Regulatory simplification for companies

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is time to debate the Committee on Industry's report 15 Simplification of Regulations for Companies. I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

The level of ambition for the regulatory simplification work varies between different parties, but we often sound quite consistent. Given how it sounds when we sit together with a trade organization, in the discussions in the committee, or in the rhetoric in the media, one might think that most parties think roughly the same, i.e., that red tape is unnecessary and should be reduced and that we should facilitate things for the companies.

Naturally, there is no party that is openly running for election this year on increasing bureaucracy and red tape. No party says that they have new ideas for further bureaucratization of Swedish business. Furthermore, no such campaign slogans have been communicated, and I do not believe that any will appear.

It would undoubtedly have been remarkable if that were the case, given that the cost of the regulatory burden for companies, according to Svenskt Näringsliv, amounts to almost 400 billion kronor per year. For us, as politicians, to know about this and demand more of the same would be quite frankly crazy. We are still talking about 400 billion that could have been invested in operations – in new machinery, increased wages, research and innovation, or talent recruitment – or constitute venture capital for other companies.

Briefly, it is money that could have strengthened Swedish competitiveness and created jobs, growth, prosperity, and welfare. Instead, companies are forced to spend almost 400 billion on interpreting and following laws and regulations, handling supervisory cases, getting stuck in permit processes, hiring expensive consultants for environmental assessments, complying with incomprehensible EU regulations, and so on.

Swedish competitiveness and growth are hindered by this. The winners are the new, artificially created professional groups that work with various types of compliance. They would never question a misguided or incomprehensible regulatory framework, as this constitutes a cash cow for all consultants in various operations that did not exist 50 years ago but today constitute an ever-increasing part of the public sector all over Sweden.

Now you might be wondering what this little digression is going to lead to. I will try to weave it all together.

I began by stating that politicians one meets and listens to often say that they agree on the importance of regulatory simplification and reduced bureaucracy. However, that does not mean that all politicians and parties are ready for what is required if we are to take adequate measures and ensure actual results in this area.

This is connected to my digression about the compliance industry, because all those who today make a living from complicated and at times unnecessary bureaucracy naturally want it to remain so. Entire professional bodies have emerged because Sweden and Swedish companies are trying to comply with EU legislation, because authorities have grown in tandem with regulatory complexity, because companies have wasted money on greenwashing and so on. Today, they have their own voice and lobby hard for their own right to exist.

If you are a consultant whose role is to explain EU legislation to Swedish companies or Swedish politicians, you do not want to reduce EU legislation. If you are a lobbyist and have been tasked with lobbying politicians on these issues, you do not want to become unemployed because the management in the area is simplified. When you and your consultant friends lobby the politicians, you will therefore, for example, speak about the need for more rather than less EU regulation in the environmental area.

It is one of the reasons why politicians say they want to reduce bureaucracy but are unable to deliver in that area. They listen too much to those who live off the bureaucracy. Regardless of whether it is civil servants at agencies or employees within state-owned companies, private companies, NGOs, multilateral organizations, the EU, or elsewhere, there is today a considerable number of people in Sweden and in our surrounding world who live off the complicated regulatory frameworks that our companies are forced to adapt to and which hinder their competitiveness on the global market.

The second reason – extra visible among the opposition – why politicians can say they want to reduce red tape but still fail is that they admittedly fundamentally understand the problems with red tape, but they still consider it justified to have a few extra rules if the cause is good.

It is very easy as a member of the Green Party or something else to say that we need to reduce the bureaucracy for Swedish companies but at the same time say that we also must ensure that every mushroom, bird, lizard, and everything else can live in peace. Then the companies end up in a conflict of interest between perhaps 3,000 jobs and a potential lizard in a puddle, where Miljöpartiet says that one should facilitate but at the same time chooses the lizard over the jobs.

It is clear: there we have the colleagues in the bureaucratic sphere and in the consulting sphere who gladly want those types of conflicts of interest, who gladly want to spend years on court proceedings and who want agencies and private companies to spend millions on environmental investigations and protracted legal processes only to ultimately land on whether the interest of the lizard or the interest of the jobs should carry the most weight. That, Madam Speaker, is also a reason why all politicians want to reduce bureaucracy but that few politicians succeed.

The third reason, I would argue, is that many parties from right to left – not at the far left but from there – often think that the EU is good. Historically, one has not dared to say that something from the EU is bad. Instead, one has, not least from the bourgeois side, ended up in a position where one, at least until recently, almost routinely welcomes everything from the EU, regardless of the consequences for Swedish companies here at home.

One has been afraid to say that just that matter from the EU might create unnecessary bureaucracy, make it harder for our companies, or cost more money than necessary. The risk has been to be accused of being an EU skeptic or of being against free trade or a market economy. Perhaps someone throws Putin and Russia into the discussion as well when one has directed adequate criticism at nonsense from the EU and its consequences for Swedish companies.

There are, therefore, different reasons why politicians from right to left always want to reduce bureaucracy, but sometimes they are hindered from outside for various reasons from doing so. But enough with this exposé, Madam Speaker.

I also intend to speak briefly about what we have done during this mandate period. We have managed the processes to facilitate simplification of regulations. We have a new simplification council in place. We have an implementation council in place. We have cross-agency work. We have county administrative boards that are working more actively. We have state secretaries who collaborate between departments. In many ways and in many respects, we have created the conditions for a systematic simplification work over time in the Swedish state administration. We will need to evaluate that result moving forward to ensure that it has the desired effect.

We have taken on some of the most inhibiting examples of bureaucracy, such as farm sales, dance permits, hotel permits, physical receipts, and now soon also the food requirement. This means – it must be an appeal and the last thing I say – that the person who wants to be able to serve a good glass of wine, a lovely drink, or a whisky without for that reason being a professional in the kitchen – like I am – will be able to do so. And I and others will be able to go there and enjoy it without it being necessary to have a kitchen, a chef, or anything else that entails high costs.

One step at a time, we continue to try to facilitate the Swedish business community and at the same time limit the various rules and the bureaucracy that today hinder it. We are not finished, but the work has begun.

(Applause)

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Tobias Andersson, for the speech! It is always very special to listen to the member.

The Chairman mentioned towards the end how the government has worked on the simplification work. I note that some progress has nevertheless been made in this area. Work has been done on regulatory simplification, primarily the Simplification Council and the Implementation Council.

I can state that Tobias Andersson is quite satisfied with the work, but something that we have debated here earlier and which I still have not received an answer to are the many bankruptcies we have in Sweden and which unfortunately continue. We have heard the Finance Minister say many times that the economy will turn, but then she needs to adjust the forecasts downwards, unfortunately, regarding unemployment but also the growth in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties have had a rather high tail-end when it comes to rule simplifications and the consequences those would lead to. I am not against the simplification work, on the contrary. I safeguard that we have a streamlined regulatory framework that is predictable, long-term, and robust, but that also works for the Swedish business community. What is obvious, Madam Speaker, is that the government's business policy has not worked for the Swedish business community. Then one would not have had 35,000 bankruptcies during this mandate period.

I would therefore like to ask Tobias Andersson: In what way has the work on simplifying regulations contributed to more companies and more jobs in Sweden?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question and the comments from Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro. I note that he thinks it is special to listen to me. It reminds me of my grandmother, who always said I was a special boy when I was growing up. But enough about that!

I think these are important issues being raised, but one should perhaps also be able to navigate a bit. Now we are talking about simplification of rules. The member succeeded in weaving it together at the end.

That companies go bankrupt is not primarily due to the fact that there is bureaucracy there. It is rather the case that fewer companies are started because the bureaucracy and the regulatory red tape are extensive. One does not know where to turn. One does not know how to proceed. One thinks it is complicated and overwhelming and refrains from starting a company. If the member had started there, I would have agreed with him.

Is it the case that the existing regulatory burden has hindered the emergence of new companies? I believe so, and I believe it has been so for a very long time in Sweden. Prospective entrepreneurs refrain because they think it seems difficult and complicated to start and run companies.

That it leads to a bankruptcy ultimately depends on the fact that the economy does not add up. It is clear that there may be companies that have had expenses and costs for red tape and that this has contributed to the bankruptcy, but at the end of the day, it is rather about not succeeding in selling enough of the service or product one has or having too high costs in relation to one's revenues.

That can be the case, for example, if you are a Social Democratic prestige project like Northvolt, which was buoyed by state subsidies and political favor but then, when reality caught up, went bankrupt. That Social Democratic prestige projects do not hold up when tested on the global market is not something I intend to take responsibility for. It is rather something that the Social Democrats should take responsibility for.

But if it is of any use, I can tell the member that I am, of course, against bankruptcies. It is clear that we shall help as many companies as possible to survive.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! When we debate regulatory simplification, it is important to remember that what is difficult for companies is primarily the costs, but also the political rules of the game that we in this chamber set up.

When it comes to the Swedish business community, Tobias Andersson just showed that he wants to pick out which companies are good, those that he and the Sverigedemokraterna like and that should be protected. When it comes to companies involved in, for example, battery production, one might not think they should survive, but rather wants to make things difficult for them. Not many missed that Tobias Andersson was very schadenfroh when the aforementioned companies went bankrupt last year.

When we talk about regulatory simplifications, Madam Speaker, I truly do not understand how one as a politician, especially not as chairman of the Committee on Industry, cannot see how one's statements complicate investments, predictability, and the belief that the policy actually wants to invest in the Swedish business sector.

Tobias Andersson has made it obvious to everyone that the green transition is not something that SD believes in, and it is very regrettable in these times.

My question, Madam Speaker, was not about one bankruptcy but about 35,000 bankruptcies during this parliamentary term. And I did not receive a single answer on which regulatory simplifications will make it easier to start companies and ensure that more companies survive, and which concrete reforms during this parliamentary term Tobias Andersson can point to that have created more jobs.

I assume that the work on simplifying regulations is intended to create jobs and growth in Sweden and ensure that the entire country can live. But what we see is that, especially in our rural and sparsely populated areas, companies have gone bankrupt, and it is unfortunately under this government's leadership. An active industrial policy has not been pursued. Instead, it has been made more difficult for Swedish businesses, and now we stand here with 35,000 bankruptcies.

Can't Tobias Andersson just point out a rule change that has created more jobs in Sweden?

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro could have listened to my speech instead of reading his own. He always comes in on this theme: What has been done previously? Have we had an active industrial policy or not? Given this, one could almost believe that the former Minister for Enterprise Ibrahim Baylan has written the speech, for he is today a lobbyist for one of the previous owners of the company that Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro will always come and discuss here with me. It is almost as if former Ministers for Enterprise have their voices heard here in the chamber linked to their own, private interests and to the Social Democrats' ownership and employments in order to promote individual companies.

Industrial policy is broader than the prestige projects that the Social Democrats have launched, where party colleagues have influence. But honestly, Madam Speaker, I am not sure I have ever heard Member Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro talk about companies other than those with Social Democratic connections.

To be honest and answer the question: It is naturally concerning that companies have gone bankrupt. It is not the case that it has become more complicated or more expensive to run companies today than it was when we came to power. It is actually the case that the Social Democrats, during their time in power, did absolutely nothing to reduce the bureaucracy that we have now tackled, which I explained from the rostrum.

The greatest success Ibrahim Baylan had in the area was that he was on a simplification journey where he visited entrepreneurs around the country and listened to what they wanted. That was his success.

Since then, we have taken measures in the area that over time reduce the total cost of running businesses in Sweden and that over time create conditions for new companies, for existing companies to hire, for more prosperity and growth, and so on. But it takes time. It is a pity that we had to start from zero when we came to power, and it is interesting that the Social Democrats are only today concerned with regulatory simplification.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the Social Democrats' and the Left Party's reservation 4.

The Social Democrats are keen on having regulatory frameworks that are understandable and long-term for the business sector. In today's debate on regulatory simplification, we see that this very issue is often deeply populist and that large fluctuations create a jerkiness that disadvantages the business sector.

Many entrepreneurs testify that the application of rules varies depending on where in the country one lives. This creates a trust problem for the public sector, but above all, it is a fragmented regulatory framework and a system that does not benefit Swedish business.

Our societal goals are about public health, lower emissions and good working conditions. There are parties that do not think these are such important goals, but we Social Democrats think they are highly important goals. They must, however, function together with the business sector, which must be competitive and create jobs in Sweden. Therefore, a regulatory framework was needed that can function together with these goals.

It is about ensuring high quality in regulation and application but also about good service, short processing times and an approach that facilitates instead of complicates. Rules must be proportionate and purposeful so that the administrative burden is reduced over time.

We Social Democrats have highlighted the possibilities of digitalization many times in this chamber, Madam Speaker, precisely because they need to be better utilized to strengthen the service in the administration and free up time for entrepreneurs so that they can focus on developing their businesses.

Small and medium-sized enterprises also face major transitions, which requires that skills can be provided and that authorities work more closely with the business sector. A strong effort to simplify regulations is therefore crucial to create a business climate where more entrepreneurs can succeed and contribute to jobs and growth.

Madam Speaker! During this parliamentary term, as I mentioned in my exchange with Tobias Andersson, 35,000 companies have gone bankrupt. It is an enormous loss for Sweden, and the result has been low growth and high unemployment. Time and again, the Finance Minister has said that the economy will turn around, but every single time she needs to come back and adjust the forecasts downwards.

When it comes to regulatory simplification, the government has established a simplification council and an implementation council, tasked authorities with working on regulatory simplification, removed dan permission and hotel permission, and proceeded with our proposals to digitize receipt management for companies. It is quite a lot, Madam Speaker. But what has actually been done to curb the bankruptcies in our country?

We must remember, Madam Speaker, that it is a recession and a crisis not only in Sweden but in the entire EU. But we are performing worse than our EU comrades around the continent. And what has this government done to curb the bankruptcies in our country? I would like to have answers to that, Madam Speaker. What has been done so that more companies can hire? We have 100,000 more unemployed. Four out of five jobs are created in small businesses. But here, one gets no answers from the government parties.

And how has one enabled more innovations? Our small businesses are highly innovative and absolutely crucial for our competitiveness. How has it been made easier for them to take research results to industrial application? The first thing one did was rather to propose cuts on precisely Swedish innovations.

When it comes to regulatory simplification, one cannot simply choose which rules one wants to focus on. It is about creating a regulatory framework that is robust and predictable and that works for the entire Swedish business community.

I assert that this government could have used the state's muscles to ensure investment in a robust system for our companies, but it has not been done. It has not created a regulatory framework that is predictable, long-term, and streamlined.

We heard Tobias Andersson speaking here earlier about the EU and the EU-skepticism that one must nevertheless say the Sverigedemokraterna has.

We are in a situation where we are making many changes to the EU's regulatory framework, and we Social Democrats have welcomed the work on regulatory simplification. We have wanted to maintain high ambitions for our climate work at the EU level but also to ensure that we do not compete with low wages and poor conditions – something that the Swedish business community also demands. But what do the Moderates and Christian Democrats do then? Well, they vote with EU skeptics and vote down the European Commission's proposal for an omnibus package that actually would have created a regulatory framework that was long-term. They choose volatility over long-term stability.

Madam Speaker! This is not serious. Swedish industry has made large investments to become leaders in the climate transition and is showing the way for a competitiveness based on fair conditions, increased self-sufficiency, and world-class innovation. All of this now runs the risk of being shot down because the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna, but also the Sverigedemokraterna, made a deal with the absolute, outermost far-right in the European Parliament.

This government has not delivered what it has promised the Swedish people and, above all, Swedish small business owners. It has failed in its industrial policy and has not implemented regulatory simplifications that fundamentally build competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have proposed simplifications of rules, and we have wanted to have long-term rules of the game for the business sector so that we can avoid this jerkiness that our regulatory frameworks have suffered from for many years.

Among other things, we want to shorten the processing times at our agencies. We want to designate strategic agencies that receive agency instructions to work with regulatory simplification in a coordinated manner.

We want to take advantage of the possibilities of digitalization to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.

And we are happy to compromise with conservative parties in the EU to get a robust regulatory framework in place that both strengthens our common competitiveness and achieves our goals of lower emissions and high growth.

We want to shorten payment terms for companies. Here I must say that I am quite disappointed that the government is delaying that process in the EU. It is being negotiated right now, so the members may be able to contact the government's representatives and ask them to instead speed up that process. This is, in fact, harmful to our small businesses.

We want more testbeds to be started in Sweden that small and medium-sized enterprises can also get access to. It needs to become cheaper to test innovations in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have a plan for how we will strengthen Sweden's business sector after the election. A robust and predictable regulatory framework is crucial to get the industry moving and accelerate into the 30s with new innovations that strengthen our competitiveness. We shall build our competitiveness on a fossil-free society that is largely self-sufficient and competes by carrying out the climate transition.

We will settle accounts with this government's policy, which has made us more dependent on fossil fuels and rather benefited the business sector in Saudi Arabia than the one in Sweden.

Swedish industry and Swedish business deserve politicians who want to safeguard the Swedish and the fossil-free. That is what builds Swedish competitiveness.

(Applause)

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! We live in a time of increased anxiety in our world. The war in our neighborhood, growing geopolitical tensions, and a more uncertain global economy also affect our country. In such a situation, one thing becomes all the clearer: Sweden must be strong, and a strong Sweden begins with strong companies – companies that create jobs, innovation, and growth, but also companies that are a supporting part of our preparedness, our welfare, and our resilience.

When the world shakes, Sweden must stand firm, and then our companies must have the right conditions. Therefore, it is more important than ever that it is simple, secure, and profitable to be an entrepreneur in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We know at the same time that reality does not always look like that today. Companies encounter, to an all too great extent, complicated rules, long processing times, and agency contacts that do not keep pace with reality and the companies' conditions. These are problems that affect competitiveness but also the will to invest and grow.

That is why the government is working broadly to strengthen Swedish entrepreneurship and dismantle unnecessary obstacles to growth. It is recreating a robust energy system, combating the crime that strikes against companies and safety, stabilizing the economy to create better conditions for investments, and actively working to maximize Sweden's trade opportunities in an uncertain world.

Simplification of regulations is another central part of strengthening the Swedish business climate. During the parliamentary term, we have established a clear structure for the simplification policy, which encompasses a wide range of measures.

To begin with, the government has a clearly stated objective to reduce the regulatory burden, shorten processing times, improve the authorities' service, and increase digitalization. Tillväxtverket has been tasked with developing a more accurate measure of companies' regulatory costs. Statskontoret monitors the quality of impact assessments. Förenklingsrådet collects concrete proposals from the business sector on regulations that should be abolished or adjusted. Implementeringsrådet works to counteract over-implementation of EU directives.

Furthermore, reforms are simultaneously underway to make permit processes faster and more predictable, which is crucial for investments and development. As recently as last week, the government commissioned an inquiry to strengthen the municipalities' business perspective in case management.

To this can be added a number of individual measures that have abolished requirements for paper receipts and simplified 3:12 rules.

When red tape is reduced for companies, freedom also increases for all of us. Farm sales, abolished food requirements, abolished dance permits, and so on make everyone's everyday life more enjoyable.

Madam Speaker! Against this background, we are today considering several motions. Many of them are fundamentally good. They point out real problems and important needs. However, they largely concern matters that the government is already working on, which have already been decided and are now being implemented. Therefore, the committee's line is clear: We shall not make new decisions on matters that are already ongoing. Now, it is primarily about implementation, about getting the work done.

Here, the difference between the political alternatives becomes very clear.

The Tidö parties take responsibility for the whole, and together we have the ability to turn our politics into reality. This is evident in the work for a delivery-secure energy system; it creates security both in the country and along the borders, and it facilitates people's household finances.

We are also simplifying for real. The structures that have been put in place during the mandate period are the type of holistic approach that has the potential to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden in the long term and strengthen a more business-friendly culture within authorities and agencies.

The opposition, on the other hand, presents a number of conflicting proposals and cannot agree on a way forward for Swedish companies. There will be many ideas, but there will be no direction. In some cases, there won't even be an idea. In the Social Democrats' and the Left Party's budgets, the simplification of rules is conspicuous by its absence. A red-green consensus on how the Swedish business climate should be strengthened and how the regulatory burden should be reduced will, therefore, also be missing today.

Madam Speaker! The Moderates will always stand on the side of the companies. We know that every rule that can be removed makes a difference, that every day shortened in a process matters, and that security and predictability are crucial for daring to invest.

Swedish entrepreneurship is strong, and now it is the responsibility of politics to further increase the pace of the ongoing work on regulatory simplification. Less hassle, faster decisions, and better conditions are the way forward. That is how we make it safe, simple, and profitable to be an entrepreneur in our country, and that is how we build a stronger Sweden.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anna af Sillén for the speech.

I intended to ask Anna af Sillén a bit regarding what I raised in my speech, namely our regulatory frameworks at the EU level.

We Social Democrats will follow the Implementation Council's work very closely. We also think it is good that Sweden takes action to have an implementation that works for the Swedish business community. That is something we completely agree on.

I do, however, have some reflections regarding the EU's regulatory framework. As we heard in the Sweden Democrats' speech, there is an EU-skepticism within the Tidö cooperation that I truly believe disadvantages the Swedish business community. Or rather, I should say it like this, Madam Speaker: I am completely convinced that it disadvantages the Swedish business community.

We know that we need to have long-term rules of the game and streamlined regulations. We need to create a robust regulatory framework precisely so that the industry can transition and grow to become competitive.

Judge then my surprise, Madam Speaker, when a Swedish Moderate, as the lead negotiator for the EPP group, chooses to join forces with the far-right extreme in the European Parliament and vote down the Commission's proposal for an omnibus package that would have given exactly this. It was a package that would have said to all EU skeptics: We do not care about you. We must invest in our industry. We must create a regulatory framework that is long-term and robust, where it does not depend on mandate periods whether the regulatory framework works for the companies or not, and where we can agree to focus on European and Swedish competitiveness.

I would like to ask Anna af Sillén: Why did the Moderates choose to join with the far-right extreme and vote down the commission's well-considered proposal for a regulatory framework?

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! I look forward to the opportunity to have an exchange with Member Vencu Velasquez Castro regarding precisely long-term perspective, stability, and clarity.

The Moderates' work in the European Parliament has been intensive regarding the omnibus packages and to reduce the regulatory burden for companies in Europe and, of course, also for Swedish companies. It is perhaps the only one of its kind when it comes to truly focusing on effective measures to reduce the regulatory burden.

I add to that, we see a completely new gear from the Swedish government regarding the EU and the cooperation there. One is much more forward-looking and early when it comes to various issues that will arise and has actively sent letters to the Commission regarding important simplification measures. There are 60 proposals from Sweden on how the European Parliament can reduce the regulatory burden.

EU cooperation is important. In these times, it is a self-evident moderate position to safeguard European cooperation. But we also choose to be active in that cooperation, in a way that no Swedish government has been before.

Madam Speaker! Stability and clarity are, just as the member says, incredibly important for Swedish business. Let me emphasize the fundamental difference between the government and the opposition in Sweden today. It is the Tidö parties that together deliver long-term perspective and stability, while the Social Democrats fail to unite the parties on the left around the clarity, long-term perspective, and workshop that are actually required to strengthen Swedish business.

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

DANIEL VENCU VELASQUEZ CASTRO (S)

Madam Speaker! I stand here as a Member of Parliament for the Social Democrats and can observe that on the Tidösidan there is a rather large EU-skeptical party, and here stands Anna af Sillén praising the EU. It will be very interesting to follow how that cooperation is to continue.

I do not quite understand why I am not getting an answer as to why the Moderaterna chose to join with the far-right extreme in the European Parliament when they themselves have stated that long-term perspective is needed in the regulations and that it must be predictable and work for the companies and for the Swedish industry.

Madam Speaker! The Moderates may not have taken note of the criticism that has come from Swedish companies such as Volvo, H & M, Tetra Pak and Vattenfall. I was accused of not mentioning any other companies than Northvolt. Here are some companies that have been very critical of the Moderates' shift.

What do the Moderates answer to Swedish industry, where there are lockouts in several sectors? 100,000 more Swedes have become unemployed during this period. And then the Moderates are making things difficult for industry in Sweden.

I received no answer regarding the Moderaternas response to the Swedish industry, nor on why one chose to join with the far-right extreme in the European Parliament.

We Social Democrats have time and again – always – sought dialogue, long-term thinking, and broad agreements. We live in a time when Swedish jobs are being lost and Swedish growth is low. We do not have time for this kind of bickering. We must get the Swedish industry moving. Can Anna af Sillén tell the Swedish industry why she does not want to reach an agreement with us to strengthen Swedish competitiveness?

(Applause)

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

Anna af Sillén (M)

Madam Speaker! Today, April 1st, Member Vencu Velasquez Castro's potential coalition partners are making April Fools' jokes about the inability to cooperate on the left side. Today, the Tidö parties, with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson at the helm, have also delivered another proof of strength when it comes to cooperation and the ability to drive politics that is good for Sweden.

The Swedish people now know that on September 13, they can choose a majority government that has a known political program with a clear ambition to strengthen the conditions for Swedish business. This is something the government is already doing. It continues on a set line of actively working for more free trade agreements for Swedish companies and has developed a trade and investment strategy where small businesses are mentioned for the first time.

We have also initiated work to shorten the permit processes. Proposals from the government will soon be submitted to the Riksdag regarding this. Swedish industry has requested this for a long time, and it will make a difference in the green transition and in the work to strengthen Swedish growth and the Swedish economy.

It is therefore with confidence, the member Vencu Velasquez Castro, that I view the cooperation which you very rightly stated shall continue – for Sweden's best.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are NOW debating NU15 Simplification of regulations for companies.

Unnecessary complications and double work due to rules and administration should, of course, be avoided. They should preferably be removed if they are in the way. But when I visit companies, it is actually quite a few who say that it is pretty good to be an entrepreneur in Sweden. That image also exists out there.

Of course, digitalization should result in a reduction of administration. But sometimes it feels as if it increases the more digital tools there are available.

I have noticed that the green industrial transition places new and significant demands on many municipalities and regions, not least in those parts of the country where the large industrial investments are occurring or are being planned. It is there that the accumulation is noticed, and it is there that the authorities, the regions, and the municipalities would need support.

The rapid development often means that local communities need to manage strong population growth and an increased need for housing, infrastructure, and municipal services in a short period of time. That is why I say that the state needs to take a collective and proactive responsibility to support the municipalities, regions, and authorities to a greater extent in the work of enabling the green transition.

Vänsterpartiet considers that efficient and predictable permit processes are crucial for investments that contribute to the climate transition to be able to be implemented at the pace that is needed and demanded.

I do not intend to be long-winded, as I did not even intend to participate in the debate. I move for the approval of reservation 2, which we have submitted together with Miljöpartiet. There, we highlight important pieces of the puzzle that could facilitate and speed up permit processes. We naturally stand behind our second reservation as well, which we have submitted together with Socialdemokraterna. But we move for the approval of only reservation 2.

Mr. Speaker! What I am saying is that the state must step forward when it comes to supporting municipalities, regions, and authorities in the work. But the regions that contribute with natural resources must also receive more back financially. Otherwise, we will not succeed. Otherwise, the risk is obvious that we will fail with the green transition.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish companies spend tens of billions of kronor every year on complying with rules, reporting information, and managing administration. The administrative costs for companies alone are estimated at approximately 400 billion kronor per year. This corresponds to a significant part of Sweden's economy. These are resources that could instead be used for investments, innovation, and new jobs.

When one hears these figures, it becomes obvious why regulatory simplifications are not a technical issue in the margins, but a decisive issue for Sweden's competitiveness and growth.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee report and against all motions.

When we take note of analyses from, among others, Tillväxtverket and Regelrådet, a clear picture emerges. Companies experience that the regulatory burden is extensive. Small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, are hit hard. All too often, the quality of the consequence assessments is lacking when new rules are developed.

This is serious. For every rule introduced without sufficient analysis, we risk creating costs that hinder business for a long time. At the same time, we know that many rules have good intentions. They are to protect people, the environment, and the economy. But when the regulatory frameworks become too complex, they risk counteracting their own purpose.

Mr. Speaker! A small business owner in Gävleborg expressed it this way: I started a company to build something, not to fill out forms.

It is a reality that this government takes very seriously. There was a time when rule was added to rule, without regard for the consequences. It is that development we are now tackling, Mr. Speaker, because behind every rule there is an entrepreneur who is to interpret it, follow it, and also bear the cost for it.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats agree on an important principle: Rules must be predictable, purposeful, proportionate, and understandable. What we are now saying clearly is that unnecessary rules must be removed. Every rule that does not add value risks becoming a barrier to jobs and growth. An important principle for us Christian Democrats is "one rule in, two rules out."

We Christian Democrats have therefore intensified the work on regulatory simplification. We have introduced a new system for impact assessments, where the effects for companies shall be analyzed earlier and more accurately. We have established the Simplification Council, which gathers significant proposals directly from companies. We have established the Implementation Council, which assists the government in the work of implementing EU legal acts that may have consequences for companies in Sweden. We are also pushing for authorities to work more coordinately, with good service and processes towards companies, increased digitalization and better data sharing. The goal is clear: Companies shall submit a task only once to one place.

Mr. Speaker! An area that deserves special attention is EU legislation. A large part of the regulatory burden comes from there. In August 2025, the government submitted 63 concrete proposals for regulatory simplification to the Commission as a Swedish contribution to the ongoing simplification work at the EU level. We are pursuing a clear line: EU rules shall be implemented at a minimum level unless there are strong reasons to do more. We must not place Swedish companies in a worse competitive position by imposing additional requirements.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also highlight the municipalities' role in the work of simplifying regulations. The Government has now decided to investigate how the business perspective can be strengthened in the municipalities' case processing, and the National Audit Office has been tasked with mapping differences in the municipalities' methods of work in certain permit cases.

In my home municipality Gävle, with the Kristdemokraterna in the lead, we have in recent days decided on a service promise to the business community and a service guide for the municipal group's employees, and now we are beginning a piece of work. The service shall be professional, fast and clear and be based on dialogue. We shall have a solution-oriented way of working and respect for the companies' time and needs with a simple way in. This is completely in line with the government's goal-oriented work and with the insight of how crucial it is to meet the companies where they are and create conditions for the companies to grow and develop.

This is important for all municipalities in Sweden, Mr. Speaker. The Business Sweden Council has also for a long time shown that the differences between the municipalities are large in processing times, fees, and application. Many times these differences are difficult to justify. The municipalities are often the first and most important contact companies have with the public sector. The decisions made there can be completely decisive for whether an investment happens or not.

Therefore, the entire administrative chain needs to hang together. The municipalities should be given a clearer role in the simplification work, and their responsibility for service and advice towards companies needs to be strengthened. A more uniform, efficient, and predictable application benefits not only the companies but also the municipalities themselves.

Let us be honest, Mr. Speaker. Everything that needs to be done is not done. That is why this work must continue, with perseverance and clear focus. When systems become too complicated, it does not only cause irritation but also inefficiency and waste. We simply cannot afford that. Entrepreneurs are not a problem to be controlled. They are people who take risks, create jobs, and build our common prosperity. Therefore, the state and the public sector should be an enabler, not an obstacle.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs more companies that grow, not more rules that hinder. We need more ideas that become reality, not more processes that stop them. That is why we have a great focus on regulatory simplification for companies. And that is why we will continue this work with full force.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again move for the approval of the proposal in the committee report.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a rule-based order, we usually say. We have rules that we follow. We take a number ticket, stand properly in the elevator queue, and so on.

But when we look out over the world, we see now that the rules-based order is strongly threatened. We have a crumbling world trade organization. The powerful countries assert the right of the strongest instead of safeguarding a fair and well-functioning trade system.

I will think of a rather well-known motto that is often attributed to Albert Einstein. I believe it is wrong. In any case, it reads: A model should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Let us dissect this expression. It has two parts. "As simple as possible" is an appeal for clarity and to strip away everything non-essential. I believe we can all agree that it is wise. Then we have the other part: "but not simpler." This is the warning and the critical counterweight. If one simplifies too much, one loses the connection to reality. The model then becomes incorrect and thus worthless or even harmful.

This is precisely the trap of populism. On the world stage, Donald Trump's and the USA's actions are the clearest example. We see this at home as well. Many populist messages are based on models that are far too simple. They offer simple and drastic solutions to complex societal problems, for example crime, integration and climate change, by deliberately ignoring the multifaceted nature of the problems.

An example could be: Lower the price at the pump! It is a very simple and striking message, but in its wake lie an enormous number of problems. We make ourselves dependent on fuel from a rogue state. We lock ourselves into a system where we get higher and higher prices over time. When world trade cracks and there is conflict in the world, prices rise. It is, therefore, an all-too-simple solution. Instead, we could invest long-term in our own domestic production and make ourselves less dependent.

Mr. Speaker! The challenge for us politicians is to find the balance point – as simple as possible, but not simpler. As several have pointed out here in the speaker's chair, rules many times have a cost that far exceeds the benefit. 400 billion is a figure that has been mentioned. It is money that, frankly, is being thrown into the lake. This is something we in Sweden could do much better.

I would like to mention three things that truly strengthen growth in our country. The first is investments in research, development, and innovation. The second is closing the skills gap – Sweden must keep up and be at the forefront of development. The third is the subject of today's debate, namely the reduction of red tape. If we can aim for those three parts, I am quite sure that we in Sweden will achieve very good growth.

Counteracting red tape has been central for the Center Party ever since we were formed 113 years ago.

A farmer knew from the very beginning that it was less productive to fill out forms than to plow the earth around the potatoes. Even today, we notice in the motion's report that half of the reservations come from Centerpartiet. It is an issue that is extremely important for us in C.

Mr. Speaker! Where should we direct our spotlight? I would say that we should first and foremost direct it towards the European Union. As the world has developed now, we need two things: We need a strong Sweden in a strong EU.

Sweden exports 52 percent of its GDP, and 75 percent of the exports go to the European Union. Taken as a whole, our internal market in Sweden and the EU is 87 percent. We must, of course, direct our spotlight towards the EU.

I want to highlight a few things. We need to see a stronger EU with increased harmonization of rules in the EU so that we can achieve greater competitiveness against the USA and other large economies. We need to work on ensuring that the Swedish implementation of EU rules takes place at a minimum level so that we do not do unnecessarily much. We also need to open the internal market in the EU further – especially for the service sector. In the motion report, we also highlight more proposals that we can focus on at home.

Mr. Speaker! We want to see a clear path in for companies in public Sweden. We propose a so-called one-stop shop. Especially smaller companies have problems with how difficult it is to target different authorities and understand how everything works. Imagine if we in Sweden could instead offer a one-stop shop towards public Sweden – that is one of our proposals.

We also want to give a permanent mandate for regulatory simplification to the authorities in their instructions. We want that we in Sweden should be able to try something called regulatory sandboxes. One can give increased room from the authorities' side to companies to be able to stretch the current regulatory framework a bit to test new ideas so that we do not become so rigid in our innovation processes.

We want to see increased proportionality in regulations and the exercise of authority so that small companies are not affected by a disproportionately large administrative burden.

Mr. Speaker! We also want to automate permit processes with inspiration from the Swedish Tax Agency's simplified procedure for tax returns. We want to use the possibilities of digitalization and AI to make it much easier in our permit processes.

Mr. Speaker! Now that the government has appointed implementation councils and simplification councils in parallel with regulatory councils, we finally propose that we can simplify and merge all these three into one council that is given an overall responsibility over the regulatory simplification jungle and also a deeper mandate.

Mr. Speaker! I hereby move for approval of our reservation number 1.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, my party Liberalerna and the government have made it easier to be an entrepreneur in Sweden. The government's ambition has been to reduce the regulatory burden. We are moving forward slowly, it must be acknowledged.

The rules we have need to be well-motivated, preferably be few and be simple to both understand and comply with. When they are not this, it undermines people's will to follow the rules, which makes it much harder to run businesses.

There is much that can be improved regarding the possibility of running a business in Sweden, even though I agree with previous speakers from Vänsterpartiet that Sweden is a good country to be an entrepreneur in. This applies from both a global as well as a European perspective.

Sometimes we unfortunately see how the public sector stands in the way of the private sector. It can involve the exercise of authority that is perceived to hinder rather than help companies. But it can also concern things such as unreasonably long processing times and permit processes that drag on.

We have also, over several years, seen that companies' costs solely as a result of regulations have increased by several billion. It is not reasonable. It also underscores the need for the simplifications that the government has put forward and that are proposed even further ahead.

The regulatory burden and the administrative costs need to decrease so that companies and entrepreneurs can focus on what they are good at, which is running their company, and not on filling out forms.

Some examples of what the government has done are, as has been mentioned here earlier, that a simplification council has been established, that the requirement for hotel permits has been removed, and that the requirement to keep receipts and other accounting information in paper form has been abolished.

The latest example in the series was the decision to abolish the food requirement for restaurants. It opens up for, for example, wine bars and cocktail bars to be able to do what they are good at without being obliged to serve food.

These are some important steps in the right direction, but it is clear that there is much left to do. If we are to have a forward-looking Sweden with innovation and competitiveness, we must change Swedish bureaucracy and regulatory burden.

It must become both simpler and cheaper to run businesses in Sweden. It is worth underlining that it is the business sector that lays the foundation for the welfare we have in Sweden.

We need to facilitate so that we get more companies and more expansive companies. It is not just good for the Swedish economy and the labor market, but it is good for the whole society.

Mr. Speaker! I hereby move for approval of the committee's proposal in the Committee on Industry's report.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Many of Sweden's companies today are conducting active sustainability work that reduces climate emissions while simultaneously opening up for new innovations, business development, new jobs, and new companies. These companies are role models for others to follow. Continuing in the old ruts will not move us forward. The transition, instead, opens up for a new, brighter future.

The government's new acceleration office has, in a report, shown the socio-economic consequences of missing industrial investments linked to the green transition. The report shows that society stagnates when investments are missing and the transition stops. We have very much to gain from the transition.

But the green transition places new and major demands on many municipalities and regions, not least in those parts of the country where large industrial investments are being carried out or planned. The rapid development often means that local communities need to manage strong population growth and an increased need for housing, infrastructure, and municipal services in a short period of time.

The state therefore needs to take a more comprehensive and active responsibility to support municipalities and regions in the work of enabling the green transition. This can involve supporting housing construction, new infrastructure, skills supply, power grid expansion, or communication routes. When listening to the municipalities, one hears that there are several critical issues that only politics can solve. This also applies to the business sector.

What is desired is long-term perspective and clarity. That usually tops the list. Regulatory simplifications, which we are discussing today, are usually an additional factor that is also highlighted in these contexts.

Here we can see that efficient and predictable permit processes are crucial prerequisites for investments that contribute to the climate transition to be able to be carried out at the pace that is required.

Long and uncertain review processes can delay important investments and create uncertainty for companies and investors. It is therefore very important that the permit processes are developed. They need to become more coordinated and transparent and proceed faster without us simultaneously compromising on safety and sustainability or the environment.

An important part is that an applicant should, already at an early stage, receive clear information about which requirements apply for an application to be able to be approved. There need to be clear frameworks for what the application itself needs to contain.

We also consider that the cooperation between the relevant authorities and stakeholders needs to be strengthened, and it is important that the relevant parties are involved early in the processes so that permit processes can proceed quickly.

We need to introduce clearer timeframes for the processing of permit cases. We believe that maximum times should be used in certain cases, where it is regulated how much time an authority is allowed to take to process a case. When maximum times are introduced, authorities may need strengthened support for resources and competence to meet the new maximum requirements. We also believe that the authorities' resources for environmental assessment should be able to be used more flexibly.

The climate issue is urgent, and our climate emissions need to decrease rapidly. To manage uneven workloads and ensure a more equitable and efficient processing throughout the country, Miljöpartiet wants to introduce a climate task force. A climate task force means that a special pool of processors with specialized competence can be deployed to assist county administrative boards and other relevant authorities in the assessment of operations that contribute significantly to Sweden being able to reach its climate goals.

This is a bouquet of proposals from Miljöpartiet to facilitate and simplify for companies so that they achieve faster results.

As previously mentioned, we believe that it is necessary to strengthen the conditions for innovation and business development and to move from idea to pilot project to established business activity. This is needed to ensure a green transition of industries and entire sectors.

The transition to a more circular economy is a central part of the work to reduce climate impact and to be able to manage the earth's resources better. Furthermore, it makes us more robust in the uncertain global situation. For this transition to be able to take place, new business models, technical solutions, and forms of financing are required.

At the same time, many of today's regulations are not designed with circularity as a starting point. In some cases, there are rules that can counteract the use of recycled materials or hinder the development of new circular business models.

Here we believe that so-called regulatory sandboxes can be an important tool. Through clear delimitations, companies and other actors can be given the opportunity to test innovative solutions in controlled forms which might otherwise be hindered by existing regulations.

Such a way of working can contribute to identifying which rules constitute obstacles to circular solutions and simultaneously create a basis for how regulatory frameworks can be developed to better support the circular economy without compromising environmental and climate requirements.

Miljöpartiet would therefore like to give a mandate to develop a structure for regulatory sandboxes with a particular focus on promoting the development of innovative circular business models, and we are somewhat questioning whether this is something the government has tested.

We believe that such a structure can contribute to new solutions being tested, that regulatory obstacles are identified and changed, and that the experiences are taken into account in the continued work of developing regulatory frameworks that support, instead of prevent, a resource-efficient and circular economy.

Mr. Speaker! There is much that needs to be done and much that can be done to support and promote Sweden's industrial development, climate transition, and steering towards increased resource efficiency. We are in the middle of a technological shift, and it is high time to move from investigation to action.

With this said, I move for approval of reservation 6.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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