Regulatory simplification for companies

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is always a solemn moment in the chamber when we get to debate Sweden's most important issue, namely how we strengthen the conditions for our Swedish entrepreneurs and thereby Swedish prosperity and Swedish competitiveness. Regulatory simplification plays a given main role in that work, and it is precisely regulatory simplification that we shall debate here today.

Let me begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

Mr. Speaker! Entrepreneurs are often described as problem solvers. And rightly so, because during the company visits I make around my home county of Sörmland, I am always struck by how the ability to pivot and find new ways really stands out, whether it concerns the consequences of a war or a pandemic or problems with the supply of skills.

I experience that most entrepreneurs find ways to solve things. But there are mountains they cannot move, and those are politically decided rules. Unlike natural mountains, they tend to grow. As many as half of the entrepreneurs 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 estimated total cost of the regulatory burden for companies – for the companies, that is, Mr. Speaker. To that comes, of course, the cost carousel that over-bureaucratization also causes for 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. The green transition is slowed by permit processes that cause the industry to stand still instead of taking the lead in the 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 clumsiness. Far too many entrepreneurs, not least in the countryside, experience that the state overrides them in matters where property rights should be respected and the business protected. It creates an insecurity that is completely unacceptable.

I became politically engaged because I wanted to contribute to a politics that paves the way instead of standing in the way. Business is truly a matter of the heart, because it is fundamental for Sweden, not only because it creates jobs but also 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 simple, secure, and profitable to be an entrepreneur in Sweden.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is some work to be done. Sweden needs a substantial wave of deregulation. And 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. It is, on the contrary, largely about not making things complicated but about simplifying. And the great journey of simplification has begun.

Sweden now has a government with 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. It is therefore gratifying to note that we can now, in the Tidö agreement, also move from election promise to action in this matter.

A reduced regulatory burden and a stronger business climate are achieved primarily in two ways: political proposals and political leadership.

Regarding management, Swedish agencies and authorities have in both budgets and regulatory letters received a clear mandate to reduce the regulatory burden and administrative costs for companies as well as to improve responsiveness and service levels towards the business sector. It is a clear political commission that Myndighetssverige now has to deliver on. The agencies have furthermore received both specific resources and a clear mandate to shorten their processing times. Also, the permit processes shall be made more efficient, legally secure, and predictable.

Regarding the proposal, extensive preparatory work is underway that handles both the strengthening of the Regulatory Council and the implementation council to be introduced, which shall specifically aim to reduce the regulatory burden and stop the over-implementation of EU rules. Today, the announcement was also made that the previously signaled Simplification Council is being established, a council with the purpose of clearing out the existing regulatory flora based on the starting point that the justification for a regulation's existence shall be that it solves and does not create problems.

These are large, broad measures that are fundamentally intended to handle the regulatory burden. In addition to that, several separate measures have been taken, such as abolishing the receipt requirement and that fewer companies will need to report VAT and be given opportunities for simplified invoicing. More measures to simplify for micro-enterprises are being prepared at the Government Offices, and a review of the 3:12 rules shall be conducted.

Simplifications with a clear impact on entrepreneurship, small business ownership, 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 counter 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 our development. With a good business climate, the conditions are strengthened for more Swedish business ideas and inventions, which 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 Tidö colleagues, have initiated an extensive simplification journey. This is stated in the Committee on Industry's report. It is also stated here that there is a broad political commitment to the issue, and that is fundamentally good. I also note that all reservations address issues that are included in the government's preparation of the regulatory simplification work. This creates conditions for good progress in the political work and thus for strengthened entrepreneurship.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are talking about regulatory simplifications, and the Moderates are claiming that we are going to have a wave of deregulation. I wonder if the Moderates can clarify what specific rules they want to change.

There are quite a few unnecessary old rules and unnecessary bureaucracy that can be improved, developed, and simplified for Swedish companies. But the basis for why most rules have been introduced is various purposes that we want to achieve in society. We have ensured that we do not have toxic substances in our immediate environment, in what we eat, and in chemicals in products that our children are to be able to play with. We want to ensure that no serious economic crime occurs in our companies and want that companies can be monitored and supervised so that the economy is managed in a correct way.

There are opportunities for improvement, but to only speak of a wave of deregulation in the terms that the Moderaterna do here will amount to nothing more than platitudes if one cannot clarify what it is that one wants to change.

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Elin Söderberg for the question.

The Green Party's interest in regulatory simplification is very welcome. But I find the question a bit strange. Let me gladly repeat what I said in my speech. Yes, we need a serious and comprehensive simplification process. If I understand correctly, we all here are in agreement. If the Green Party has a differing opinion, it would be good if it were clarified. I also said that the justification for the rules we have should be that they solve problems, not that they create problems. I and the Moderates are therefore not advocating for a rule-free society, but we are very far from that. A substantial review needs to be made of the unnecessary bureaucracy that is accumulated on the shoulders of entrepreneurs in Sweden. That work has now begun with the self-evident goal of creating a wisely regulated business policy for Sweden.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I wonder then why the Moderates do not prioritize, for example, measures for faster permit processes, which could truly facilitate things for companies and are strongly demanded here and now. There are investigated proposals on the government's table and a long series of measures that can be taken with simple means through changes in regulatory letters and budget allocations. But this is what the government chooses not to do. Instead, at some point in the future, they want to speed up the permit processes by appointing a new investigation, and the first point in this investigation is to lower the environmental requirements in Sweden to the EU's minimum level. This would also lower the competitiveness of Swedish companies because Swedish companies are known for their high quality when it comes to the environment and workers' rights.

There are measures that can quickly facilitate regulatory simplifications and permit processes for companies, but the Moderaterna do not prioritize that. The Moderaterna speak in clichés about a wave of deregulation but do not implement what the business community demands, namely faster permit processes here and now.

When one speaks of a broad wave of deregulation, it is relevant to ask what risks one is prepared to expose the Swedish people to through a wave of deregulation when one cannot be clear and concrete and, for example, sets as the first point in the investigation that environmental requirements shall be lowered to the EU's minimum level.

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! Faster, more efficient, and more predictable permitting processes are absolutely crucial for Sweden's climate transition and for the competitiveness of Swedish business. There are already several proposals, and an investigation is underway to develop better permitting processes for Sweden which, of course, will benefit both the climate and Swedish business. It is also clear to us that Swedish business must be competitive against the EU and the rest of the world.

Believe me, things are in motion regarding the permit processes, and there will be major improvements there. Part of this work is also that the level of ambition is being raised in a way that did not happen when Miljöpartiet was involved in governing Sweden.

Now we move forward to obtain a clearer regulatory framework for Swedish companies. A clear and wise regulation also strengthens the security for both entrepreneurs and people.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. We share the interest in regulatory simplifications and we both know how important it is for the companies and for growth.

The government has, as the member has also described, promised simplification advice, implementation advice, and new impact assessments. The new impact assessments have arrived, but they are unfortunately completely toothless. For example, they do not place any requirement on the Government Offices to conduct impact assessments, so when a department memorandum is being prepared in the Government Offices, one does not need to consider what effects it will have for the companies.

But the most important and strongest criticism over the past 15 years has been that the Council on Legislation should enter the process earlier to check if the impact assessments are reasonable, so that legislative proposals do not end up here that the Council on Legislation could have said were not well-analyzed and that the Riksdag therefore does not have a good basis to make decisions on. I know that it is difficult to implement this, but it was possible to introduce a Council on Legislation in the end, even though it was not supposed to be possible 15 years ago.

Why has the government not implemented what entrepreneurs and business organizations demand, namely a regulatory council that has a stop function and that can enter earlier in the process and ensure that bad legislative proposals do not end up in the Riksdag?

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist for the question.

I agree on the importance of wise and ambitious work with regulatory simplification for Swedish companies. This simplification work includes creating wiser rules and better evaluating and conducting impact analyses of the rules that exist and those that are introduced. In addition to the regulatory council we already have, a simplification council is introduced starting today, and soon also an implementation council. I believe it is extremely important to find forms where these can interact in the wisest possible way and jointly strive towards the same goal to achieve a unified effect of the regulatory simplification work.

I believe that impact assessments are something we need to constantly get better at in both rule implementation and political decision-making.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! I agree that it is good to have a simplification council that will look at old legislation. It is also good that the authorities have been tasked with identifying the simplifications to be made and assisting the council in its work. The implementation council is primarily concerned with EU legislation.

All proposals that are written out at the agencies and at the Government Offices must have a consequence description that we can rely on. The only way is for the Council on Regulatory Impact to look at it and say that it is a reasonable analysis of the costs and the estimated time required to fill out a form or find a piece of information. If the Council on Regulatory Impact does not have this function and cannot get involved earlier in the process, nothing will happen.

I ask therefore again: Why has the government not delivered anything so that the Council on Legislation can enter early in the legislative process, even if it is constitutionally very complicated?

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! The Government is now providing the Rule Council with strengthened resources, and a review of the Council's mandate is being conducted. I share the assessment that the consequences section also needs to be strengthened for the Rule Council.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 regarding the general matter of rule simplification for companies.

Just as Anna af Sillén highlighted in her speech, simplification of regulations is of paramount importance to create good conditions for conducting business activity in any form in Sweden. It is therefore incredibly unfortunate that the political commitment in this area has, for far too long and under several governments, been absent to such a great extent. When speaking with the business community, they often mean that the first Reinfeldt government is the only government in modern times that has actively engaged in creating a reduced regulatory burden for companies in Sweden. Since then, most governments have rather failed and the regulatory burden, as well as the costs for the same, has increased.

We now have a government with a government base in which the Sweden Democrats are included. The Sweden Democrats were the first party in the Swedish Riksdag to have a pure rule-simplification motion, and we have long pushed for much of what has now either been started, communicated to enter into force during the mandate period, or has already occurred.

Madam Speaker! In the report that we are debating today, much of old classic Sweden Democrat policy is contained, even though we have a few reservations where we believe the government can go even further or, in some issues, has not yet implemented what has been communicated, which is why the Sweden Democrats want to be clear about where our ambition lies in these areas.

Everything as everything, people talk about how the regulatory burden and the administrative burden amount to 400 billion for the Swedish business community as a whole - there are different estimates, but this is well the highest figure I have seen anyone have assessed. Everything that can then be done from a political standpoint to reduce this means more resources that can be reinvested in the companies or that can go to new hires or investments in new production facilities or be given as dividends to owners who can then invest in other companies or consume them and in different ways thereby contribute to growth, which we all, hopefully, safeguard in the Swedish Riksdag.

A lot has happened there. If we take a clear, simple and concrete proposal, we have announced that the requirement for physical receipts in the reporting shall be removed. The business community appreciates that it is a cost of 6 billion per year for the Swedish business community as a whole that is removed immediately. If one then adds these many small streams that we see, for example, the requirement for physical receipts that shall be removed or the dance license and hotel license and so on, it is clear that it ultimately constitutes a large change for the Swedish business community and significantly more resources that can be reinvested in the operations or in other ways contribute to Swedish growth.

Perhaps the most current thing the government has done is that today we have communicated regarding the simplification council that has been generally known since earlier, not least from the autumn budget, where we allocated 10 million to Tillväxtverket to be able to execute this. It has been announced today how it will be designed and what the ambition with the council is. Sverigedemokraterna have long pushed for us to have an instance in the Swedish state administration with a mandate to work systematically and constructively with the existing regulatory burden.

From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we would perhaps have preferred to see that the simplification council being communicated today and the implementation council that is still being prepared by the government would be merged and thus receive the broad mandate to look at both existing legislation from our Riksdag but also from the EU, as well as the upcoming legislation from Brussels' side. Now, this will consist of two separate bodies. This is better than having nothing, as it looks in the current situation. This has been Sverigedemokraterna's starting point.

Furthermore, there is already one council, and soon we will have three. The existing Rule Council has, just as Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist highlighted here earlier, long requested a broader and significantly stronger mandate and, not least, some form of stopping function. The Sweden Democrats have included this in their motions, and it is also contained in one of our reservations in this report - a rule council that gets more muscles to brake, warn against, and prevent deficient legislation, not least regarding the consequence assessment.

This is an issue where the Sweden Democrats continue to press. I hope that we can strengthen the Rule Council during this mandate period. I also believe that we will see synergy effects between the three councils once all have initiated their work. It is not impossible, at least from our horizon, to see moving forward that it might be wise to have some form of structured cooperation between the councils and perhaps also a structured placement of them. They will, after all, be located within somewhat different parts.

From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we would have preferred to see them placed as high as possible in the political food chain, which in that case reasonably would have been the Government Offices. That is not the case, but we stand behind them and believe that they will be able to contribute significantly to reducing the regulatory burden, given existing legislation, and ensure that the implementation of new legislation occurs in as wise a way as possible and with as few negative effects for Swedish business as possible.

Madam Speaker! In addition to these recommendations, much else has also occurred from the government's side. We have seen that simplification assignments have been issued to about thirty agencies with requirements for reporting on how they actively work with business promotion within the agencies. We have established a group of state secretaries who meet regularly and, from various departments' perspectives, work systematically with regulatory simplification.

We have also seen that work is ongoing regarding both individual examples of deficient legislation – I have mentioned dance permits, hotel permits, and physical receipts so far – as well as the permit processes, which were mentioned in a reply just before I stood up here. There is a broad effort from the government's side to both take into account what previous governments have investigated and to come up with new proposals to facilitate this as much as possible. The political ambition is to significantly simplify the permit processes which are not infrequently raised by the business community as one of the major challenges they see in getting their investment calculations to work, among other things.

Furthermore, we have directed more resources to Verksamt.se to continue supporting their important work in facilitating things for companies. Assignments have been issued to county administrative boards to work more on promoting business. We have simplified so that today fewer companies need to report VAT, and we have tasked the authorities to review their processing times. All of this is happening both regarding the structured part of regulatory simplification and the individual challenges that politics can remove for the business sector. We have come a good way in this area.

Sverigedemokraterna continue to push the government to take further measures to continue promoting Swedish business through an active deregulation policy.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Tobias Andersson for the speech.

We are talking about regulatory simplification in a situation where very many small businesses are seeing their operations collapse. It is a record-high number of bankruptcies in our country, unfortunately. It is of course a great sorrow and loss for the individual entrepreneur, but it also affects the work in Sweden. Many of the small businesses in our country are important job creators and engines of integration.

Something that is particularly burdensome for small and medium-sized enterprises are the high sick pay costs that arise from many short-term sick leaves. This was the reason why we, in 2014, after consultation with the business community, introduced a high-cost protection specifically for sick pay costs. Now the government has announced that it will abolish this high-cost protection for sick pay costs, something that has sparked massive criticism. Visita has even stated that this government obviously has no clue how small businesses are doing.

High costs and more administration will follow in a situation where the regulations need to be improved and more people need to enter the workforce. Why, then, have the Sverigedemokraterna agreed to abolish the high-cost protection for high sick pay costs which primarily affect small businesses?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro for the question.

I believe the member is well aware that our committee does not handle this issue and that it is also not the subject of this debate. I can, of course, raise a number of questions that do not belong to the topic, but I will nevertheless try to meet the member halfway and touch upon this.

I believe it is known to the member that the Sweden Democrats have previously viewed the issue, not least from a small business perspective, where we in opposition have pushed to, among other things, review whether the individual small business owner with few employees should bear the entire cost that it may entail.

Sweden is in an economic situation where we naturally must prioritize in the state finances. It is difficult to isolate a single part of a state budget and say that "just this is bad because," one must instead look at the whole.

Much of what I raised in my speech is such that by definition would have facilitated the industry that the member claimed had criticized this, i.e., the tourism industry. I have just come from a lunch with the tourism industry, I had a meeting with Visita yesterday and I spoke at Visita's meeting in Western Sweden on Monday, so I would like to believe that I am well aware of which issues are being raised from the industry. Not least dance permits, hotel permits, physical receipts etc., where the government has acted, are such things that directly facilitate this industry.

Another issue that is highly topical and which I will debate with the responsible minister on Friday is farm sales, which also highlights the needs that exist in that specific industry.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I have tried to answer the explicit question and highlight what the government is doing that facilitates the affected industry that the member raised. As a Social Democrat, one should perhaps be somewhat self-critical regarding what one did or did not succeed in doing during their time in power. Much of what we are doing in the area of regulatory simplification should have been in place long ago, but it is not because of the Social Democrats.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is strange that, when we talk about regulatory simplification for companies, we say which questions concern our committee. Then it becomes very limited which rules will be discussed. We know that many rules do not necessarily belong to the Committee on Enterprise's area of responsibility or policy area but belong to other committees. But as business politicians, Tobias Andersson, we still need to discuss these issues.

I think it is strange that in a situation where unemployment is increasing and small businesses are having a harder time, one makes it even harder. And not only is it made harder for small businesses, but one stands here and boasts quite a bit about, for example, the permit status which, according to pub owners I have had discussions with, has not turned out well. Now they need to apply for a permit for every single event instead of having a permit for an entire year as before. But that we can debate at another occasion.

What I want to highlight here is that the Social Democratic government took a concrete measure so that it would be easier for the companies and not such burdensome costs for them. LO, Svenskt Näringsliv and Visita, to name a few, have rejected the government's proposal. Despite this, the government has proceeded with that they shall abolish the high-cost protection for high sick pay costs.

As the system is designed today, it primarily benefits small companies. People who are far from the labor market and who have a medical history will now find it harder to get a job because employers will not dare to take the risk. This is symptomatic. One makes it harder for the sick through the sickness insurance, and now one makes it harder for small companies to hire those who have a medical history. I think this is serious, Madam Speaker.

What is the Sweden Democrats' plan for those who have a long history of illness to be able to enter the workforce and for small businesses to be able to participate and contribute to this?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to be clear towards Member Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro that I did answer the question. I highlighted the fact that it does not belong to our committee or report. I gave an answer to the question. I highlighted several things concerning the report that can facilitate the industry that the Member referred to.

However, Madam Speaker, I do not think that it is in a debate on rule simplification that one should talk about what one does for the long-term unemployed. I believe there are other forums in the Swedish Riksdag where these issues can be highlighted in a better way.

With this said, I think it is interesting to hear a Social Democrat who so strongly defends views from Svenskt Näringsliv. It is not every day we hear it, on the contrary. At quite many meetings with entrepreneurs, we lack representatives from the opposition because one perhaps chooses to prioritize differently.

I believe it would be good if the Social Democrats chose to listen to what the industry says to a greater extent, not least when it comes from such a broad actor as Svenskt Näringsliv. I appreciate that Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro refers to their views in this case, but I regret that it happens so infrequently.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I would, again, if I were a Social Democrat, have been very careful about throwing stones in glass houses and claiming that the sitting government is doing too little in the area of regulatory simplification. The member mentioned the current situation, where there has been political support for as long as ever. Still, the Social Democrats have not succeeded with it.

I mentioned farm sales, which concerns the same branch. It has been over a decade that there has been support in this chamber to push through something such as that, but still, the Social Democrats failed with it.

Having a structured work on the area of regulatory simplification has been raised by the industry for as long as anything, but the Social Democrats failed to get either a simplification council or an implementation council in place.

I wish, Madam Speaker, that the government could have focused on other things and that previous governments had carried out active work in this area, but we are forced to deal with the failures that we have inherited.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the conditions for companies to act easily and smoothly in Sweden, it is the government's policy in its entirety that determines the companies' conditions. Now, the Tidö government has significantly cut funding to several agencies that have worked, for example, to digitize and simplify processes for companies.

I wonder: What risks do the Sweden Democrats see with this? Why have the Sweden Democrats ensured that the agencies that have worked to facilitate for Swedish companies have been scaled back? What impact assessments has the government made of its overall policy regarding simple processes for companies?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Elin Söderberg! In my speech, I tried to highlight much of what the government has done to facilitate things for the Swedish business community when it comes to regulatory simplifications. I mentioned, among other things, the additions made to Verksamt.se and that work continues with the platform to facilitate in just those issues that the member highlights.

Speaking of what authorities do or do not do, the government has finally been clear towards a broad range of authorities that they need to work significantly more closely with the business sector. They have received reporting requirements regarding how they actively work with this.

We see that the regulatory advice presented today will scrutinize everything in existing legislation that is deemed relevant, to look at where there are deficiencies and what can be done from the political side to facilitate for Swedish business when it comes to bureaucracy, regulatory complications, administration or, for that matter, digital presence.

We have directed more funds to Tillväxtverket for exactly this. We have directed assignments to about thirty agencies. We have given assignments to county administrative boards. I feel that we have done everything requested by Member Elin Söderberg. The Member is, however, welcome to elaborate on which agencies have received fewer resources to work with exactly this. I can account for exactly what we have done for all agencies that are to work more with the issue.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I also want to highlight the needs of the business sector. I meet with Svenskt Näringsliv and many industry organizations, and it is clear what is being requested: more electricity in the near term, skills supply, and faster permit processes.

The government is now, together with the Sweden Democrats, cutting back significantly on labor migration in a situation where the business sector needs to recruit staff for its climate transition and its economic development. In that regard, the supply of skills is central.

We have several regions in the country where the situation has shifted from lacking staff with a specific type of competence to lacking staff with broad competence - hands and feet. To then cut back on companies' possibilities to recruit from the whole world hits Swedish business development very heavily.

When it comes to electricity in the near term, we need to get more electricity in place now, but the government is presenting an energy bill that does not contain any planning goal for 2030 and delays the work of expanding electricity production in the near term.

When it comes to permit processes, which are highly relevant in this debate, the Tidö parties choose not to implement already investigated proposals. Instead, they once again postpone the work and appoint a new investigation, which furthermore worsens the conditions in our country by lowering the environmental performance in Sweden.

There is much we can do to support Svenskt Näringsliv, but the government and Sverigedemokraterna are not delivering it.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I did not perceive any question from Member Elin Söderberg. I, however, asked a concrete question about which authorities the Member claims we have cut resources for, which has affected their ability to work with regulatory simplification. That is how the exchange of remarks began. I wanted to know which authorities were affected. I received no answer to that, but the Member chose instead to throw three other balls into the air. I will try to answer those questions, because I think it is wise to do so in exchanges of remarks.

Regarding labor migration, I believe that Miljöpartiet cares more about uncontrolled migration to Sweden than about the conditions for Swedish companies to recruit. I believe that is where one starts when, as a member of Miljöpartiet, one wants to facilitate all types of migration, including low-skilled labor migration, despite the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in Sweden. I would have preferred to start at the other end: How do we ensure competence in Sweden while simultaneously getting Swedes to move from benefits to work and having a controlled migration to Sweden?

Regarding the permit processes, I think it is good that the government sees it as a collective area. Some things have already emerged from the government in that area, while at the same time an overall effort is being made to collectively tackle the challenges.

Then it is absolutely true in some sense that one will need to weigh different interests against each other, because the environmental interest that Miljöpartiet defends often stands in absurdum against other interests. At home in Skaraborg, we were about to lose approximately 3,000 jobs because there were potentially a couple of lizards. Now, however, they could be found and allowed to socialize with lizard friends somewhere else.

It is clear that many, not least within the business sector, believe that one should look at environmental aspects, climate aspects, and other aspects that are important for Swedish society and weigh them against each other in a more reasonable way in the future. I dare to admit that, and I believe it is very reasonable.

We have a checkpoint 2030 but no goal for the planning. Thus, the member also received an answer to that question.

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

Lili André (KD)

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

As a representative for the Christian Democrats, I stand here today to highlight an issue of utmost importance for our society and our economy, namely regulatory simplification for companies.

In the budget bill for 2024, the government has taken important steps toward reducing the administrative burden resting on the shoulders of companies. These measures are a necessary response to the challenges our companies face and constitute a step in the right direction toward a more flourishing business environment in Sweden. It is a step that we Christian Democrats fully support and see as fundamental for creating a more business-friendly climate in Sweden.

Rules for companies are fundamentally good, Madam Speaker. They create structure and clarity, and they create opportunities for competition on fair terms. But it is incredibly important that the rules are purposeful and that they are proportionate, easy to understand and easy to follow. The rules should also be as few as possible. As people often say: It should be easy to do the right thing.

Surveys show that entrepreneurs are forced to spend an average of ten hours a week on administration and that six out of ten entrepreneurs experience regulations as a growth barrier. It becomes particularly burdensome, of course, for all smaller companies that do not have the same administrative muscles as the large companies. Shortening processing times is of great importance for a competitive business climate.

A very concrete and clear example of this that we have in the present, Madam Speaker, is the initiative to abolish the requirement to preserve accounting information in original. As a business owner, one is no longer required to save paper receipts for three years if one has the same information stored digitally. But does this mean anything? Yes, it is estimated that this seemingly small administrative change involves a cost reduction for Sweden's collective business sector of a staggering 4 billion kronor over one year.

Then we have the abolition of the danhill permit as well as the proposal for the abolition of the hotel permit. These are long-awaited freedom reforms. By removing the requirements for these outdated permits, bureaucracy and costs for the companies are reduced.

Madam Speaker! Agency cooperation constitutes a central part of the government's simplification agenda. In a time when the administrative burdens on companies constantly seem to increase, we in the Christian Democrats see that the government's initiative for a cross-cutting and sector-wide approach for Sweden's agencies is not only welcome but necessary.

Here, the government has specified measures in the regulatory letters to 26 agencies, including the county administrative boards. This concerns, among other things, shorter and more transparent processing times as well as responsiveness and service towards companies. Cases shall be processed as simply, quickly and cost-effectively as possible - obviously without compromising legal certainty - and everything shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.

This, Madam Speaker, shows a deep understanding of the challenges that companies face and a firm commitment to facilitating their everyday lives. Furthermore, it is of great importance that the authorities do not only carry out these assignments but also report back. The reporting requirement is crucial to ensure that the simplification work is not just words on paper but leads to real changes that benefit Sweden's entrepreneurs.

I also want to highlight the need to continue improving and streamlining permit processes, Madam Speaker. Modern and efficient permit processes increase the willingness to invest among our companies and promote an effective industrial climate transition, which contributes to the climate and environmental goals being reached. These are crucial measures to maintain and strengthen the competitiveness of both Sweden and Swedish companies.

I want to emphasize that the Christian Democrats' commitment to the well-being of companies is reflected in the support for the government's work on simplification through digitalization, especially through the joint agency platform Verksamt.se. It is an important tool in the work to make it easier to start and run companies. It is crucial that we continue to expand and improve the platform so that it can be a central force in the simplification work and in this way facilitate for companies to start, run, and develop their operations.

In addition to the measures already mentioned, Madam Speaker, we Christians Democrats want to highlight the importance of a review of existing regulatory frameworks. We cannot simply create new simplifications without reviewing and evaluating the rules that already exist. We need to ensure that they are relevant and do not constitute unnecessary obstacles for our companies. Here, we would like to gladly announce that we have today announced that a simplification council will be established and that a later an implementation council will also be established.

The Simplification Council's mandate includes identifying existing rules that should be simplified. The Implementation Council shall provide recommendations when EU directives are to be implemented and thereby counteract unjustified regulatory burdens. The two councils have the potential to act quickly and effectively to identify and implement necessary measures.

Madam Speaker! The government's intensive and prioritized work with simplification is not just a matter of reducing bureaucracy. It is about creating a more dynamic and competitive business sector in Sweden. When companies are freed from unnecessary and time-consuming administrative processes, they can instead focus on innovation and expansion that create new jobs. It creates a more robust business sector that can contribute to the welfare of our entire society.

Finally, Madam Speaker: A fundamental pillar in the government's and the Christian Democrats' endeavor is to strengthen Sweden's economy and its position as one of the world's most business-friendly countries. I want to emphasize that the government's commitment to simplifying things for companies is not a one-time effort but an ongoing process that requires continuous attention and improvement. It is through such measures that we can ensure that our business sector not only survives but also thrives and grows in Sweden. We Christian Democrats are ready to support and drive this work forward to together build a stronger and more competitive Sweden.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move again for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Madam Speaker! We are facing a race for investments in the green transition. I cannot comprehend what would be more important for small and medium-sized enterprises than being given the conditions to deliver products and services and benefit from the massive investments we see in our country right now. Many of the country's entrepreneurs are visionaries with visions that align with what is good for Sweden: jobs, green innovations that generate growth, and companies that grow in Sweden and see a strengthened ability to export Swedish goods.

We do, however, have a government that can best be described as populists in matters concerning regulatory simplification. This applies to a lot of other issues as well, Madam Speaker. But if we are to talk about specifically regulatory simplification, we can observe that the government gives 34 agencies a mandate to work with regulatory simplification, but with the other hand cuts directly into Myndighetssverige by 1-1.5 billion SEK. How is one supposed to work on improving the regulatory frameworks in Sweden if one does not receive sufficient resources to do so? There are several agencies that are ready to begin a journey to reduce the hassle and improve relations with the business community.

I want to advise the government parties to look at Sustaingov, one of the five strategic innovation programs being launched this spring. The program aims to solve the systemic issues that the public sector has in relation to, above all, the highly innovative small and medium-sized enterprises. It looks at how authorities and the business sector can become better at collaborating and how authorities can become enablers instead of bottlenecks. It was a pity that no one from the government parties was present when the program was launched. I believe you would have learned something.

Madam Speaker! An important perspective for us Social Democrats is the economic security for the country's small business owners, who are in a difficult situation. Improvements need to be made regarding red tape, bankruptcies, and income qualifying for sickness benefit, to name a few things. The Social Democratic government had a number of proposals to facilitate the systems regarding income qualifying for sickness benefit for small business owners, but we can state that this government has done nothing in this area.

When we established the simplification policy goals in 2021, it was with the aim of reducing the complexity in the regulations we have, both at the system level and the sectoral level. This government needs to continue on the path taken and implement the regulatory improvements that are required. One needs to listen to the entire business community to create a better business climate in Sweden. One also needs to take better advantage of the opportunities of digitalization to improve the service in the state administration and in that way create a simplification policy that starts from the companies' needs and contributes to strengthening the entire Swedish society.

But this government says a lot and delivers little. One gives with one hand and takes away with the other. One cuts back on agencies at the same time as they are expected to work with expanded mandates such as regulatory simplification. One introduces a council for regulatory simplification without any concrete specification or impact assessment, one gives 5 million to Kommunsverige for work with digital services while simultaneously cutting back on the municipalities' funding, and one makes cuts in Innovationssverige, to mention a few things.

It is not regulatory improvements that this government is presenting. It is words without effect when you pull the rug out from under the innovation area and from the authorities' ability to work with precisely regulatory improvements. This is serious. They seem to want to handpick who should get it better and who should get it worse. The most highly innovative companies in Sweden have fared worse with this government's policy.

When populism takes over instead of reason and logic, the entire competitiveness of Sweden is at risk, and it is serious. The government base's view on innovations and its total neglect of their prerequisites to grow and contribute to Swedish competitiveness is sad to witness. I therefore move for approval of reservation 6.

(Applause)

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! It is wonderful to hear how we have a consensus here in the chamber that we need to reduce the regulatory burden for companies. I also believe we can agree that the rules we have need to be well-justified and few. If the rules are not, we undermine people's willingness to follow them.

There is much that can be improved regarding the opportunities to run businesses in Sweden. Sometimes we unfortunately see how the public sector stands in the way of private entrepreneurship. For the Liberals, we therefore want to see a mandate of promotion given to state agencies to favor entrepreneurship. The agencies' task should not only be to control and stop irregularities but also to help people and companies do the right thing.

For a number of years, we have seen how companies' costs for complying with the rules we establish have increased by several billion. It is not reasonable, and it also underscores the need for the regulatory simplifications that this government has now proposed. The Liberals believe that the permit process should be reformed and simplified. Reporting of data from companies to the authorities should occur only once—the so-called one-in, one-out function—and the principle "one rule in, one rule out" should be tested. The regulatory burden and the administrative costs need to decrease so that companies and entrepreneurs can focus on their core activities.

Madam Speaker! Today, just a moment ago, the Simplification Council was announced, which the government is now appointing and which is specifically intended to reduce the regulatory burden and administrative costs for companies. The purpose is that it should be able to propose how existing Swedish regulations can be simplified and submit proposals for other simplification measures that will make it easier for companies to comply with the regulations. I believe that this is very important, because it reduces the regulatory burden and the costs for companies and makes it easier to follow the rules that we have. It is an important step in the completely right direction.

The work will now begin which will make it easier to both start and run companies in Sweden. Through this, we strengthen Swedish competitiveness and promote innovation and new business models. I move for approval of the proposal in the Committee on Enterprise's report.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Madam Speaker! The majority of small business owners do not have such large problems with red tape. There is an accounting law to be followed, and when things get complicated, one purchases services to get it fixed. For companies with no or a few employees where everyone works with a laptop on their lap or possibly at a desk, not so many complications arise.

But as soon as one grows, or if one has a company that handles food or animals, one is hit by a complete regulatory tsunami. The legal requirements within, for example, Swedish agriculture have more than doubled during the last 25 years. In 1996, there were 278 legal requirements concerning agriculture. In 2021, that figure had increased to 648. To this are added 2,200 ordinances and 8,000 regulations. The rules are complicated, too many, and at times completely contradictory.

Agriculture meets 16 different authorities. The government has tasked these authorities with finding regulatory simplifications, which we have talked about today. Then it should be over with contradictory and impossible assignments. No, it is not! Now in April, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency reported a government assignment where they propose new so-called reference areas for nature types according to the Habitats Directive. A reference area is a reference value for how large an area needs to be for a certain nature type to be ensured over time. The proposal has been prepared by the Swedish Forest Agency, the Swedish Board of Agriculture, and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management.

According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's proposal, 100,000-370,000 hectares of pasture land need to be recreated. In many cases, it will be land that is currently forested that needs to be restored. The Centre Party naturally believes that increased agricultural production is important both for peacetime and for times of unrest. It also contributes to better biodiversity. But the great challenge is that the EU's Deforestation Regulation prohibits the sale of timber harvested to recreate pastures and the sale of meat from animals that graze on the recreated land. This type of proposal from authorities and the Government Offices must be stopped.

Madam Speaker! All these rules do not only create paperwork but also often result in visits from various authorities, both national and local. The inspections are to be fee-financed, but sometimes there are completely unreasonable costs for exactly the same visit, and the differences between different parts of Sweden show that it cannot be based on costs.

The Business Regulatory Board, which, at the companies' own request, conducts investigations into costs and regulatory burdens, has looked at the cost for, for example, building permits in different municipalities. Within Sweden, the processing time for an identical case can vary by as much as ten weeks, and the total fee varies by over 200,000 kronor. Then you think, of course, that there are different conditions in northern Sweden and southern Sweden, so it might not be so strange that there are large fee differences. But the funny - or sad - thing is that the cheapest building permit is in Perstorp at 7,000 kronor and the most expensive is in Svedala at 189,000 kronor, and there is thus less than nine miles between these municipalities.

Companies and the tourism industry pay many fees in connection with applications and permits. Examples of such are permits or supervision according to alcohol, food, and environmental legislation. If we take Skåne as an example, the cost for a catering permit can be 13 times more expensive in one municipality than in another, in the same region.

Then it should of course be obvious that one does not need to pay any fee if no actual supervision has taken place. But that is not the case today. Regardless of whether anyone has performed a check or not, the company must pay. Imagine that company that could work according to that principle!

Another problem for companies within the restaurant industry is that they receive permission to serve in a specific municipality. That is reasonable if one has a restaurant located in a specific building. But if one operates catering, the situation is completely different, because sometimes one may want to take catering companies across the municipal border. I can again use Skåne as an example, where there are 33 municipalities in an area that is smaller than Strömsunds kommun. It is completely unreasonable that a company should have to apply for 33 permits and receive 33 visits for an activity that is to be conducted in an area that is smaller than a Norrland municipality.

Madam Speaker! I therefore want the Rule Council to be strengthened to obtain the capacity and independence that, for example, the Council on Legislation has. But the Rule Council must also have a mandate to enter earlier in the legislative process. Therefore, the Rule Council must also be given an expanded mandate when it comes to monitoring the fees that companies pay and the processing times that exist.

I vote in favor of reservation 11.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve reservation 4.

The business sector plays a crucial role for the climate transition and for enabling a society within the planet's boundaries. To seize that potential, politics needs to provide the conditions that the business sector needs to be able to transition, which includes, among other things, faster permit processes. We in Miljöpartiet believe that the permit processes must become much faster now and that we must simultaneously maintain the high quality when it comes to the environment and workers' conditions. We also see that conditions need to be created for joint planning and parallel processes to enable the efficient and rapid societal construction that the green industrial transition requires.

What is the Swedish government doing then? Well, the government is sitting on its hands. There are completed proposals in the Environmental Assessment Inquiry and the Climate Justice Inquiry to quickly accelerate the permit processes, but the government chooses not to act. They appoint new inquiries and push the entire work ahead of them - in precisely the same way as they push the entire climate transition ahead of them, increase greenhouse gas emissions, worsen the climate crisis, and thus do not take responsibility for our time's greatest societal challenge.

When the Green Party was in government, we worked in different ways to make it easier for companies. Not least, we worked with agricultural subsidies to ensure that the simpler ones would reach the farming and agricultural companies concerned, that the authorities' work would become smoother, that the dialogue would be improved, and that the digital processes would be facilitated. We also appointed the Environmental Assessment Inquiry and the Climate Justice Inquiry so that we could quickly reach decisions and speed up the permit processes for the entire business sector.

What we are seeing now is that Moderater are, with several representatives from the Tidö parties, active in the debate and talking about faster permit processes, simpler regulations and so on. But there is not much discussion about what lies on the other side of the scale.

To make visible what I want to point out, I want to raise an example with the due diligence legislation that we have worked on at the EU level. It is a regulatory framework concerning companies taking responsibility for the environment and human rights throughout the entire value chain. It concerns rules to ensure that it is not child labor that forms the basis for the products we consume and that rivers in other countries are not poisoned so that people get extremely serious diseases due to environmental destruction in the companies' value chain. It is a regulatory framework that shall ensure that we can sleep safely at night and know that the products, goods and services that we consume have been produced under fair conditions, without violations of human rights and without serious environmental destruction that harms people's health.

But the government parties have, with arguments about rule simplification, diluted and delayed the regulatory framework. Therefore, I think it is central that the Tidö parties should be able to answer what rules they want to simplify and in what way, as well as what consequences they will have for the Swedish people, our immediate environment, and our health. Otherwise, the talk about rule simplification will, at best, only be platitudes, and at worst, it will lead to serious consequences that the Swedish people must be informed about before we face the facts.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I pressed the button for a reply quite late, but the speeches have also been quite short now. Both the latest speech and a couple of previous speeches have gone significantly faster than I thought, so that is why I failed in this case. I also missed taking a reply from the Social Democrats earlier for exactly the same reasons, but I actually could not help myself in this case.

I believe that those affected by existing permit processes in the Swedish business sector are, to say the least, provoked by hearing that from the Miljöpartiet side, one wants to give the impression of advocating for fast permit processes, while at the same time we know that it is primarily the Environmental Code, which Miljöpartiet has had such great influence over, that contributes to the long and protracted permit processes.

If we are to speed these up, we will need to weight the environmental part less in relation to other things. In many of the known cases where the permit processes have taken an absurdly long time, it has been the Environmental Code itself that has been to blame. We can take the Cementa case, where all of Sweden risked being left without cement, which is a fundamental prerequisite for all growth, all construction, and all infrastructure. There, it was argued, among other things, that it was not certain what effects it would have for an individual butterfly in 20 years if Cementa's permit were to be expanded.

I have spoken with many forest owners who are not allowed to manage their forest because there might be a flower in a nature area, not in the forest area but near it. The Natura 2000 areas that exist and that Miljöpartiet stands behind hinder any industrial development.

One must not let this stand unchallenged, Madam Speaker, because it is the Green Party's fault that we see long and protracted permit processes. The business owners know it, and the politicians know it.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I think that Tobias Andersson, in his speech, clarifies the Sverigedemokraterna's and Miljöpartiets views on this.

We in Miljöpartiet see that permit processes are the democratic tool we have in Sweden to manage goal conflicts. There is a long line of goal conflicts that must be weighed and addressed when starting a new activity. It can be about the local population's different circumstances, about the impact on water and agricultural land that we are to use, and about our food supply. It is about land for residential construction, food production, forest, and other things. There is a patchwork of national interests in Sweden that one needs to make trade-offs between so that we can take steps and make well-informed decisions moving forward.

The permit processes are a tool for this. They can be made much faster. We have commissioned inquiries, and there are completed inquiries on the government's desk with a long series of measures to make the permit processes faster, smoother, and more legally secure. In that way, we get a protection for our nature, for our immediate environment, and thus also for people's health.

If one, as the Sweden Democrats here, points out that it is the environmental part that must carry less weight, one goes in a completely different direction in the work of accelerating the permit processes. Then the focus is no longer on obtaining fast permit processes, but instead it is a deteriorated environment that comes into focus – a deteriorated environment for those of us who live and work here in Sweden today and in the future.

The question is: Is this what one wants? Is it a deteriorated local environment that one is looking for? Then one can vote for Sverigedemokraterna. Is it faster permit processes with maintained good quality in the environment that one wants – then one can vote for Miljöpartiet.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is a rather false approach that the Green Party has. It says for itself that if one wants to speed up processes, one will need to weigh the conflicts of objectives differently than one has done today. That is how it is.

This applies not least in the cases that have been highlighted here. I think that at the current moment we are looking far too blindly at the extent to which there are some lizards or salamanders or a certain flower or butterfly and let that weigh more heavily than the importance of cement supply. I can absolutely state that I think the latter is more important. I think it is more important that we can build roads.

It can also be a matter of us risking losing chemicals that enable the purification of water because of something else. I think it is more important that we can purify water in Sweden than that one attacks a limestone quarry or something else.

There is much that we must be honest about, that we currently undervalue in these goal conflicts, Madam Speaker. If we are to get faster permit processes, something will have to take a backseat.

The government has begun work on this, and some has been completed. We have acted regarding the electricity grid and regarding the Minerals Act and mining. Parts of the work to facilitate the permit processes have been initiated while much more is underway. There is an inquiry that has been commissioned by this government and other inquiries from previous governments' time, which Elin Söderberg refers to. A great deal of work will be done in this area.

Mr. Speaker, if one believes that it is possible to do this faster while at the same time the Green Party is to decide how we weigh the environment in these processes, we will not get anywhere. There will be significantly faster permit processes going forward, and I am quite convinced that Elin Söderberg and the Green Party will be dissatisfied with that, despite standing here and speaking warmly in favor of fast permit processes. We cannot have both Green Party politics and fast permit processes. They are in direct contradiction to each other.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Tobias Andersson from Sverigedemokraterna is completely wrong. We can have faster permit processes and high environmental performance. That is what Swedish companies expect, because Swedish companies also compete with high quality when it comes to the environment, climate, and workers' conditions. If we are to lower environmental performance and our quality to the bottom in Sweden, our Swedish companies will not be able to compete.

When it comes to the fact that we can have high requirements on climate, environment, workers' conditions, human rights and faster permit processes, there is a long series of proposed measures in already investigated documents that show how we can do that.

The Energy Markets Inspectorate has submitted proposals on how they can become faster. The Environmental Assessment Inquiry has proposals on how we can become faster. It is not least about resources for authorities to shorten processing times. It is about cooperation between authorities. We can parallelize different processes. There is a huge amount that can be done to speed up the permit processes that the Sweden Democrats and the government are not doing.

Instead, they are pushing the work forward, precisely because they are focused on undermining the environmental performance in Sweden. It will have consequences. It is a ridiculous example mentioned by the Sverigedemokraterna here in the rostrum that one would protect some butterfly in 20 years and set that against something big. When we talk about, for example, cement extraction here in Sweden, it must of course go through a solid permit process, and the company must be able to deliver documentation to the court so that it has a basis to make a decision. That was not the case in the example with Cementa. The case was dismissed because the court needed better documentation.

It is about the water for people living on Gotland. They should be able to have good and well-functioning drinking water. These are no small matters we are talking about, Tobias Andersson.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! Most often, our laws are designed to suit a certain type of company. But laws and regulations need to work for all types of companies. There is a big difference between running small businesses or sole proprietorships and large companies and corporations.

Despite the fact that Sweden has a Moderate-led government, Sweden's entrepreneurs and the Swedish business community are not cheering. Small business owners are struggling like never before. Competitiveness is not as strong as it could be. Despite the fact that there is near political consensus that the rules must become simpler for entrepreneurs, especially for small business owners, not much is happening. After today's debate, it is clear that the government does not have the proposals demanded by both the business community and by small business owners.

For the Left Party, it is extra important that small business owners have security during illness and parental leave. Business owners also get sick, have children, and experience all other life events that a permanent employee at a state agency experiences. Much needs to be done here.

Simplification of regulations for companies

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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