is efficient. Even this inquiry's overall picture is that most cases are handled within a reasonable time.

One of the investigation's own experts, with extensive experience in environmental assessments, is critical of the proposals put forward in his special statement, including regarding a new environmental assessment authority. He argues that the consequences of introducing a new assessment organization are underestimated. This includes, among other things, the risk of significantly prolonged processing times.

It appears from the bill that the proposal that a new environmental assessment authority shall take over the tasks that the environmental assessment delegations at the county administrative boards are responsible for is a first step in the government's ambition that the new authority shall be given an expanded mandate in the future.

Vänsterpartiet views it positively that the government does not implement a completely new environmental assessment and permit review process in a short period of time, but we also see risks with this limited proposal.

Through centralization to a new agency in Stockholm, the regional expertise regarding local conditions found within the county administrative boards risks disappearing. Several referral bodies have warned that the county administrative boards lose valuable expertise when tasks are moved and that it can result in the remaining supervisory tasks at the county administrative boards being weakened.

By forming a new agency, one also risks losing momentum in the review processes for the green transition when companies risk delays due to the hurried formation of a new agency.

Vänsterpartiet sees the need for us to have a more equitable environmental assessment system across the country and that the system can be simplified in parts and the processing can occur faster. But, in our opinion, this must not occur at the expense of environmental protection, public participation, and the supply of expertise within environmental assessment.

Instead of investing in getting a completely new system in place, with the costs and risks that entails, increased focus should be placed on ensuring that the relevant authorities and courts are given the necessary resources and that targeted efforts are made against the individual cases that are dragging on.

Vänsterpartiet therefore rejects the proposals in the bill that a new agency should take over the tasks that the county administrative boards' environmental assessment delegations have today.

I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! One of many important issues that we, that is, the Liberals and our coalition partners, took on when we formed the government in 2022 was simplified and shortened environmental permit processes.

In a country bathed in an enormous abundance of bureaucracy, extensively implemented EU regulations, and often seemingly quite rigid interpretations of the legislation, this is no small task.

One thing was very clear to us: Sweden needs a comprehensive reform of the environmental permitting process and the agency structure linked to it. This we took hold of. In the Tidö Agreement, one can read that an investigation would be appointed to simplify and shorten the environmental permit process according to the Environmental Code by making it more flexible, efficient, and predictable. The purpose was to secure the business sector's competitiveness and Swedish industrial production and to promote the green transition.

We therefore set a clear goal: to change the regulations in order to increase predictability and reduce the time spent in the environmental process. Just as several speakers before me have highlighted, one does not have to look very long to find examples of protracted and sometimes very difficult-to-understand permit processes, which are directly negative for companies' ability or willingness to develop existing operations or to establish themselves in Sweden.

Unreasonably long processing times, decisions that are difficult to comprehend, requirements that are difficult to understand both for us as politicians and for those who are to carry out their activities – there are many aspects of today's environmental assessment that we need to review.

Madam Speaker! With the committee report and the bill that we are discussing here in the chamber today, we take an important step to address this: Now we are introducing a new authority for environmental assessment, for a more unified, efficient, and legally secure environmental assessment. It is, as I have said before, an important step on the way. It does not solve all problems, but now we are laying the foundation for faster and simpler permit processes.

Now the Tidö parties are delivering on yet another of the points that we have agreed upon.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a major problem. Those who want to invest in Sweden, hire people, build fossil-free energy, or modernize their industry are all too often met with long, expensive, and unpredictable permit processes.

The consequences are not theoretical; they are felt in reality. Investments are pushed into the future. Companies choose to establish themselves elsewhere. Jobs that could have been created in Sweden are left out. Climate investments needed to reduce emissions get stuck in bureaucratic processes. Therefore, the environmental permitting process must function better than it does today.

"Fast processes" is easy to say. But two governments in a row have failed radically to shorten them. It is only thanks to the persistent and hard pressure from Centerpartiet that it even became an investigation during the previous government. This government has not even managed to implement the proposals that were delivered.

We nevertheless want to welcome the ambition that exists among the other parties and the government to reform the environmental review and to now gather competence in a new environmental review authority. But the government stops halfway.

The government's proposal means that the new authority initially only takes over the tasks that currently lie with the county administrative boards' environmental review delegations. At the same time, other central parts of the environmental review are left in the current system. The result risks becoming new boundaries, more handovers, and continued fragmented processes.

The problem with today's system is not too little administration. The problem is that the responsibility is often divided between several actors, and the processes become difficult to oversee for the one applying for a permit. In that case, a new agency does not help.

If one is to create a new agency – and one should be careful with that, I think – one should do it properly. It would have been nice if, for once, it could have been placed outside of Stockholm. In Western Sweden, where the industry is to transition, in the north, where the new industrialization is occurring – almost anywhere outside of Stockholm's borders would actually have been a suitable location.

It is especially relevant as the National Audit Office has also criticized the government for having many agencies and expensive rented premises in the capital. 4 billion, the National Audit Office says, could have been saved just in rental costs. In that situation, the government chooses to locate an additional agency in Stockholm. So much for rural policy!

I am glad that the Moderate Party's representative wanted to have the agency in Halland. Unfortunately, it seems to be a bit thin on the influence from that specific member in this government.

The new environmental assessment authority should have been given a broader responsibility from day one, including those cases that are assessed in application cases in the Land and Environment Courts. In the same way, one can gather expertise and create clearer lines of responsibility and build the holistic view required to seriously be able to shorten processing times and increase predictability.

Centerpartiet would also like to clarify the role of the courts. The courts should primarily be appellate instances. This strengthens legal certainty and creates a clearer order for both operators and the public. This was precisely the intention in the work of the Environmental Permit Investigation.

At the same time, it is important that a new agency is given the right conditions. We actually do not yet know fully how the agency is to be organized, staffed, or resourced. We also do not know what the government's continued reform work will look like. This means that many important questions remain unanswered. They have been sent to an investigator.

Centerpartiet believes that the government must return with further proposals that clarify the agency's future role and ensure that it becomes strong, efficient, and long-term sustainable. Such a reform must not get stuck in an intermediate step where the problems persist but the organization changes. That is where we are now. The local knowledge must be utilized.

Not all decisions become better just because they are made in Stockholm, rather the opposite, even though the Christian Democrats seem to believe that it is Stockholm that is required for competence to be preserved. One wonders if it means that Stockholmers are smarter than people from the countryside. Is there better competence in Stockholm than in Gothenburg, in Skellefteå, or somewhere else where the industry actually exists?

Sweden does not need more bottlenecks in the environmental review. Sweden needs a unified, efficient and predictable process that both protects the environment and enables investments. Therefore, I stand behind reservation 3 and move for its approval.

But this is not just about a new agency. It is about a multitude of rules that must be adjusted, scrapped, or improved. There is a whole set of such [reports] that are fully investigated and lying on the government's desk, gathering dust. Despite the fact that fast permit processes are at the top of the business community's priorities, the government has done very little at all. The Minister for Energy and Enterprise seems to have completely forgotten the enterprise part of his portfolio.

Therefore, proposals such as a shortened chain of instances, clearer directives from the review authority, limitation of authorities' right to speak and much more, such things that would have made a difference in reality, are now left out. Instead, the government has chosen to prioritize the introduction of a new authority – in Stockholm. It is counterintuitive and costly.

It is obvious that a party in the government is needed that can and cares about business issues – a party that knows that state jobs are needed throughout the country because state taxes are paid throughout the country, a party that is capable of reducing red tape and shortening permit processes, not just establishing new agencies. That party is Centerpartiet. And Centerpartiet should be voted for in September by everyone who cares about the conditions of job creators and companies. We know, in fact, that Sweden can do more.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 June.)

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