Abolish food requirements for serving licenses

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall have vibrant cities and a world-class business climate. We shall have a restaurant and entertainment life that makes our fantastic capital Stockholm and all other cities around Sweden vibrate.

Our entrepreneurs in the pub and restaurant industry bring people together, create meeting places and memories for life for family and friends. They are also important carriers of Swedish food and drink culture, and their restaurants, bars and entertainment activities are a prerequisite for us to strengthen our country's competitiveness as an attractive visiting and tourist destination.

Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of rules and bureaucracy that hinder the Swedish restaurateurs in the restaurant and pub industry. We now want to address those rules in order to improve the business climate.

The food requirement for a serving permit is one such example. A serving permit is granted only if the establishment has its own kitchen adjacent to the serving premises and provides cooked or otherwise prepared food. Guests shall be able to be offered a varied selection of dishes. After 23:00, the food selection may be limited to a few simpler dishes.

This is an outdated regulation with roots from the 1800s that clearly creates unnecessary complications and costs for Swedish restaurants and bars. It entails significant costs and obstacles for existing businesses. It also prevents the establishment of new serving concepts, for example, with an increased focus on drinks or only being able to offer a simpler selection of food together with alcoholic beverages.

The government is now making it a little simpler and a little freer for ordinary people and entrepreneurs in Sweden. Above all, it benefits small and medium-sized enterprises. We do this by removing the requirement for food service and a private kitchen for serving licenses for both beer and stronger drinks. We are also scrapping the requirement for a private kitchen for serving licenses in catering activities. These proposals reduce the regulatory burden and the costs for companies and lower the thresholds for those entrepreneurs who want to start a new type of business.

The Government assesses that the reform can reduce costs for companies by almost 4 billion kronor per year through, among other things, reduced administration and reduced food waste. Those resources can now instead be used to develop the business, increase profitability, and strengthen competitiveness in the industry. It also affects as many as 14,000 companies, and several hundred dining establishments are assessed to be added as a result of the regulatory simplifications.

Madam Speaker! Most people surely appreciate and think it is an advantage if there is food when one is going to have a beer or drink a glass of wine. For those who enjoy food with the wine or herring with the nubbe, there is of course no reason to feel worried. It will, of course, continue to be possible to serve food with the beer or the wine.

In approximately 3,600 pubs, bars, sports bars, entertainment restaurants, and nightclubs, alcohol plays a central role, and there the food is mostly in the background to comply with the rules. But there are significantly more restaurants, over 10,500, which have the food experience as their primary activity. It is only the former companies that will be affected by the abolished food requirement. The other activity will remain.

The advantage of the reform is that many new opportunities are opened. When we Christian Democrats and the government now abolish the food requirement for serving licenses, it opens up for new types of meeting places such as wine bars and beer gardens as we know them from Germany and other parts of Europe.

We are now ensuring that this summer, one no longer needs to cook food in order to serve a beer or a glass of wine. One also does not need to offer indoor seating in order to serve a cold beer outside.

We clarify that indoor seats will no longer be required in order to obtain a serving permit for an outdoor seating area.

We are also removing outdated provisions regarding the design of bars. Today, they may only occupy a small portion of the serving area and must be located in close connection to the dining room.

Madam Speaker! The Government assesses, based on the Simplification Council's calculations, that the proposals will only have limited consequences for public health. But obviously, the reform shall be closely monitored and evaluated by our authorities from both a business perspective and a social perspective.

I am very pleased that today we can make decisions on small regulatory simplifications that will make a big difference for Swedish small business owners, cultural activities, entrepreneurship, and competitiveness both in our beautiful capital Stockholm and around the country.

Many businesses want to provide catering but have until now been hindered by costly and sometimes disproportionate requirements. It is not reasonable. A strong society is not built by unnecessary detailed regulation but by clear responsibility combined with requirements.

We Christian Democrats believe in Sweden and the Swedish tourism and restaurant industry. Therefore, we vote today in favor of abolishing the food requirement, and we move for approval of the Social Affairs Committee's proposal in the report.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Madam Speaker! The goal of Swedish alcohol policy is to promote public health by reducing the medical and social harmful effects of alcohol.

How one reaches that goal has changed over time, and it should change in step with the times in order to continue to function as a legitimate protection for public health. But all changes to the alcohol legislation should be made cautiously and with great care for those who risk being affected by the changes in a negative way.

Today we have a proposal for new legislation on the table. Today's regulations for serving permits have long been seen as complicated, and it has been criticized for being applied differently in different municipalities.

That was why the Social Democratic government appointed an investigation that was named A safe upbringing without alcohol, tobacco, and nicotine products. That investigation was then supplemented with an additional directive on nitrous oxide so that it became A safe upbringing without nicotine, alcohol, and nitrous oxide. It was a good title, and it was a good investigation that framed the core issue of public health policy through a very clear child perspective.

The investigation presented wise and well-considered proposals that made it clearer how the alcohol legislation should be applied and which involved simplifications of the menu that a restaurant must be able to provide. The Tidö Government threw all of this in the trash. And so be it; it is not the first time, and it will not be the last time, that a government does not follow through on proposals from an investigation that a previous government has commissioned.

It must however be said today that the bill that is now on the Riksdag's table is a mess. It has been prepared by an advisory body at Tillväxtverket. The Simplification Council, which has prepared the investigation, has as its mandate to make things easier for companies. The Simplification Council has no competence in the field of public health and has also not brought in that competence in the form of any expert in the investigation, and it shows. The proposal has been harshly criticized by a number of referral bodies because it is entirely based on the interests of the business sector and does not have any public health perspective at all.

The proposal nevertheless contains a calculation of the effects of increased availability of alcohol based on the calculation model that the UN usually uses. Depending on the assumption of how large an increase in alcohol consumption the new legislation will lead to, we can expect an increase in mortality of between 11 and 19 people per year. We can also expect between 1,350 and 2,400 more alcohol-related hospital admissions per year. The cost for production loss as a result of this will correspond to between 71 and 127 million kronor annually.

Disease and death do not, however, seem to be a particularly important issue for the Tidö Government. Nor do children seem to be a particularly important issue for the Tidö Government. Protecting children and young people from the harmful effects of alcohol could otherwise be said to be the very core of a responsible public health policy. But the government dismisses the referral bodies that point out the lack of a children's perspective by saying that the age limits and the retail monopoly remain unchanged.

We Social Democrats note that children live in the same reality as we adults. When a major change in alcohol policy occurs and when the availability of alcohol increases, it affects the children. It will affect children when alcohol is served at more outdoor seating areas and at places that have previously been exempt from alcohol service, such as public baths and minigolf courses.

It will to a very high degree affect children when adults in their vicinity encounter an increased availability of alcohol and thus have more opportunities to drink more. According to the Central Association for Alcohol and Drug Information, more than 20 percent of all children in Sweden, up to 430,000 children, have at some point during their upbringing had at least one parent with alcohol problems. 15 percent, 320,000 children, have been negatively affected by growing up with a parent with alcohol problems. It is reasonable to believe that this legislation will affect the children.

We Social Democrats believe that the lack of a public health perspective, the lack of a children's perspective, and the lack of consequence analyses mean that the proposed changes should be followed up in a specific order, both in the short term and in the slightly longer term.

Madam Speaker! With the new legislation, companies' investment costs will decrease because neither kitchens, porcelain, chairs or tables, raw materials or chefs will be required to serve alcohol. It can be assumed that this will lead to a price reduction on alcohol. The question is what it means for the restaurants that have the ambition to serve good food but who also attract guests who are satisfied with a glass of wine. How expensive must the food become when it opens a beer hall in the premises next door that, thanks to the minimal investment costs, can sell beer at much lower prices?

The question is how many restaurants will be driven into bankruptcy as a result of the new legislation. That analysis is also missing from the proposal.

Add to that that the restaurant industry is already today an industry where there is a considerable amount of economic crime, exploitation of labor and links to organized crime. Both the Economic Crime Authority and the Crime Prevention Council have stated that network criminals are clearly overrepresented within the restaurant industry. Several referral bodies warn that crime in the pub industry will increase when it becomes easier to make money from alcohol service. But the risk that competition will be distorted at the expense of serious and respectable companies does not also seem to be a particularly important issue for the Tidö Government.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by saying a few words about catering activities. Catering companies shall, according to the proposal, be able to serve food in order to obtain a permanent alcohol permit. On the other hand, there will no longer be requirements for kitchen and food service for temporary serving permits for private parties. In other words, the law will provide room to allow catering of alcohol only. It is a completely new business opportunity that the new legislation opens up for.

It means that the application of the law by individual municipalities will be of great importance. We Social Democrats believe it would be extremely unfortunate if we saw a development towards the catering of alcohol parties. It would increase the risk of medical and social damage, and it would challenge the retail monopoly.

Madam Speaker! The proposal we have on the table today implies major changes to the Swedish alcohol policy. The proposal contains no deeper analysis of what consequences it may have for public health, for children, for the retail monopoly, and for public order and safety in the public space or regarding crime in an already heavily crime-burdened industry. These are analyses that would have been needed.

We Social Democrats consider that the proposed changes can be compared with the new law on so-called farm sales. That reform is implemented with a trial period of six years. After that, the reform shall be evaluated to see if it should be extended. We consider that this law should be introduced with a trial period of two years in order to then be evaluated for an extension. That would give us significantly greater maneuverability over public health policy than the proposal that is on the table today.

Madam Speaker! I support both of the Social Democrats' motions but move for approval only to reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Karin Sundin for the speech!

Much of the speech was about the harmful effects of alcohol and the goal of reducing alcohol-related harm. We all here obviously agree on that. Karin Sundin also presented general criticism that the government does not follow up on the Social Democrats' proposals for decisions, and it is well somewhat natural to do so when one sits in opposition.

What I do not understand, however, after having listened to the member's speech, is exactly what will contribute to the problems she is talking about – that everything would become worse.

Christian Carlsson from Kristdemokraterna explained very well what advantages the proposal will bring for city life, for businesses, and for the individual's opportunity to enjoy legal alcohol consumption. The situation is also such that there is no party in Sweden's Riksdag that is in favor of banning alcohol consumption for adults. Even the Socialdemokraterna are in complete agreement that adults should be allowed to consume alcohol, even on outdoor terraces and in restaurants.

Then the question is: What is it that will concretely become worse if just the food requirement is removed? The other rules remain, but it will be a smaller administrative burden. There are not directly queues at every serving establishment now. There is, therefore, no evidence from Karin Sundin's side for your reasoning that the public will want to consume more and more alcohol just because the supply increases in the form of making it easier to serve alcohol. This is my question initially.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

We Social Democrats see absolute advantages in simplifying today's legislation. That was why the then Social Democratic government appointed an inquiry to review the regulatory framework.

We consider, however, that a responsible public health policy does not only look at the advantages but actually also attempts to analyze the consequences of a negative nature. What we clearly want to point out is that the basis for this change in legislation has extremely few analyses regarding negative consequences of a changed legislation.

Just as I have previously highlighted, there are several such. It is a well-researched fact that increased access to alcohol also increases consumption. This is established by, among others, WHO and the UN.

Also, the Simplification Council's own investigation points very clearly to what the consequences of increased availability might be. That was what I highlighted in my speech when I pointed out, with quotes from the Simplification Council's own report, that the changes in legislation that are on the table today are expected to lead to an increased mortality, depending on how one counts, of between 11 and 19 people per year. They are also expected to lead to between 1,350 and 2,400 more alcohol-related hospital admissions per year. Linked to this are also calculations of the costs for production loss.

These are established facts. I understand that the Tidö parties do not want to take them seriously, but they are in the Simplification Council's own investigation prior to this proposal. We think it is responsible to also point out the negative effects of a changed legislation.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Karin Sundin for the answer.

The keyword here was really that it depends on how one calculates it. On one hand, the Social Democrats say that there is no basis for this decision. On the other hand, one talks about there being a basis that shows that more will die. It is obviously not a truth, because it is based, again, on the assumption that more will consume alcohol when the food requirement is removed.

Karin Sundin speaks very well about the problems with increased alcohol consumption – absolutely! But one does not talk about what the problem with just the abolished food requirement will be, and that is actually what the debate is about. That is what we will decide on today.

People also talk about how increased availability increases consumption – okay. They mean that this increases availability, which in turn increases consumption. Why then do they say in the same speech that they want to ease the rules? The first member said when she answered my question that they want to ease the rules. In the second sentence, she said that rule relaxations lead to increased availability and increased mortality. This is a reasoning that does not hold together.

No, I think Tidösidan has landed much more sensibly here. We all agree that one should be allowed to consume alcohol in legal forms if one is an adult human being. And if one is allowed to do so, we should not limit it through administrative burdens. It is age limits, information, etc., that should apply.

If one is to be allowed to consume alcohol at a place – and everyone agrees that one shall be allowed to do so – we should not make it more complicated for that place and for the consumer who is to do so.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

I would like to recommend that the members 1) read the investigation, 2) read the government's bill, 3) review the referral responses and 4) review the alcohol research. There are clear answers there: Increased access to alcohol leads to increased consumption of alcohol. Then one can calculate to what extent it does so. In the calculations of what consequences this might have, based on the legislation that is on the table today, the range is between 11 and 19 more deaths due to alcohol.

We say that changes are needed, but that one also needs to follow up on the negative consequences of this. That is the reason why we submit a clear proposal that this legislation shall be followed up in a specific manner.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the contribution.

It is very critical words from the Social Democrats regarding this reform. I believe those who listen to the debate, if they do not listen very closely to the actual words the member says, can get the impression that the Social Democrats are against the reform. This is, however, a reform that the Social Democrats will vote for here in the Riksdag. They have no own proposal but will vote for the reform. It is under point 1 in the report that the actual legislative changes occur.

I actually have two questions. One is a control question, very simple, and it goes as follows: Do the Social Democrats think that one should be able to have a pilsner at a place that also cannot deliver a plate of fries? It is a very simple question, a yes-or-no question.

The second question is: If you think so, why is it not stated a bit more clearly in the Social Democrats' statement here in the chamber today? And if you do not think so, why are you then in favor of the reform? Why are the Social Democrats in favor of a reform that they argue so fiercely against?

So it is actually two questions: Do the Social Democrats think that one should be allowed to have a pilsner without a plate of fries? And if you don't think so, why are you then in favor of the reform?

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Yes, the Social Democrats think that one should be able to have a glass of wine or a beer without having to bring in a tray of fries.

I note that in today's debate in this chamber, we have plenty of representatives for the Tidö parties who sing the praises of the reform. We see that there are also a number of problems linked to a changed legislation that increases the accessibility of alcohol. We believe it is responsible politics to not only highlight the positive effects of a changed legislation, as you yourself have done. There are many who speak in favor of the reform, but it is very few who point out that there are actually also negative consequences and that these negative consequences need to be followed up.

That is what we say: This legislation needs to be followed up so that we can see how the consequences turn out and if we need to change the legislation moving forward based on this.

It is still quite a lot at stake. In the investigation and in the bill, there are calculations of increased damages due to increased alcohol consumption in the form of deaths, alcohol-related hospital admissions and increased societal costs. This actually needs to be highlighted.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Sundin for that answer!

I listened earlier in the debate to, among other things, the exchange with the Sweden Democrats and also the contribution from the Christian Democrats by the committee chairman. Both highlighted that there are dangers with alcohol consumption. There is no line of conflict in Swedish politics on this. This we all agree on.

It is also the case, and the members know it actually, that the Riksdag follows up on matters all the time. To follow up and scrutinize is one of the roles the Riksdag has. When it comes to the alcohol issue, we have both authorities and researchers who do this. It is teeming with people who follow up on the legislation we produce, precisely all the time. There is no shortage of people who follow up on alcohol policy in Sweden from both sides.

I have understood that it is important for the Social Democrats to have more follow-up. That has come across. I believe that those watching this debate have also understood that. But I am still a bit interested: It seems as though the Social Democrats are somewhat reluctantly agreeing to this reform. I can imagine that it is because it is quite popular. If people in town are asked if they think one should be allowed to have a beer or a glass of wine without also being able to order a plate of fries, I think most would say yes.

The feeling one gets when watching the debate is that the Social Democrats are agreeing to these liberalizations somewhat reluctantly. Therefore, my question to Member Sundin is whether she can give some examples of other liberalizations that the Social Democrats would like to see when it comes to alcohol policy. If one accepts the principled arguments for this proposal, they also apply to other potential liberalizations.

We have heard about your evaluations and follow-ups now. We do not need to hear that one more time. But it would be interesting to hear: Do the Social Democrats have other proposals for a slightly freer and more liberal pub life in Sweden?

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

Karin Sundin (S)

I think that this debate is about a specific piece of legislation aimed at simplifying the rules for alcohol serving licenses. I think there are many representatives in the Swedish Riksdag who want a liberalization of the alcohol legislation. We Social Democrats believe that a responsible alcohol policy actually means looking at both the positive and negative consequences of changed legislation.

The Chairman points out that there is no lack of follow-up on decisions made in the Riksdag. In that case, we could ask the counter-question as to why the Tidö parties believe it was responsible to actually introduce precisely such a trial period of six years in the issue of farm sales. Then one can see how the law turns out and evaluate whether one can proceed with the law. That was considered relevant regarding farm sales. We Social Democrats believe that it would also be relevant when it concerns the modification of alcohol permits.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Karin Sundin for the speech.

When I listened to the speech, I heard all the negative aspects being raised regarding the abolition of the alcohol requirement. It will lead to increased drinking, more vulnerable children, and increased damage to public health, and it will trigger more unserious food businesses within the restaurant industry.

The investigation carried out by the Simplification Council is called a "hafsverk" [mess] by the member. Instead, reference is made to the investigation that the Social Democrats had carried out regarding a safe upbringing without alcohol, tobacco, and nitrous oxide. In that investigation, the food requirement specifically was discussed. There, two proposals for changes were presented.

One proposal was to remove the requirement for a varied selection of main courses, which in most municipalities is interpreted as at least nine different main courses, and instead set a requirement to serve a number of different main courses. The second amendment proposal was not to require food to be served until 11 p.m., but instead until 10 p.m. It is therefore a question of small modifications of existing legislation.

Now the member has argued against the entire proposal, but nevertheless S will vote for it. Therefore, I have a question, Madam Speaker: Why do the Social Democrats stand behind the new legislation when the member, in their statement, so clearly argues against it?

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

Karin Sundin (S)

We thought the proposals submitted in the previous investigation on a safe upbringing without alcohol, tobacco, and nitrous oxide were good. But some time has passed, and there are clearer demands that we need to change the legislation. We think it is time to make those changes. It is many years since the investigation was commissioned, and it is time that we make changes in the legislation.

But we believe that in the process that has led to the proposal lying before the Riksdag today, the potential negative consequences of the changes have been analyzed to an all too small extent. The Simplification Council's proposal implied, and what we have to take a stand on in the chamber today, a unanimous hymn of praise to the business community's simplified conditions to be able to conduct alcohol service in a more profitable, simpler, and more accessible way.

Simplifications are good, but we must also look at the potentially negative consequences. Therefore, we have landed on the position that we stand behind the changes, but they need to be followed up in exactly the same way as the Riksdag has stated that the sale of farms involves risks that challenge Swedish public health policy. Therefore, we shall follow up on that reform after six years. We believe it would be reasonable to do the same follow-up when it comes to this reform. We think that is a responsible way to look at the issue, which takes into account both the needs of the business sector and public health.

I do not hear many words about public health from other speakers in the debate, but instead it is about how pleasant and nice it will become.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I must remind the member to also speak through the Speaker during exchanges of remarks.)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I note that the member says that the proposals in the investigation on a safe upbringing without alcohol, tobacco, and nitrous oxide were good. My personal assessment is that the proposals were terrible. It was a matter of minimalistic changes to the existing legislation.

Who knows how many main courses a restaurant, pub, or wine bar should serve if one moves from a varied selection to a number of different main courses. Does it go from nine main courses to eight main courses, or does it go from ten main courses to six main courses? No one knows, but the change was minimalist.

The second change, that food does not necessarily have to be served until 11:00 PM but can be finished as early as 10:00 PM, was an even more minimalist change.

Now the member says that it was a good proposal. But why have the Socialdemokraterna chosen not to move for a rejection of the motion and instead introduce a follow-up motion regarding the changes that they actually think are good? For everyone who has listened to the member's speech in the rostrum, it was a denunciation of the new legislation, a denunciation of a removal of the food requirement, a denunciation of letting the business sector have a bit more freedom and slightly lower costs. It is difficult for me to piece together the picture from the Socialdemokraterna.

One senses that it is a form of double game taking place here, where one actually thinks one thing but votes for another because one nevertheless perceives that the general will of the people considers it quite sensible to remove the food requirement. One could possibly call it hypocrisy, but I do not, of course, dare to do so.

Since you will still be standing behind the proposal, I have a concluding question for the member: What positive effects do the Social Democrats see from an abolition of the food requirement?

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

Karin Sundin (S)

The positive consequences of the proposal are that it will become easier for the restaurant industry to comply with the serving rules. In much of the description that has emerged in the chamber, there will be room for more pleasant and enjoyable occasions to enjoy alcohol in Summer Sweden this year. These are the positive sides of the proposal.

We mean that it is time for change, and we need to change the requirements for obtaining alcohol licenses.

What I wanted to see was the basis that underlies the change. A significantly more thorough analysis of the negative consequences would have been needed. It would have been appropriate to take responsibility for the issue from both a business policy perspective and a public health policy perspective. But when that has not been done, we say: In this issue, let us do as we did regarding farm sales, namely that we follow up on the legislation in a specific order to see any negative consequences for public health and, based on the result, make decisions on the way forward.

It is not strange. That was what we said regarding the sale of farms. Then the Riksdag, also the Tidö parties, thought there was reason for caution. We believe there is reason for caution also when it concerns the restaurants' conditions to serve alcohol in significantly freer forms.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Safe, free and Swedish – those are the slogans that my party and I are running on. It is a noble vision, which the red-green side has unfortunately opposed point by point.

Today we are discussing an issue which, in that context, is of course very small. But it is still about just freedom in everyday life, which is so important. It is about which rules should apply regarding serving permits. The background to the bill is that there have been rules for this that have been very poorly balanced.

We have now heard the debate here in the chamber, but I still want to remind that we all agree that adult people shall be allowed to consume alcohol in Sweden in a legal way. One can think what one wants about it, but there is no party in Sweden's Riksdag that thinks otherwise. That is something to keep in mind.

We also agree that there should be legal ways to meet that demand. And finally, we agree that there should be restrictions in this industry. The question that arises from this debate is: What restrictions, in that case? Age limits are reasonable. Restrictions on marketing are reasonable. Serving bans are reasonable. And Systembolaget plays a role, even if there are generally more differences of opinion regarding that.

Is it then reasonable that businesses that want to serve alcohol to adults who want to consume alcohol, again completely legally, should be burdened with an administrative burden that complicates things for everyone involved without in any clear way reducing the damage that the alcohol nonetheless entails? No, it is not reasonable. Therefore, today we will abolish the food requirement for the serving of alcohol.

The left side is against it. I could have almost understood that they were against it if the food requirement in some way fell on the consumer. It would still, of course, have been completely unreasonable, but there would at least have been a certain logic in it: that one must eat food to consume alcohol. Then we could talk about some kind of public health perspective in that. It is conceivable that the consumer drinks less alcohol in total because one also eats, and that the damages that occur during the alcohol combustion process itself are in some way dampened if one combines the alcohol with food. But that is not the case. The left side is just against it, in a way that is intended to make things difficult for ordinary people.

Again: That is why we will abolish this relic from socialist Sweden. That is why we will remove the food requirement for the serving of alcohol and reduce the administrative burden for all involved.

Madam Speaker! Society must be tough on criminals, on fraudsters, and on other malicious social actors. But it must be free and accommodating for completely ordinary, honest people.

Today we are participating in creating a slightly freer Sweden. I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The previous speaker's speech was so short that I hardly had time to get up here.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet welcomes parts of the government's bill on the removal of food requirements for serving permits, as today's regulations are not always purposeful.

Sweden shall have an alcohol policy based on public health, responsibility and protection. It should not be just anyone who is allowed to serve alcohol. High requirements shall be set on order and sobriety, on control, on supervision and on that alcohol is not served to minors or persons who are noticeably intoxicated.

However, that does not mean that every part of today's legislation is well-designed. A clear example is the requirement that alcohol service must be linked to food service and a separate kitchen. That requirement has in practice become both complicated and expensive and is sometimes quite unrealistic. It can be a major obstacle for small and new businesses. Building a restaurant kitchen involves large costs. It presupposes premises, investments, equipment, staff, and food handling – even when the actual purpose of the business is not to run a restaurant but, for example, a smaller bar, a microbrewery, a wine cellar, or a business where the craft of beverages is at the center.

Miljöpartiet argues that it should be possible to have strict and responsible alcohol legislation and at the same time be able to remove rules that no longer serve their purpose.

Madam Speaker! It is important to be clear about what the question is actually about. The food requirement does not mean that the person drinking alcohol must also eat the food. It means that there must be food available to order. In many cases, it has led to rather contrived solutions, where the food exists mainly to fulfill the legal requirements and not because it is requested by the guests or is a natural part of the business.

The goal of the alcohol act shall be to prevent over-serving, reduce the harmful effects of alcohol, and maintain good order and control. It is there that the requirements shall be strong. It is there that the supervision shall be clear. It is there that the municipalities shall have tools to say no and to intervene and withdraw permits when operations do not behave.

Madam Speaker! The alcohol industry has changed. In many places in Sweden, small-scale breweries, local producers, and artisanal beverage businesses are emerging. It is often about smaller actors, sometimes organic and often locally rooted, who contribute to a more varied beverage culture and to local entrepreneurship.

There are also new ways to organize operations. Microbreweries, for example, may want to collaborate with food trucks or others. A smaller bar may want to have a limited but serious selection without needing to run a full restaurant. A beverage producer may want to offer tastings or service in an environment where the craftsmanship is at the center. It is not reasonable for the legislation to unnecessarily force such operations to build up a restaurant business that they do not actually intend to conduct.

The supervision must continue to be strong and the responsibility clear, even as the regulatory framework is modernized. It is also important that we follow up on the reform. If accessibility increases, if supervision is hindered, or if alcohol-related problems increase, the policy must be prepared to act.

Madam Speaker! There is a part of the bill that we in the Green Party cannot stand behind. It concerns the proposal to remove the requirement for an own kitchen for catering activities. Here, we share the concern raised in the reservation from the Social Democrats. When the government simultaneously removes the food requirement for temporary serving permits in private gatherings, a risk of ambiguity arises. It could become more difficult to draw the line between catering, which actually concerns food service, and setups that in practice could approach the delivery and serving of alcohol only.

Catering is something different than a bar, a brewery, or a restaurant-like business where the municipality evaluates a local and a physical serving environment. With catering, it is about temporary locations, closed gatherings, and more varied forms. In that case, the rules need to be particularly clear.

Miljöpartiet therefore argues that it is reasonable to maintain the requirement for a private kitchen for catering activities. It is a limited but important objection to the bill.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of reservation 1.

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

Noria Manouchi (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the bill on a removed food requirement for serving licenses. It is about freedom for entrepreneurs, about more reasonable rules, and about a more modern Sweden. Let us be honest: The current regulatory framework is based on a view of the restaurant and entertainment life that simply belongs in another time.

The state has in practice told people who want to open bars, cocktail bars, wine bars or small breweries: You are allowed to serve alcohol, but only if you simultaneously conduct kitchen operations according to our specifications. No customer needs to request food, and therefore you do not need to serve any food. But the cost for the kitchen must, in any case, be paid.

It has not been reasonable and is not reasonable. In almost all of Europe, it actually works differently. In countries such as Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy, there are pubs, wine bars and small serving establishments without requirements for food service. There, the legislation is based on order, accountability and supervision, not on how many hot dishes are on the menu.

Sweden has instead built up a system where small business owners are forced to invest hundreds of thousands of kronor in kitchen equipment that they actually do not want and do not need – just to fulfill a meaningless formal requirement. We have also ended up with an arrangement where the municipalities do completely different things. The uncertainty for the entrepreneurs becomes obvious, and creative concepts are stopped before they have even managed to start.

Madam Speaker! This is not a question of dismantling Swedish alcohol policy. It is important to say, given the opposition's alarmist rhetoric. The age limits remain. The requirements for suitability remain. The possibility to intervene against over-serving remains. Even the municipalities' supervision remains. What is being removed is a rigid detailed requirement that serves no function in practice.

Madam Speaker! The truth is that Sweden needs more small businesses, not more obstacles for small-scale entrepreneurship. This reform makes a real difference for people who want to create something entirely their own, perhaps something completely unique. They might want to open a small jazz bar, a local brewery, a wine shop, a cider house, or a cultural café with evening service. For many of these businesses, the alcohol is not the problem; rather, it is the investment cost and the regulatory burden that are the absolute obstacles and which ensure that these dreams are never fulfilled. A kitchen costs money. Ventilation costs money. The adaptations of the premises and the size required cost money. Even the permit processes cost money.

It is the small actors who have been hit absolutely hardest. The large chains have always managed the administration. This is how it looks in all markets. The large chains can hire lawyers and consultants and can answer all surveys. But for the small entrepreneur, the creative business owner who wants to test and offer a completely new concept, the rules put a stop to it. Therefore, this is also a freedom reform for the local business community.

Madam Speaker! Concerns have also been raised regarding increased alcohol consumption. These must, of course, be taken seriously – alcohol policy is an area where society must act responsibly. But it is important to keep things in proportion. The analysis underlying the bill points to almost non-existent changes in total consumption. At the same time, there is actually nothing to indicate that it is the food requirement itself that is decisive for order and sobriety. Research shows instead that what plays a larger role is responsible service, supervision, age checks, and how the rules against over-serving are followed. That is where the focus should lie, not on whether a bar serves a warm toast or not.

Madam Speaker! There is also a principled dimension here. The task of politics is not to micro-manage people's activities or lives more than is necessary. We are to set the frameworks for security, accountability, and order. But within those frameworks, people's freedom to create and run businesses and to meet customers in a multitude of different ways must be allowed to exist. We should not have a system where politics indirectly decides that every place of service must also be a restaurant. A bar could actually be just a bar.

Madam Speaker! I also believe that many people feel that today's regulatory framework does not quite keep up with the reality they live in. Swedes travel outside the country's borders. We visit other European countries. We sit in neighborhood bars in Copenhagen, wine bars in Florence and small pubs in Dublin. Then, probably no one thinks that society has gone off the rails because they do not offer a daily lunch. On the contrary, we experience it as charming, inviting and safe. Imagine that we are now going to experience this even in Malmö – yes, and of course in the rest of Sweden. What creates safe environments are responsible operators, functioning supervision and clear rules against over-serving, not state requirements on the number of frying pans and ovens.

Madam Speaker! This is therefore a reform that combines several important values: less bureaucracy, better conditions for small businesses, greater freedom for entrepreneurs, a more modern regulatory framework, and continued responsibility in alcohol policy. It is a reasonable and balanced reform that brings Swedish legislation closer to the reality of the Swedes. Therefore, I move for approval of the bill.

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! About a year ago, we stood here in the chamber and debated the introduction of farm sales in Sweden, something that the Center Party has pushed for for over 20 years and which finally became a reality thanks to an investigation conducted during the previous parliamentary term and a bill submitted during this parliamentary term. The proposal did not become as liberal and business-friendly as we in the Center Party desired, but it did, in any case, become a reality. A large number of producers of beer, wine, cider, and distilled beverages managed to open for sales as early as last summer. This was good for the tourism industry, for the countryside, and for the Swedish food and drink culture – without having any noticeable impact on public health.

Now we stand here again, Madam Speaker, and debate another issue that the Center Party has pushed for a long time, namely the issue of abolishing the food requirement for serving licenses. The food requirement means, as it is designed today, that a serving establishment must partly have its own restaurant kitchen in connection with the serving premises, and partly must serve a varied selection of dishes until 11:00 PM, even if it is only a pizzeria, a wine bar, or a nightclub.

Furthermore, the assessments made across municipalities in Sweden have varied greatly regarding what is meant by a varied selection of dishes. Most municipalities have required that nine dishes be provided, which in practice has meant three appetizers, three main courses, and three desserts. This has also been required at a pizzeria or a hot dog stand in order to be able to serve beer or wine with the food. Some municipalities have required a smaller number of dishes, and one has required up to twelve different dishes. That this has been an utterly insane set of requirements is beyond any doubt.

At the same time as it has been necessary to have the kitchen staffed until 11 p.m. in the evening, there has of course not been any requirement that anyone actually has to eat. Late in the evening at a pub or a restaurant, it is quite often the case that people come to drink a beer or a glass of wine but not to eat.

Of course, the person who runs the establishment knows best how the guests behave. But that person has not been consulted. How long the kitchen shall be open and how many dishes shall be served has been decided by the state and the municipality. Now, Madam Speaker, let there be an end to this over-guardianship.

With the new legislation, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the Alcohol Act is repealed. Consequently, the requirements for a private kitchen, for private food service, for the design of the bar, and for the number of seats are abolished. The power is handed over to the operator of the business to decide for themselves whether they want a kitchen, which menu they should offer, how late in the evening they should serve food, how many seats they should have, and whether they should be under a roof or not. This signifies a change in a piece of legislation that for decades has been obsolete but has nevertheless been allowed to remain.

From the Centre Party, we have submitted motions and submitted interpellations on this issue throughout the entire parliamentary term. It was with pleasure that we noted that the Simplification Council initiated work to investigate and review the legislation.

At the same time, a shockwave went through the industry when the government announced in Almedalen last year that they intended to appoint a new investigation, which would likely have meant that this issue had been pushed over the edge to the next mandate period. During the summer, however, the government sobered down and settled for the Förenklingsrådet's investigation, which was sent out for consultation. And now we stand here today, with debate and decisions on the new law.

The reform is not only a reasonable adaptation to our contemporary times and a changed alcohol culture. It also means reduced complications and reduced costs for the hospitality industry. The investigation points to savings of around 3.9 billion kronor per year. At the same time, the industry is assessed to be able to grow by between 200–300 new serving establishments per year. The opportunity increases for a greater diversity of restaurants, wine bars, beer cellars, cocktail terraces, and rooftop bars that bring life to cities and communities.

Always, Madam Speaker, it is public health that is governing Swedish alcohol policy. That is also the case in this instance. The investigation warns of a moderate increase in alcohol consumption. But if one looks at our neighboring country Finland, which implemented the same reform in 2018, one can see that alcohol consumption has continued to decrease since then. There is no reason to believe that it would look different in Sweden.

The reform also does not involve any change in the responsibility of the person who holds a serving permit. The serving shall always take place in a responsible manner, with an overview of the guests and under organized conditions.

Madam Speaker! The abolition of the food requirement is a good and long-awaited reform, both for the industry and for the guests. It removes unnecessary requirements and unnecessary costs for the companies, while at the same time it will lead to an increased and more multifaceted offering for the guests.

At the same time, more needs to be done to stimulate the tourism industry in Sweden. The employer contributions for young people must be removed permanently. Red tape in other respects must be reduced, and the expulsions of labor must cease. But today, we can still rejoice at an important reform that is good both for the tourism industry and for the visitors. On June 1, the food requirement finally disappears. That makes Sweden a little freer, a little greener, and a little more fun.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! ”If you fill your cup with water, you never write anything wise, but wine is Parnassus' horse that carries a bard to the heavens.” So wrote the old Greek Athenaios, or it is at least often attributed to him. It is an old proverb about alcohol.

Of course alcohol is dangerous. We all know that. It has been said here in the debate many times. But Sweden needs a freer alcohol policy – not an irresponsible alcohol policy, not a policy that turns a blind eye to the risks of alcohol, but we need an alcohol policy that treats adult people as just adult, free individuals. It is a policy based on how people actually want to live their lives, not on moralism and suspicion. It is a policy that both sees and acknowledges the danger of alcohol but also the benefit of alcohol for both the individual and society.

Madam Speaker! For a very long time, Swedish alcohol policy has been characterized by the idea that alcohol is primarily a social problem that must be restricted and controlled. Myths about the old monopoly have been formed and ingrained. Adults have been declared incompetent by public health extremists from both the right and the left. That perspective has shaped everything from serving permits and opening hours to the conditions for beverage producers, and it has been a problem.

Alcohol and drinking culture are simultaneously an important part of our society, our culture, and our civilization. For thousands of years, since before we became sedentary, people have gathered around food and drink – not to drink themselves to death, but to create community, culture, and relationships, and to unleash creativity and creation. Taverns, inns, beer cellars, and bars have been places where ideas met, cultures emerged, and people from different social strata met. Religious rites have been built around alcohol and have laid the foundation for many civilizations throughout the world over the years. Alcohol has helped us humans to crack difficult problems, create great art, and resolve difficult conflicts.

In many ways, alcohol has been central to the development of our civilization. It has been a social tool that has helped us in our unique niche among all the earth's animals and contributed to making humans dominant on our planet.

Madam Speaker! We are fundamentally rational primates, one could say. But at the same time, we are weak, slow, and in many ways quite pathetic as animals viewed. In a fight with a chimpanzee, a lone naked human is a mess. The human gets arms and face torn off and is bitten.

But we are also like ants and bees working together. We innovate. We cooperate, we create culture and we build community. We pass on and build upon each other's experiences. We must trust strangers and we must learn from each other. One human becomes a mess in a fight with a chimpanzee, but 100 humans win against 100 chimpanzees.

A controlled consumption of alcohol effectively helps with precisely those things that make us more successful than other species – our innovative ability, our creativity, our culture, and our social organization. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, Swedish bars are often treated as if they were primarily public order problems.

Madam Speaker! When people drink moderately together, their guard is lowered. Conversations become freer, mistrust decreases, and relationships are built faster. It is no coincidence that so many business ideas, friendships, peace treaties, romantic relationships, innovations, and cultural expressions have emerged around dinner tables, in pubs, and in bars. This does not mean that alcohol is risk-free, but it means that alcohol also fulfills social functions that modern societies often underestimate.

In a time when loneliness is growing, where people socialize less physically and where more and more relationships occur via screens, we should understand the value of places where people actually meet. Madam Speaker! It is against that background that the abolition of the food requirement should be understood. It is difficult to find a better example of how an outdated Swedish alcohol policy sometimes functions.

Today, the person who wants to open a bar must also, in practice, open a restaurant kitchen. The state therefore does not only require that one must be able to serve alcohol responsibly. The state also requires that one must be able to serve food.

It is a strange view.

Let us say that someone wants to open a cocktail bar, a wine bar, or a pub with a focus on drinks, social environment, and knowledgeable service. Why should the state then force a business that the owner does not actually want to operate?

We do not legislate that all hotels must have a nightclub. We do not legislate that all cafés must sell hot food, and we should not legislate that all bars must be restaurants.

The requirement is fundamentally paternalistic. It is based on the notion that people cannot handle alcohol unless there is a Toast Skagen next to the glass.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, the regulatory framework often hits the most serious actors the hardest. Small niche cocktail bars and specialized wine bars with innovative beverage concepts face high costs and large administrative requirements, even though it is precisely there that alcohol is served most responsibly – with trained staff, clear norms, and strong social control.

Madam Speaker! We need to see nightlife as something more than just an entertainment industry. A vibrant nightlife is part of a living society. Bars, restaurants, and neighborhood pubs function in practice as social infrastructure. They are living rooms for people who might otherwise have sat alone at home and drank in a much more destructive way.

And honestly: People who drink socially in environments with staff, norms, and other people around them often run a lower risk of developing problems than people who drink alone at home. Therefore, Swedish alcohol policy should encourage more social and safe environments, not fewer.

Madam Speaker! The abolition of the food requirement should only be a beginning. We need more liberalizations and a new way of thinking regarding alcohol policy in general.

We should have simpler and more proportionate serving permits. Serious pub owners should not be faced with a bureaucratic obstacle course to conduct their business.

We should give greater freedom regarding opening hours. If order is maintained and disturbances are managed, the state should not micro-manage when people are allowed to sit at an outdoor terrace and have a glass of wine.

We should make it easier to open small outdoor seating areas through simpler rules and less municipal bureaucracy. Our cities need more lively street spaces, not fewer.

We should also discuss how larger cities can work strategically with the night-time economy. An attractive nightlife is absolutely crucial for an attractive country. Sweden is lagging behind.

And we must dare to discuss the view on noise and city life. If one moves into the middle of a living city, one must also accept that cities live. We cannot regulate away restaurants, bars, and nightlife because people do not want the pulse of the inner city. People want pulse. People want to live in a society with social interaction with other people.

Madam Speaker! Abuse must continue to be fought with full force. Violence in close relationships, drunk driving, and addiction are serious problems. But Swedish alcohol policy must become better at distinguishing between destructive drinking and social and civilized drinking.

It is ultimately a matter of view on humanity. Do we trust that adult people can take responsibility? Do we trust serious entrepreneurs? Do we trust social norms and on community? Or shall the state continue to assume that every bar is fundamentally a problem that must be restricted? I do not believe in that path.

An alcohol policy that combines responsibility with freedom is right. It is about an alcohol policy that focuses more heavily on actual abuse and less on symbolic restrictions that, in practice, destroy the benefits that alcohol and drinking culture bring with them. It is about a policy that sees the value of community, culture, and a vibrant social life.

It is time to bring Swedish alcohol policy into the adult world.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 8.)

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