Regulatory simplification for companies

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! How pleasant to conclude this Wednesday by debating Sweden's most important issue, namely how we strengthen the conditions for our Swedish entrepreneurs!

Entrepreneurs are often described as problem solvers, and rightly so. During the company visits I make, I am always struck by their ability to solve problems, persevere, and find new ways, regardless of whether it concerns the consequences of a war, a pandemic, climate change, or something else. Most of the time, I experience that entrepreneurs find ways to adapt and solve. But there is a mountain they cannot overcome, and that is politically decided rules. Unlike natural mountains, this bureaucratic mountain tends to grow.

In a recent report from Svenskt Näringsliv, it appears that as many as every second entrepreneur experience that the rules are more complicated and harder to predict than before. With about ten hours a week to handle administration, it is easy to understand that Swedish entrepreneurship hardly has any fast lane in the competition with other countries. And as always, time is money. 200 billion is the total cost the regulatory burden is estimated to cause for companies, Mr. Speaker. To that is added the cost carousel that over-bureaucratization causes us Swedish taxpayers.

Simplification of regulations for companies

The conditions for companies concern us all, because they affect us all. Swedish food supply is jeopardized when Swedish farmers are forced to spend more and more time on price-driving bureaucracy. Our security is jeopardized when legalistic maneuvering trumps common sense and our defense industry is not allowed to test-fire ammunition despite war in Europe. The green transition is slowed by permit processes that prevent the industry from accelerating its work against climate change, jobs are threatened when small businesses cannot cope with the administrative burden, and so on.

Unnecessary bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker, also often goes hand in hand with political meddling. Far too many entrepreneurs, not least in the countryside, experience that the state overrides them in matters where ownership rights should have been respected and the business protected. It creates an insecurity that is completely unacceptable.

I became politically engaged because I want to contribute to a politics that paves the way instead of standing in the way. Entrepreneurship is my core issue because it is fundamental for Sweden - not just because it creates jobs, but because it is entrepreneurship that drives development and innovation and solves our problems. Sweden should be a country where one can test their ideas and realize their dreams. It should be safe, simple, and profitable to be an entrepreneur here. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of work to do.

One is what one allows oneself to be, and Sweden has allowed itself an attitude towards entrepreneurs that is not sustainable in the long run. We are peace-damaged, I read in an article the other day. Perhaps that is true – I do not know. But that we Swedes, in the absence of real external threats for a long time, have built a culture where we create unnecessary rules and processes for things that often are not problems, I believe that is true.

A shift in culture and mindset is required on many levels, not least the political ones, to reverse this development. Sweden needs a substantial wave of deregulation. The debureaucratization that would benefit our entrepreneurs would, of course, also contribute to streamlining the state—a benefit in itself.

Business policy is not rocket science. On the contrary, it is largely about not making things complicated. It is very good for Sweden that we now have a government in place that has signaled high ambitions when it comes to pulling political fingers out of the famous jam jar. My party, Moderaterna, went to the election with a clear objective to reduce the regulatory burden for companies. In the government's statement, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson particularly highlighted the importance of a free and strong Swedish entrepreneurship. In this chamber, Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch stated just a couple of weeks ago that the government's work to improve the business environment in the long term is underway. And so it is, Mr. Speaker.

The government is now taking a broad approach to the question of how we should simplify for entrepreneurship. Extensive preparatory work is underway which handles the strengthening of the Regulatory Council and the implementation council that is to be introduced, which shall specifically aim to reduce the regulatory burden. But it is not only a review of the consequences of new regulations that shall be made. It is also the case that the over-implementation of EU rules must be stopped. The existing regulatory flora must be cleared, and the justification for a regulation's existence must be based on the question of which problem it solves. The exercise of authority by agencies shall be strengthened in order to improve business services, and regulatory letters should point out a clear business line for the officials across the country who handle business issues. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this holistic approach is the key to success.

Simplifications with a clear impact on entrepreneurship, small business ownership, research, and investments will be particularly important to create a more favorable business climate but also to ensure that we have the rules that are actually needed, not least to reduce and counteract unhealthy state and municipal competition at the expense of companies.

Mr. Speaker! It is entrepreneurship that is the key to Sweden's prosperity, and it is free enterprise that is the key to development. With a good business climate, the conditions are strengthened for more Swedish business ideas and inventions that not only create the jobs that finance our common welfare but also ensure that we meet the future better equipped with new solutions for the challenges and transitions we face.

The Moderates, together with the coalition partners, have moved from promise to action regarding the work against red tape. This is evident in the Committee on Industry's report Rule Simplification for Companies. It also appears here that there is a broad political commitment to the issue, and that is fundamentally good. I also note that all reservations raise issues that are included in the government's preparation of the rule simplification work. This creates conditions for good progress in the political work and thus, in the long run, for a strengthened Swedish entrepreneurship.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report Simplification of Rules for Companies and against all motions.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! Many of the rules that cause complications and contribute to a deteriorated business climate in Sweden are EU laws and EU regulations that do not always work well in the operations of, for example, small and medium-sized enterprises. Social Democratic governments have made certain changes with the mandate they had in government and tried to influence the EU to ease and improve certain rules. When we were in power, however, the Moderaterna were quick with their criticism that we did not do enough to facilitate for small and medium-sized enterprises regarding regulatory complications.

But now the Moderates are in power, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, one has the presidency in the EU, from which 90 percent of the red tape comes, to quote a number of members from the Moderates. In the Prime Minister's priorities for the presidency, rules were mentioned only once, and that was in relation to the automotive industry, not to the small and medium-sized enterprises that the member highlighted in his speech. How do the Moderates intend to use the presidency to reduce red tape in the EU? Can Swedish entrepreneurs expect regulatory improvements during the Swedish presidency?

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Velasquez Castro for his question. Simplification of regulations is particularly important for small businesses. On that, we are in complete agreement. I have said it before, and I am happy to say it again: I welcome the Social Democrats' commitment to the issue.

We would have liked to have seen more happening during the eight years that the Social Democrats held government power here in Sweden. I can state that during that period, we had moderate parliamentarians on the ground in Brussels who worked specifically on the issue of regulatory simplification.

It is true that many of the problems in Sweden that we blame on the EU are linked to red tape. But we probably also need to acknowledge that we are causing a fair amount of trouble ourselves at home.

During the Socialdemokraternas government's tenure, the over-implementation of EU rules has not been addressed. It is something that is on the government's to-do list. Gold-plating of EU directives must be stopped. Swedish companies shall be given good competitive conditions.

I would like to emphasize that it has been one of the priority issues in the Swedish presidency of the EU. It is about highlighting competitiveness.

It will naturally involve work with the regulatory burden. It will also mean strengthened Swedish competitiveness and strengthened European competitiveness. It is an important and welcome political perspective in this context.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite symptomatic of the government that one says one thing before the election and something else after the election. It is also very typical for the Moderaterna and the bourgeoisie that one says that one shall simplify the rules, but one is not clear about which rules are to be simplified.

Even though the government has not been in power for long enough, half of the presidency has passed. I hope that the members themselves realize that it is now that they have the chance to truly harmonize the regulatory complexities in the EU and get a Swedish perspective on the regulatory improvements.

It should be a priority to use the chairmanship to implement rule improvements. The government has not been in power for long, as I have pointed out. But what do the Moderaterna intend to do with a chairmanship that is now coming to an end?

Right now there is a lot of talk but extremely little workshop. For Ulf Kristersson, it is obviously not sufficiently prioritized with regulatory improvements for small and medium-sized enterprises. It still reeks of a broken promise from the Moderaterna. But the member has a chance to be very specific about which regulatory improvements one is working on when Sweden is now chair of the EU.

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Member of Parliament!

Swedish business needs stability to a very great extent. It is long-term rules and long-term political decisions. That being said, I am completely convinced that we all, both in politics and in business, want to see quick moves when it comes to the handling of the regulatory issue.

The government has no other ambition than to floor it as fast as possible. But again: We are five minutes into the match. The Social Democrats' new commitment to issues of regulatory simplification is warmly welcomed. I hope it lasts.

When it comes to the EU presidency, the Swedish government and Ulf Kristersson have from day one pushed for the competitiveness of European companies and thus, naturally, also for Swedish companies.

It naturally means good conditions for entrepreneurship in Europe and in Sweden. One thing that the government is passionate about is dismantling the over-bureaucracy that unfortunately characterizes both EU policy and business management in Sweden to a somewhat too great extent.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to simplification of rules, there are very many descriptions of what is to be done. There are a number of investigations that are also referred. But I do not see anything on any bill list.

I see no further objectives than that it should get better. I see no interdepartmental working groups that have rolled up their sleeves and started working. I do not read anything in the regulatory letters about an increased focus on working with regulatory improvement at the agencies.

I cannot interpret it in any other way than that it is not a prioritized issue, now that one has really set their teeth into it. My question to Anna af Sillén is: When will it be workshop? What is your plan?

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member of Parliament Thand Ringqvist, for the question!

The question of regulatory simplification is, to the highest degree, a work in progress. I do not believe one should underestimate the work that is already ongoing within the Ministry of Enterprise and within the Moderaterna as a party when it comes to the work of regulatory simplification.

I also do not believe that one should underestimate the value of a government that takes a collective grip on these issues. We can all point to individual rules and problems. But the big difference, the big leap, for Swedish entrepreneurship occurs when one takes a broader grip on both the rules and the implementation and management of companies by our authorities.

The government has been in power for half a year. I feel a great sense of hope regarding the work that is already underway. I understand the impatience. The Centre Party was once part of an alliance government. Even then, the Moderates held these issues in high regard, as did the Centre Party. Now, in recent years, the Centre Party has supported a red-green government where we have not seen the same workshop here.

Let me conclude by saying that I warmly welcome the Center Party's newly acquired commitment to the issue.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is not a newly acquired interest. That cannot be said. I myself was involved and worked with Maud Olofsson when we had a goal to reduce the regulatory burden for companies by 20 percent. It is a goal that has been mocked by many. But it was still something that made the entire Government Offices know which direction to work towards.

Even though the government took office only half a year ago, by this point one could have ensured that there was progress in the work on simplifying regulations. One also cannot wait to take a holistic approach. There are a number of things that must start.

There was an opportunity to include it as part of the regulatory letters for the authorities. The authorities are ignoring simplification of rules today. It requires leadership and persistent work.

It does not matter that much which government one is a coalition partner to. This is something that happens inside the Government Offices. Right now, the Moderaterna have every opportunity to put pressure on it. But so far, nothing has come out.

My question is again: When can we expect something to show that the rule changes result in better incoming rules and that there is a strategy to remove the rules that the business community has for many years pointed out should be removed?

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member of Parliament Thand Ringqvist, for the question!

The government needs to go through the investigations that existed when they entered Rosenbad. It is about all the good proposals that have already been developed within the area of regulatory simplification. The government needs time to familiarize itself with it and create the overall picture in order to have an efficient process for this. It is important. No one wants to drag out the time. It might be worth a little to wait until the work gets started. But it is already in progress.

I would also like to comment on what the member says regarding the management of authorities. It is an incredibly important part of this. It is about ensuring that authorities are managed in a way that moves towards a clear business service. In many cases, it is about a very new culture in many authorities and agencies all over Sweden.

It must naturally be included in a regulatory letter. It must be well-prepared in order to get as much output from it as possible. But it is already in progress in the regulatory simplification work.

I look forward to continued debates in the chamber to build as broad a political consensus as possible around achieving the difference that so many of us obviously want.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have a number of reservations in the report, but for the sake of time, I only wish to move for approval of our reservation 4 regarding a systematic work on simplifying regulations.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, it can be stated that an active policy of regulatory simplification has been conspicuously absent for over a decade. Affected stakeholders often argue that the last government to carry out actual regulatory simplification work that made a difference would have been the first Reinfeldt government—a government that was referred to in the previous exchange of remarks.

Since then, much has been said but little has been done, which is also evident in the estimates of the business sector's costs for red tape and bureaucracy that have been presented. It is up to 200 billion annually, according to Svenskt Näringsliv. Together with electricity prices, skill supply, and crime, red tape and the costs that this causes constitute the greatest challenges for the Swedish business sector.

It was against that background that the Sweden Democrats already several years ago submitted their first pure rule-simplification motion and thereby, as I recall, became the first party with a specific committee motion on the theme.

Mr. Speaker! Despite that little has been achieved, the issue has been constantly relevant and debated extensively. There has, therefore, been no lack of commitment to the issue under the previous governments. Furthermore, there have been plenty of political proposals for improvements. Various investigations and compilations from the business sector and so on have been presented, so there has obviously been no lack of proposals for regulatory simplification work.

Given that the regulatory simplifications also do not burden the state treasury but on the contrary are expected to generate tax revenues in the long run, there has also been no lack of resources. Based on that description, the shortage seems to have been political willpower rather than anything else.

It is not possible to blame this on any single politician, and not even on any single government. The work, as stated, has been lacking for a long time, and many bear the blame for this together. Several business ministers have failed, and furthermore, many of the individual examples of regulatory simplification are owned by other ministers other than the business minister, even though the Ministry of Enterprise constitutes the hub in the regulatory simplification work.

Mr. Speaker! The strange thing is that, despite this lack of performance over several election periods, there has been no obvious political conflict in the issue. Those who have spoken out so far have, of course, stood behind simplification of rules. And anything else would be strange, one might think. No party goes to an election on more regulatory complexity or says straight out that they stand behind unnecessary administration and bureaucracy and unnecessary regulatory complexity.

Despite this, an over-implementation of EU directives has occurred. Consequence assessments of new legislation have been lacking, and the follow-up on the outcome of regulations has been missing. Here, several parties have a lesson to learn. How is it that everyone advocates for regulatory simplification but no one has succeeded in delivering the same?

I realize that I have started with a relatively gloomy description of reality and would therefore like to make an attempt to cheer up the audience instead. Since the election, we have a new government with a government base that, in its policy agreement, has clearly stipulated that there shall be lower administrative costs for companies.

In this government basis, the Sweden Democrats are included, who have long pushed for simplification of regulations. In our policy on simplification of regulations, we have addressed both process-related issues as well as individual proposals on rules to be abolished.

Procedurally, we have, among other things, advocated for a heavier mandate for the Rule Council through a move from the Swedish Agency for Economic and Innovationing to the Government Offices and a stop function for rules with deficient impact assessments so that one has to rethink and think anew in order to proceed with the proposals again. We have advocated for sunset clauses on new legislation to ensure that the effect was what was intended and that the regulation otherwise shall expire and be concluded.

We have advocated for an implementation council to guarantee that we stop the over-implementation of EU directives that government after government has engaged in, and furthermore considered that this needs to have a broad mandate. We have advocated for simplification mandates for authorities and legal requirements on the retroactive payment of supervision fees and, in general, considered that the proportionality principle should become more guiding when it comes to rule implementation.

Regarding individual rules, we have, among other things, worked to abolish the dance license and the hotel license, to review and improve or abolish the current system for personnel logs as well as cash registers in the hotel and restaurant industry, and to simplify various licensing processes.

Mr. Speaker! All that I have now highlighted does not fit within the framework of this committee report, but I still want to describe the policy of regulatory simplification that the Sweden Democrats have long supported. Now we also have a new government, which in the large whole shares our approach to the issues.

Some positive change has actually already occurred. Regelrådet and Verksamt.se have both received increased funds through our budget bill. A bill regarding the abolition of permit requirements for public dance events has landed at the Riksdag. The establishment of an implementation council was announced in the budget bill and is therefore pending.

Most recently today, I and the committee colleagues belonging to the government base in the Committee on Industry discussed these issues with both of the Secretaries of State to the Minister for Energy and Industry, Ebba Busch. Therefore, I know that the work is moving forward, not least with the proposals contained in the simplification investigation. Personally – and I realize that I often as a politician land on that conclusion – I wish that things could go faster than they do, but it seems to be something one has to live with in the role of a politician.

I would like to conclude by once again highlighting that I have observed how several governments have failed in this area. It is therefore up to this government to show what it is capable of. That can probably not be determined already now, but I can promise that the Sweden Democrats, as part of the government base, will do their utmost to ensure that these issues are and remain high on the agenda of both the Minister for Energy and Industry as well as other ministers.

When we go to the election again, we will be able to show the Swedish business community what we have achieved and what change we have created.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Andersson, for the speech! In Sweden, we have a relatively good business climate, but improvements can always be made – improvements that make our companies competitive and contribute to new jobs and Swedish welfare.

But we have a situation where several companies have gone bankrupt. The year 2022 was a gloomy year for entrepreneurs in Sweden, with high electricity prices and a faltering world economy.

The government has failed to help these companies, and not a word has been heard from the Sweden Democrats regarding this. But the Sweden Democrats have officials at the Government Offices whom I assume they are in contact with. As MP Andersson himself said, he and others were at the Government Offices as recently as today and discussed issues together with the state secretaries in the policy area.

I wonder if he there has pushed to accelerate the process regarding electricity support for the companies. We can stand here and talk about regulatory simplifications and pretend that electricity prices are not the single biggest reason why entrepreneurs are having a hard time today and the single biggest reason why companies go bankrupt. But that is the reality.

My question to the member is whether he has any news. He was last at the Government Offices today. When can the companies expect an electricity subsidy to be paid out? To be clear: When will the money reach the entrepreneurs? If the member wants to make life easier for the companies today, Mr. Speaker, this is the single most important question to address.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro says that we can stand here and talk about rule simplification. That is actually why we are here - to talk about rule simplification. I believe it is clearly evident from the agenda that has been sent out and from the speaking list that the member himself has signed up for that the committee debate now taking place, after the committee has produced a report, is precisely aimed at handling rule simplification issues. There are surely many other forums where the member and his colleagues can act outraged over the situation their party has put Sweden in.

It is likely no coincidence that the Sweden Democrats often top the polls when asking self-employed individuals who they would have wanted to cast their vote for. That is also what we saw consistently during the election campaign. They naturally understand that the situation they have ended up in, not least the electricity price situation which MP Vencu Velasquez Castro himself highlights, is largely due to actions from the Social Democrats.

It is not the case that the problems after decades of inefficient energy policy can be solved in a few months, even though I wish that were the case. We are trying to patch and repair from the situation that this government has inherited - not least by the Social Democrats, consciously and actively through the policy that the Green Party has pushed for and received support for, have decommissioned Swedish nuclear power and thereby placed us in a situation that caused a need for electricity support from the very beginning.

But having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer questions concerning what we are actually going to debate today.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I may be misremembering, but I recall that Member Andersson himself said that he raised matters in his speech that did not concern this preparatory area. It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to raise any issue whatsoever.

We are talking about regulatory simplifications for companies, which I hope means things that make life easier for entrepreneurs in Sweden. I do not understand what could be more important than resolving the question of when the companies receive their electricity support. The member had two minutes in his reply to me, but not a single answer came regarding the electricity support. Most recently today, the member was, as he himself noted, at the Government Offices, and obviously this question was not raised.

Simplification of regulations is all well and good, but if the member cares about making things easier for the companies, he should be at the Government Offices day in and day out and demand answers. But that is not being done, and the companies are not getting any answers. More and more companies risk going bankrupt. The result is weaker Swedish competitiveness in a situation where we need to strengthen Swedish competitiveness.

The reason I am bringing this up is that the failure with the electricity support is not only the government's failure but equally the Sweden Democrats' failure. They are trying to escape responsibility, but it is not possible. You have civil servants at the Government Offices.

I ask again: When can we get a decision? But even more importantly: When can the companies get a decision on when the electricity support will be paid out? That is the single most important question for the companies today; it is fair game to ask them.

And speaking of being the most popular party among entrepreneurs: If one does not address this issue, one will probably not be it in the next election. I do not think one will be it, because obviously this is not a prioritized issue. Not one answer did I receive from Member Andersson.

But I ask again: When can the business owners expect to receive money for the high electricity prices that have been there?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is possible that Member Vencu Velasquez Castro does not feel he is receiving an answer. It could be as simple as the question being asked to the wrong person. If the question had been asked to the Minister for Energy and Industry, I am unsure if even the Minister would have had the opportunity to answer, as the question does not only lie on the government's table but requires a commission's approval. Therefore, it is likely difficult to provide an exact date. This is, of course, something the Member is very well aware of, even if one can gesture clearly and appear upset when playing theater in the Riksdag in this manner.

Something I have rarely heard before, Mr. Speaker, is however a Social Democrat who so energetically highlighted the importance of Sverigedemokrater on the Government Offices and time and again emphasized that they are there. If I do not misremember, Mr. Speaker, it was expressed that Tobias Andersson must be at the Government Offices to ensure that this becomes as one has desired. I cannot do much other than thank the member for the support I feel both for the officials we have at the department as well as for my work, which occasionally involves visits to the department. I wish that I could invite the member along next time, but I unfortunately do not believe that I have that possibility.

But I thank, as I said, for the support for the work we carry out in this area and in many others.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! On behalf of the Christian Democrats, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal and for the rejection of all motions.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Riksdag repeatedly raised the issue of regulatory simplification. We did not see that much happening under the previous government, and therefore I am glad that we now have a government that is tackling this in a more wholehearted way. That, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise in my speech.

The policy direction for Swedish companies is about relief from bureaucracy and administration, not least for the many smaller companies. A clear goal for us Christian Democrats is that the regulatory burden is reduced by ensuring that every new rule means that two old rules are cleared out so that the total burden decreases over time.

The Government is now updating the white paper A simplification policy for strengthened competitiveness, growth and innovation capacity with new goals. The white paper has been out for consultation with companies and industries, where comments have been received on what needs to be further developed so that we can reach the simplification policy goals. This includes, among other things, what types of new assignments need to be handed over to different agencies and the impact assessments in rulemaking, how and when the proposed rule should be evaluated.

We Christian Democrats welcome and emphasize the importance of evaluation and follow-up to ensure that rules are designed for their intended purpose.

Mr. Speaker! For us Christian Democrats, order and clarity are important. We must have a regulatory framework that is based on proportionality and promotes growth, competitiveness, and innovation, even from a global perspective. It is, for example, important that the costs resulting from regulations should decrease and that the cost development should be lower than in the rest of the world, this in order for us to sharpen our country's competitiveness.

In order for companies to have competitive conditions, measures for simplification are needed, as well as regulatory frameworks that create room for maneuver for the companies' renewal in step with global changes.

Another important issue is digitalization, which is a significant tool. The proportion of services and matters handled digitally must increase to simplify the submission of information by companies and other contacts with authorities. We Christian Democrats advocate for a guarantee that a company should only have to submit information to authorities once. Here is a proposal for a method for monitoring the simplification policy goal regarding the digitalization of companies' contacts with the public sector. The proposal is currently being prepared in the Government Offices.

An effective tool is Verksamt.se. We are strengthening the operation of the business portal Verksamt.se, which is the authorities' joint website for business information and business services. Continuous development work is ongoing to publish additional information and offer further services to facilitate for entrepreneurs to start and expand their businesses.

Mr. Speaker! As the economic policy spokesperson for the Christian Democrats, I cannot emphasize enough that the regulatory burden and administration need to be reduced so that companies and entrepreneurs can focus on their core business to the greatest extent possible, which is what creates growth and jobs in the long run and strengthens Sweden's welfare. Several initiatives have been initiated.

The Government is currently analyzing the points submitted in the consultation on the report Simplifications for micro-enterprises and modernization of the Accounting Act.

We have a proposal from the government that the so-called dance state shall be abolished for public dance events. I am not saying that this is the heaviest decision the government will make during the mandate period, but it is a good indicator that we want to simplify and remove unnecessary rules that do not add any added value for anyone.

In conversations with small companies, they tell of insecurity and difficulties regarding tax rules. This also hinders entrepreneurs who want to take the step toward self-employment. The entrepreneurs are keen on doing things correctly and avoiding unintentional errors, and in that case, the rules must be easy to understand and apply, both in a business's startup phase and in a more established phase. A review is currently taking place to facilitate and promote self-employment so that it becomes less complicated to start and run a sole proprietorship.

Madam Speaker! The business sector needs to be given good opportunities to operate and develop for the joy and benefit of our country. Then we shall never over-implement anything.

Another clear focus for us Christian Democrats is that we shall strive to adhere to the EU's minimum levels when new legislation is implemented. That time must be over, when we tried to play in our own division to show ourselves to be better than others.

Implementation in Swedish law above the minimum level in the EU regulation shall be avoided, or justified when deemed necessary to fulfill national Swedish goals. An implementation council with the goal of reducing the regulatory burden and sharpening Swedish business's competitiveness is welcome. This is something that will also be evaluated continuously.

Madam Speaker! We are early in the mandate period for the new government's various initiatives for regulatory simplifications for companies, and we Christian Democrats look forward with great expectation to the effects from all the initiatives that are now being taken.

Finally, I want to highlight the importance of good conditions for cooperation between research and innovative companies. Sweden already has many world-leading companies within digitalization, but development within a number of technology areas is moving fast while competition is increasing globally. Here, it is important with purposeful and long-term investments.

That is why I am a proud Christian Democrat when the government now also strengthens innovation and research programs that focus on contributing to the development of future digital solutions. It is about creating the conditions for a more offensive national technology agenda. Vinnova is tasked with increasing the efforts in the innovation and research program Advanced Digitalization. The program is based on cooperation between the private and public sectors, where the business sector matches the state's contribution.

We Christian Democrats see Sweden's business sector as a greenhouse for innovation and prosperity and emphasize the importance of companies, educational institutions, and institutes so that Sweden's position as a strong innovation and research nation and as a world-class high-tech country can be further developed.

With this, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! In a previous exchange, the Moderate MP Anna af Sillén was asked what the government is doing more concretely to reduce red tape. Lili André mentioned from the rostrum that the government wholeheartedly supports regulatory simplification, but I still lack concretization in what it is the government intends to do.

Lili André mentioned, among other things, assignments to authorities. Specifically which assignments are they, I wonder. Has the government laid any new assignments, and specifically which ones in that case?

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Söderberg, for the question! We are fully committed to the important work of regulatory simplification, as we see that it is high time to accelerate it. Sweden needs a shift with regulatory simplification. In that, we must do many different things.

We have already initiated, for example, a simplification inquiry. We are analyzing, and after the analysis, we will see what needs to be done. After that, we will also see what we need to follow up on and evaluate.

We need to see that the authorities have a more dynamic approach towards our companies, and the regulatory simplifications that both companies and industries repeatedly say need to be made must also become a reality.

It is still very early. We are still looking at an analysis. After that, we will be able to tell Elin Söderberg what we need to do to simplify things for the companies.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I can immediately think of assignments that we could give to the authorities within this area. However, what I hear from the member here is only that one sees that the authorities need a more dynamic approach. But we are, therefore, getting no answers as to whether anything has been done at all regarding simplification of rules in the regulatory letters to the authorities.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! New times are coming regarding the agencies' regulatory letters. What we have done ever since we took over the mandate to work with these issues is to conduct an analysis of what needs to be done. Proposals will be forthcoming. At this moment, I have no other answer to give.

We have Verksamt.se. It is a very fine forum for our companies. It is the authorities' joint website. There, new improvements have been made all the time regarding business services, company information, and so on.

I want to ask Elin Söderberg to have a little patience. During the coming year, we will see correct assignments in the regulatory letters to the authorities to simplify things for companies.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! Small and medium-sized enterprises are important and crucial for people to get their first job.

In order for small and medium-sized enterprises to be able to grow and thrive, politics needs to create the conditions for them to do so. Larger companies often receive the attention of politics, while it can be difficult for, for example, a pizza baker to get politics to focus on his problems. Small businesses account for four out of five jobs in Sweden, and therefore we need to ensure that there are conditions for small businesses to develop and continue to offer people jobs.

We Social Democrats know that in some respects the state and the business sector need to stand close to one another to together ensure that innovations, jobs and growth are promoted and that Sweden's competitiveness is strengthened. The Social Democrat-led government worked actively with dialogues together with the business sector to see what changes needed to occur at a sectoral level, for example by reducing the administrative burden for companies over time.

Under the leadership of the social democrat-led government, several changes were made to take advantage of the possibilities of digitalization to simplify contact with authorities. Today, entrepreneurs all over the country are significantly more satisfied with, for example, the Swedish Tax Agency than they were, for example, ten years ago. Regulation 1264 from 2018 on simplification through digitalization yielded results.

Madam Speaker! As I have previously touched upon, four out of five jobs are created in small businesses, and it is also these companies that are hit hardest by red tape. Therefore, it is an important labor market measure to ensure that unnecessary red tape is avoided for these companies. But politics needs to be responsive to the business community and understand the problem before jumping at the solution, something that this government can learn from. It is easy to say "remove red tape, one rule in, two rules out" or to promise regulatory simplifications without concretizing what that means.

This government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has promised in the Tidö Agreement that the administrative burden for companies shall be reduced. But despite the fact that investigation proposals are ready-made at the Ministry of Enterprise or the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, as it is now called, no proposal has been submitted to the Riksdag.

We Social Democrats did a lot to promote regulatory improvements that have a real effect for entrepreneurs all over Sweden. A number of investigations were commissioned to resolve regulatory red tape for companies. And the current majority would like to see the investigation proposals implemented. I am thinking, for example, of the micro-enterprise investigation and the investigation on an improved security system for entrepreneurs.

It is important that businesses are not disadvantaged due to unnecessary red tape, but equally important is that it should be easy to be secure as a business owner. Many business owners do not fit into the templates that currently exist for rules regarding sickness benefit-qualifying income. This needs to be changed.

Several of the proposals presented were welcomed by the S-led government. They are also with the Ministry of Enterprise and on the current government's table. The majority of them should have been presented and even been on site. It is regrettable that this has not been done.

Madam Speaker! It is not possible to talk about rule simplification or improvement without mentioning the green transition. We currently have a situation where the business sector is pooling its efforts to ensure that Sweden is the country at the forefront regarding the transition. This contributes to strengthening Swedish competitiveness and to us continuing to be a climate nation with a reputation for sustainability and quality. It is worth mentioning that many of the rules and requirements that we have in Sweden also contribute to the companies' competitiveness. If you succeed in Sweden, you succeed in the whole world.

The next sectoral regulatory improvement concerns permits for energy types becoming faster and simpler, reduced red tape to favor green industries and investments in entrepreneurs' security so that more people will want to start companies and contribute to Sweden's competitiveness.

I believe that one needs to approach the issue structurally. Therefore, I am very pleased with the simplification policy goals from 2021: The regulatory frameworks shall be based on proportionality. Costs for Swedish companies resulting from regulations shall decrease as a share of GDP. Processing times shall become shorter and more transparent. Authorities' responses to companies shall be business-adapted. The proportion of services that are digital shall increase to simplify contact with authorities.

The work on simplifying regulations now needs to be taken forward based on the goals that the government decided on in 2021. Legislative work and the agencies' rule-making need to be improved, not least through better impact assessments. Rules shall be proportionate and expedient so that the administration required to comply with the regulations decreases over time. Also, service, responsiveness, and short processing times are of great importance for a competitive business climate.

By understanding the challenges facing companies and seeing in what way the systems can be improved for both companies and society, we get strong companies that contribute to a strong Swedish competitiveness and a good business climate. To do this in the best possible way, it is important that Sweden is a strong voice in the EU regarding regulatory improvements. By simplifying, modernizing, and removing red tape in the EU, we can ensure that Swedish companies become competitive.

Sweden is now the chair of the EU and has the chance to harmonize regarding the regulatory red tape in the EU to facilitate both Swedish and other European companies in a situation where they need to strengthen their competitiveness. But so far, unfortunately, nothing concrete has been presented regarding regulatory simplification in the EU. We can only hope that the government seizes the opportunity now as the presidency runs towards its end.

An important perspective for us Social Democrats is the economic security for the country's small business owners. They are in a difficult position. It is bureaucratic red tape regarding, for example, company bankruptcies and income qualifying for sickness benefit. This needs to be improved. The Social Democratic government had a number of proposals to facilitate the systems for income qualifying for sickness benefit for small business owners. One can only hope that this government chooses to proceed with those proposals.

Madam Speaker! This government needs to continue on the path it has taken and implement the regulatory improvements that are required, but also listen to the entire business community in order to create a better business climate throughout Sweden. The opportunities of digitalization need to be better utilized so that service in the state administration can be improved. In this way, a policy of regulatory simplification is created that stems from the companies' needs and which contributes to strengthening the entire Swedish society.

I naturally stand behind all the Social Democratic reservations, but due to lack of time, I move for approval only of reservation 1 regarding the goals of the simplification policy.

(Applause)

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! In the presentation, some criticism was voiced regarding what the newly appointed government and its government base have or have not achieved during the first months of the government's work. However, no self-criticism was voiced regarding how things went for the outgoing government, even though it was highlighted that they had done quite a bit.

Somewhere one must give thanks for the investigations that were nevertheless staged, initiated, and in some cases completed, even if there was no delivery to the Riksdag during eight years. Ibrahim Baylan was in the role of Minister for Enterprise on a solid tour. He shook hands, took pictures, and had press releases during his so-called simplification journey. There he was very skilled in terms of communication, at least as far as talking about rule simplification. This prompted an investigation that was presented and which the Social Democrats did absolutely nothing with.

Now we have a new government that is continuing to work with proposals partly based on that investigation, partly based on other investigations, and partly based on other perspectives.

But I still think it is interesting that Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro is throwing stones in a glass house in the way he does when he blames this government for not having done enough, while the governments that his party entered into over eight years, for my knowledge, did not abolish a single rule or simplify anything in the processes surrounding rule implementation.

It may be that I have missed something. I would therefore like to ask the member to list the actual regulatory simplifications that were achieved during their eight years in power.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I can mention a few. The County Administrative Boards were tasked in the regulatory letters for 2022 to work on their rule application to facilitate for companies. In the previous government's food strategy, one of the three areas was rule simplification. A number of investigations were commissioned that the Sweden Democrats highlight as positive in their committee motion, and one wants to see that those proposals reach the Riksdag quickly. And in the EU, where much of the regulatory complexity lies, the previous government pushed for a uniform patent protection within the EU, which will now begin to apply. This is just one part of the various things that were done.

But I believe we may have different views on what rule simplifications and rule improvements entail. I am standing here rattling off what we concretely did, but for heaven's sake, nothing concrete has come from either Tobias Andersson or the government parties regarding which rule will be removed. It is usually spoken of in terms of volume targets and what percentage should be abolished, but that is nothing concrete. The member may be welcome to say which rule should be removed and in what way it should be simplified during this mandate period. It is not the Socialdemokraterna who are in power anymore. It is the Sverigedemokraterna together with the government parties who are.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I absolutely believe that we have different perceptions of what concrete deregulation policy is. I do not, for example, think that the strategies or the inquiries that the member highlights are concrete examples. That one introduced deregulation into a food strategy or that one appointed inquiries is by definition definitely not an active deregulation policy – but it might be in the right direction. That one made an EU proposal slightly less bad than it would have become is also not an example of an active deregulation policy.

I received, Madam Speaker, no example from the member that a rule that was in the way had actually been abolished.

And on the subject of the EU: An implementation council is probably one of the most important individual measures that can be put forward during this mandate period to limit the expanded bureaucracy and the increasing regulatory complexity coming from the EU side. It is such an issue that the Social Democrats absolutely did not address during the previous mandate period, so I have not yet, Madam Speaker, received any concrete example.

Regarding what this government has done, I highlighted several things in my speech earlier, partly regarding the resource reinforcements that have occurred, not least around the Rule Council, which works actively in this area, and partly the Council on Legislation referral that has already reached the Riksdag regarding the abolition of the permit for prostitution. A matter where there have been announcements, if I am not mistaken, since 2014 without the Social Democrats succeeding in doing anything during their eight years in power, this government has already taken hold of and delivered a proposal to the Riksdag that we can work further with.

In my speech, I also highlighted the Sverigedemokraternas entry point. I do not dare say that the entire government stands behind everything I highlighted, but I spoke about personnel records, cash registers, hotel permits, and many other concrete proposals for regulatory simplification.

The fact remains that the Social Democrats delivered zero and nothing beyond investigations and perhaps strategies.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! It must be very luxurious to be a Member of Parliament and not an entrepreneur and therefore not realize that many of the things I rattled off have actually had an impact, and the entrepreneurs are satisfied that the previous government has taken advantage of the possibilities of digitalization. But it is clear that if one does not find oneself out in reality particularly often, it is perhaps difficult to grasp that information.

I am proud of what we achieved during the eight years we were in power, and I wish we could have done more. But now it is not I or my party who are in power, but it is Tobias Andersson who in practice runs this government, so it is fair game to say which rules should be simplified.

Right now, nothing is happening in this area, and regarding the EU: Sweden is the chair of the EU, but we have not heard a single proposal from the government regarding regulatory improvements at the EU level. We have not heard a single proposal from any of the ministers when we have sat in the committee meetings, where they account for how the EU should work with regulatory simplifications.

This is something that Tobias Andersson should take care of rather than trying to demand answers from me, who sit in opposition. It is still a very strange strategy if one wants to achieve change.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that the vast majority of jobs are found in small and medium-sized enterprises. We also know that it is usually those companies that need the regulatory simplifications. They do not have large administrative or legal departments that can handle it for them. Not facilitating this means that these companies have to devote time and effort to meeting the requirements, something they could instead devote to something more productive.

I would like to say that all parties in the chamber are in favor of regulatory simplifications. It is not the case that we sit here and try to complicate things. The question is perhaps more how and at what cost. For us, it is important that it goes hand in hand with not compromising on, for example, environmental requirements or workers' rights. That said, it does not mean that there are no ways to facilitate.

We can observe that some of the administrative requirements mentioned here earlier come from the EU, and in certain areas, they have increased over the years. Here, I want to draw attention to the situation of small businesses and sole proprietorships. They have essentially the same laws and regulations to follow as the larger companies but, as I pointed out earlier, with fewer resources to devote to administration.

Some improvements have nevertheless been made, and I believe that is the way forward to reduce the administrative burden. It is about, for example, the simplification of the submission of information. There, the authorities' digital services have played a role. It saves time and money for both companies and authorities.

I remember a farmer who described how the regulatory burden had increased, in some cases understandably, in some cases not entirely appropriately. But what caused the most headaches was having to submit the same information to different authorities as well as the authorities not coordinating their reviews of the operations. It required time and could in some cases be exhausting. Here we need to continue to work to achieve some form of consistent thinking.

This also applies to the entrepreneur in the suburbs who works 24/7 to make ends meet and must manage the administrative tasks when he or she finally gets home. Here, I also want to highlight all the small business owners with a foreign background who do not have Swedish as their first language. There are quite a few of them. Some have chosen to become small business owners after encountering discrimination in the labor market. Others bring with them the experience of having been an entrepreneur in their home country. Others have wanted to work independently with, for example, innovations.

Regardless, they contribute to building society through taxes and through job creation. But the information for these entrepreneurs is not entirely easily accessible. Here, authorities and institutions must become better. That would also be a part of facilitating the administrative burden, improving the economy, and increasing the well-being of small business owners.

It should be simple, and the digital should facilitate. We can find ways forward to simplify for entrepreneurs while simultaneously pushing forward environmental and climate laws and protecting workers' rights. It creates the conditions for the future's business life.

I also want to take the opportunity to highlight other ways to simplify everyday life and reduce the workload for small business owners. Today, employers are responsible for paying sick pay for 14 days, and even if smaller companies as a collective have lower sickness absence than the average, the sick pay costs can cause problems. A smaller company does not always have the same resources and perhaps not the same knowledge as a larger company. Much speaks for the fact that the rules in question affect the companies' willingness to hire. Therefore, we believe that smaller companies should be exempt from paying 14 days of sick pay.

This is one of several proposals that I believe could facilitate things for small business owners.

I want to conclude by highlighting that simplification of regulations is important. But it is also important to stop the bankruptcies that are currently occurring among companies and do something about the negative trend regarding the creation of new companies. Therefore, we from Vänsterpartiet have submitted an interpellation on the issue, which I hope we will be able to debate here soon.

The second thing I want to raise concerns the budget for regions and municipalities. I previously raised here in the chamber that processing times create major problems for small business owners and that the authorities cannot provide people who can support them in this. The budget that municipalities and regions have received will, of course, cause the processing times to increase. Small business owners will have a harder time reaching the right person, and that will, of course, make things more difficult for them.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 6.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! "Regulatory simplification for companies" sounds a bit strange sometimes. I will borrow the British expression. There, they call it "better regulation" – better rules for companies, and that is actually what it should be about.

It is not about the companies complaining that they should have it easier because they are pitied, but it is about freeing up as much time as possible so that they can do what they are good at, hopefully a little better profit and with that hire more. That is where growth occurs and employment opportunities are created.

There are actually only two ways to reduce the amount of regulations, namely fewer stupid rules in, as the companies say, and more rules out. There is no other way to do this.

Let me start with fewer rules in. The most important part in this is to ensure that the consequence descriptions are done properly. I have used the consequence descriptions so that those sitting here in the chamber shall understand the effect of a bill that may look reasonable on the drawing board, but they must understand what the effect will be for the companies.

When investigations produce these consequence descriptions today, half of them are rejected. An investigation can work anywhere between six months and three years, but it does not have the ability to describe the investigation's effects on the companies. Half of them are rejected. Then one has not thought that consequence descriptions are sufficiently important.

These consequence descriptions are made when the investigation is practically complete, but they should be made somewhere halfway through the investigation. Then one can understand how the proposal can be adjusted so that it becomes better for the companies from the very beginning. It is that change of the consequence assessments that is needed.

Then someone must look at the impact assessments and see if they work well. That is where the Council on Legislation comes in. I will do a small historical look back. When the Council on Legislation was created in 2008, all heads of legal affairs said in unison that it is impossible to have a council on legislation in Sweden. They may exist in other countries, but we cannot have it. It does not work in our parliamentary way of working.

Finally, it was a former Justice of the Supreme Court who sent a letter to the Ministry of Enterprise and wrote that he had thought about the question and how it could work. With that help from the outside, Maud Olofsson could handle the heads of agencies' reluctance to introduce the Rule Council. The Rule Council was launched, and it initially had the effect it was intended to have, namely to review the impact assessments and act as a stopping function.

Since then, different governments have sidelined the Rule Council at the Swedish Agency for Economic and Innovation. I can state that during my years as chairman of the Rule Council, it did not function as intended. The Rule Council must become an independent agency, and the Rule Council must be able to enter earlier and review the impact assessments so that we here in the chamber can make the right decisions – or even earlier so that the government can see when decisions that looked good on the drawing board will not work for the companies. There are many who will say that it is not possible, that it is not possible to enter earlier in the decision-making process. I am sure that there are some former Justices of the Supreme Court who can come up with smart solutions on how to move the people who are currently resisting.

This is the way we can reduce the amount of regulations that come in. How are we going to get out more regulations?

It is primarily on the agency side that companies feel the rules are becoming complicated. When we have made reasonable decisions in the chamber, the decisions are then passed on to an agency, which is to produce an instruction. Somewhere along the way, new types of rules and information points that the companies must receive are added. The only way to access this is to be super tough in the regulatory letters. Even ministers and state secretaries must follow up on these issues. There is talk of gold-plating in the EU, but here there are agencies that take advantage of it because it is practical for them to collect more information.

Simplification of regulations is about who it should be easiest for. It is clear that as a decision-maker or the one who runs an agency, it is easiest to get as much information as possible. But it is not for them that it should be easy, it should be simpler, more transparent, more intuitive and more digitized for the companies because that is when it becomes a more efficient governance from the agency's side and a more efficient handling of the companies' submission of tasks.

There are a number of investigations completed that we have debated previously. Since several of the investigations were commissioned at the initiative of the Center Party, it is my hope that they will result in government bills.

I also hope that we can make more progress on what concerns having a way in. There are quite a few things that concern resistance from the companies. It is not possible to co-process registers, and therefore they get stuck all the time. We have talked about a way in for 20 years. But companies can decide for themselves, just as I decide that one can take a credit check on me. Other companies, or when using a financial service, can produce all the information about me, exactly all the credits I as a business owner have. If it can be placed back on the companies, it can become simpler.

This is a large and goal-oriented task, and I am pleased that there is a broad consensus on what needs to be done. With that, it should be possible for the Chamber to move the regulatory simplification work during the mandate period.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation 16 under point 10 and reservation 12 under point 12.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! The evening is drawing to a close.

I want to start by reacting to the debate we have had today because everyone seems to agree on the need for regulatory improvements. The parties that are now in government have not answered what concrete measures they want to take to improve the regulatory framework and work with regulatory simplifications.

We have heard the Moderates say that they believe authority governance is important, that they want to see a lot of workshop, but then they cannot answer as to what types of measures they want to take and what regulatory letter changes they want to make.

We have also heard the Christian Democrats say that one in government shall work wholeheartedly with the issues, but one has also not mentioned any concrete regulatory letter changes.

When we in Miljöpartiet were in government, we worked together with the Social Democrats and other parties on those types of issues. I can mention on the spot that when we worked with the agricultural subsidies that agricultural companies receive from the EU, which are often extensive, large and complicated, we worked actively to make it easier and simpler for farmers and agricultural companies to apply for EU support and agricultural subsidies. There are many concrete ways the government could work to improve, and it is remarkable when one uses such big words to sound like it is very important, that one wants to do a lot, but then cannot come up with concrete policy and what one does in government.

I also want to mention that the area is closely linked to climate work and the green transition. When Miljöpartiet was in government, we commissioned both the Climate Justice Inquiry and the Environmental Assessment Inquiry. They provided concrete proposals that can improve the permit processes, and they are an important step for the business sector's green transition. But we have not yet seen a government bill.

Madam Speaker! Better conditions and social safety nets for entrepreneurs release and safeguard people's entrepreneurship. Sweden and Europe need a diversity of large and small companies that provide opportunities for livelihood, create jobs, and contribute to quality of life and a positive social development.

More and more Swedes want to start companies. We shall take advantage of this power and creativity by improving conditions and reducing red tape for entrepreneurs. More should be given the opportunity to control their own work and create their own livelihood.

To release and utilize people's entrepreneurship, innovative power, and creativity, entrepreneurship needs to be secure and simple. We want to improve the security systems for freelancers, combinators, and sole traders and facilitate growth and hiring for micro-enterprises by lowering taxes and fees and reducing red tape.

It is also important that there are good conditions for a diversity of corporate forms that enable operations to be conducted based on the respective business's needs and possibilities. Therefore, cooperatives, employee-owned companies, and social enterprises should be given equally good conditions as limited companies to obtain loans. Furthermore, the tax system should facilitate both employee-owned and social enterprises as well as cooperatives during generational transitions.

Madam Speaker! State support for companies and regional development should be adapted so that it can also benefit companies within cultural and creative industries, nature tourism entrepreneurs, food artisans, and the local business community.

Local economic development should be promoted and better conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises should be created. We in Miljöpartiet would, for example, like to see better access to risk capital and opportunities for corporate consulting for small and medium-sized enterprises across the entire country.

I move for approval of reservation 6.

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Söderberg, for the speech! If there is one thing I have been wishing for here tonight, it is the Social Democrats' time machine. Now, it is perhaps also the Green Party's mirror.

When it comes to business issues, the Green Party has a lot to answer for. This applies in particular to business in rural areas, where the Green Party deliberately pursues a line that complicates matters for Swedish forestry and for development in rural areas when it comes to requirements for the protection of more forest and requirements for expanded shore protection. That the Green Party would pursue a line that has simplified life for Swedish rural businesses – that, I would say, is not correct.

Let me also remind Miljöpartiet of one thing. I believe it was Tobias Andersson who, in a previous speech, spoke about throwing stones in glass houses. Here, if the member will excuse me, it is rather about hurling boulders. This government has, in fact, had a situation to begin handling after the change of government where Miljöpartiet, with the Social Democrats' good memory, left a bit of a running bill for Sweden and for Sweden's entrepreneurs.

It is not least about the energy supply, which was debated here earlier this evening, where Miljöpartiet has been an effective brake on the green transition that the business community wants to drive and can drive but is now standing still because there is not enough electricity because Miljöpartiet for many years has pursued a line that goes directly against the need for predictable and stable electricity.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet see that the demand to strengthen biodiversity and increase carbon sequestration in the forest comes from the EU, from customers, and from the business sector.

What we have driven in the government is to give individual forest owners and the forestry industry the conditions to create business benefits in the work of strengthening biodiversity and increasing carbon sequestration in the forest, in addition to producing forest products, and to ensure that one receives more business benefit when one can deliver more sustainably produced forest products to society. We have worked for this both in the EU and in the government. We want to see more tools for forest owners so that they can get business benefits in that which also contributes positively to the whole society and the ecosystems that we all depend on.

I think it is exciting that every time a government party is pushed out, this safety blanket about nuclear power comes up. We have an electricity system in Sweden that is stable, and Miljöpartiet worked in government to ensure that we got a cross-bloc energy agreement that would provide long-term rules of the game and a long-term energy policy for the business community – exactly what the business community has requested. But then we had parties that left this agreement, and now the business community is once again requesting long-term rules of the game.

During the time we sat in government, electricity production in Sweden increased. Sweden is today a large net exporter. We have more electricity production in Sweden. On the other hand, we have local power shortages, especially in southern Sweden where, above all, moderately-led municipalities have constantly said no to wind power production.

We in Miljöpartiet have, in government, instead worked on developing long-term strategies for a rapid expansion of offshore wind power. Defense, environmental issues, and energy production were to be reviewed to identify the most strategic areas at an early stage so that we would get the electricity in place.

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I would say that Miljöpartiet is misleading the public regarding its own forest policy.

It is an absolute prerequisite for entrepreneurs to make the business work in order for them to also be able to contribute to climate benefits and to the green transition. It is my firm opinion that the companies want that. The mission of politics here is to simplify that journey and make it possible to have a profitable company in Sweden and at the same time contribute to the innovation and the transition that climate change requires.

The Green Party must occasionally land in reality. The Moderates spend their time there. Now we also have the opportunity to be in Rosenbad, and our work is characterized by the fact that the whole must function. Ultimately, the ideas must be able to be financed and align with reality. This is what the business community and Swedish entrepreneurs need: a government that sees the challenges and sets the goals at reasonable levels.

Let me just say, regarding the direction to authorities and proposals for regulatory changes, that they exist. I believe that Member Söderberg knows very well that there is also a large amount of work already done regarding regulatory simplification. But a government that wants to take responsibility as a government and, together with the government base, push through effective measures to improve the Swedish business climate must create this overall picture. Miljöpartiet has unfortunately often missed it, and it has been to the detriment of Swedish competitiveness and Swedish entrepreneurship.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I note again that I am not receiving any answers regarding what the Moderaterna concretely want to do for regulatory simplifications or regulatory improvements. Instead, there are attacks on Miljöpartiet and a number of large, fluffy words: as a whole, bottom line, objectives at reasonable levels. It is said that there is a lot of work, but nothing concrete comes regarding what Moderaterna want to do to improve for the business sector through regulatory simplifications or regulatory improvements.

When it comes to the forestry industry, I am speaking specifically about things we did in the forestry bill to give forest owners more tools to be able to create business benefits when they contribute actively and positively to a strengthened biodiversity and increased carbon sequestration in the forest – something that is required for us to meet both environmental goals and Agenda 2030 goals and ensure a long-term robust raw material supply to society from the forestry industry.

I regret once again that we are not receiving any concretization from the Moderates, the Prime Minister's party, regarding the simplification and improvement of rules, which we are debating today.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! Now you are probably wondering a bit what I am doing. A member should adhere to the rules regarding motions and not make mysterious motions. I therefore wish to supplement so that it becomes correct and move for the approval of reservation 16 under point 10 and reservation 19 under point 12.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 13 April.)

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