Gaming issues

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! For many people, gambling is a pastime, entertainment, or a social context. For many, gambling is strongly associated with, for example, a sport, a sporting interest, or a trotting interest. For many, gambling is also a way to support the local sports club and contribute to community life or even to charity.

At the same time, we must not forget that the gaming industry in Sweden constitutes a large industry. It is an industry driven by entrepreneurs and business owners and which contributes with jobs, tax revenues and, not least, large economic contributions to civil society, sports and the horse industry.

Gaming can also, as everyone in here is fully aware of, through abuse create enormous suffering for many people. Further efforts from politics and authorities are needed to increase support in cases of abuse. The Government proposes increased opportunities for gambling companies to access personal data in order to counteract exactly gambling abuse. That gambling companies get greater opportunities to analyze gaming patterns and gaming behavior among their customers also gives them a better opportunity to, within the duty of care, offer support and help faster, broader and better. I believe that this strengthens consumer protection for customers on the Swedish gambling market.

In the more long-term work against gambling addiction, the government's mandate to Spelinspektionen regarding gambling breaks is also of great importance. More knowledge is needed regarding why people exclude themselves from gambling and what proportion of those who exclude themselves from gambling on the licensed market move over and continue to play on the unlicensed market. More options for exclusion must also be offered, and the government's mandate to Spelinspektionen includes developing such options.

Madam Speaker! In order for us to continue to see gambling as a pastime, entertainment, and a way to support sports and Swedish associations, we must guard, maintain, and develop a sound and regulated gambling market. Through gambling regulation, the licensing system, and the duty of care, the market is regulated. This increases the authorities' oversight, provides customers with consumer protection, and sets requirements for gambling companies regarding, for example, support and marketing.

It is of great importance that we continue to work to increase the channeling rate so that an even larger part of gambling in Sweden takes place within the licensed market and that the requirements on the licensed companies are complied with.

The Government has submitted a proposal to the Riksdag that gives the Gambling Inspectorate the opportunity to block payments to and from unlicensed gambling operators in a more efficient manner. The Gambling Inspectorate has also been given the opportunity to carry out gambling purchases with hidden identity - so-called test purchases - to check whether the licensing requirements are being met.

Madam Speaker! It is also positive that the government proposes clear measures against match-fixing to combat the criminal elements that exploit the gambling industry. Match-fixing can never be accepted, and the fact that criminals take it upon themselves to destroy and create insecurity within sports must be combated harshly and clearly. This shall, among other things, be achieved by expanding the possibilities for gambling companies and sports federations to process personal data and by making gambling companies obliged to hand over data to the police to facilitate investigations into crimes. I think it is important to point out that it is very good that the government in the autumn budget also increases the appropriations to Spelinspektionen.

The reorganization of the gambling market had broad and cross-bloc support in the Riksdag when it was implemented. I believe that the cross-bloc consensus on securing a sound and regulated gambling market remains even today. It is a gambling market where support increases and the work against abuse is intensified, where measures against unlicensed companies continue and where the control of the licensed market continues to be prioritized, while entrepreneurship and enterprise continue to be appreciated and facilitated.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is exciting - when we talk about games, we are talking about both gambling for money, which Carl so profitably raised in the debate, and about other types of games, not least e-sports. One can have many views on that being the case, but that is how it is in this report.

Bare two years ago, Sweden was supposed to host one of the world's largest e-sports events, The International, with prize money of up to half a billion in the pot. But that was not the case. The participants were not granted entry permits - they did not get visas - so the event had to be cancelled.

The following week, the World Figure Skating Championships were organized in the same arena. It was no problem for the participants to obtain permits then.

In connection with the cancellation of the event, the Moderaterna called it extremely embarrassing and a large black mark in the government's record. My question to the Moderaterna, who now sit in the government, is what will be done to ensure that this is not repeated.

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! I can only agree with what Rickard Nordin says. I cannot, just here and now, give any clear and good answer on how we shall ensure that this is not repeated; perhaps it is better if the department or the minister does that. I do, however, agree with Rickard that gaming for too long has not been compared in a clear way with other sports or other cultures. I believe we are in complete agreement that gaming in the future should be equated with sport and culture in Sweden in a much clearer way.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It would have been an excellent opportunity for the Moderaterna and Carl Nordblom to take the chance now when we are discussing these matters and when there are actually motions on the question of whether one should look at entry permits, visa rules and other things in order to be able to equalize these matters in a reasonable way.

We have statements from ministers in both previous governments and this government, but nothing happens in substance. It is very much lip service. I look forward to proposals coming to the Riksdag and not just in fine statements from podiums and from ministers.

I would very much like to hear if it is the case that the Moderates are prepared to stand behind the proposal that e-sports players should have the same opportunities for entry permits as athletes in other sports.

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! It is positive that we have an action-oriented government in place. I am convinced that the government sees this issue, just as Rickard Nordin does. I also believe that our current government is fully prepared to review these rules in order to facilitate a solution to this problem.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Carl Nordblom for the speech.

In his speech, he raised how much the lottery activity means for the financing of civil society and, primarily, the sports movement. For this reason, I was somewhat shocked when I heard Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson say during the Riksdag's question period last week: "This is an issue that we in the government are reviewing right now because it has been a long time since we reviewed the rules for the public benefit lotteries." And: "We are reviewing the rules and will return in the format with our four parties. But it is time to review the lotteries." These are quotes from a longer answer.

This prompts my question: Does the Minister for Finance, by means of this answer, open up for the rules for the public benefit lotteries in general to be reviewed?

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is best if the Minister for Finance elaborates on his answer to that question. I cannot give any clearer answer.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! It is worrying if there is a tendency within the Moderaterna to want to review the regulatory framework for civil society funding linked to the public benefit lotteries. In that case, we must soon hear from the government how the sports movement will manage if that funding disappears. And how will the Breast Cancer Fund manage if a large part of its funding disappears if the regulatory framework for the public benefit lotteries is to be reviewed on a large scale? This is worrying and runs contrary to what Carl Nordblom raised in his speech.

Must we not go to the bottom of this if this is to be reviewed in large? It is worrying that we do not get an answer on this.

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! I am convinced that the government's potential review of the lotteries will not affect civil society, sports, or the horse industry. I believe we all in here share the view that the lotteries provide an important economic contribution to large parts of civil society, sports, and the horse industry, and so it shall remain.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! The motion's report handles several different parts of the playing field, and I intend to comment on some of them.

I will begin by saying a few words about e-sports. E-sport is an activity that engages many children, young people, and adults in Sweden. One can call it a growing popular movement. We know that e-sport is an activity that also easily falls between the cracks. The Swedish e-sports federation is not yet included in the Swedish Sports Confederation's special sports federations and therefore does not have the possibility to take part in the funding or the support for youth organization that a membership in the Swedish Sports Confederation entails.

We know that there are challenges with children and young people's sedentary behavior, and therefore a greater engagement between the sports movement and e-sports would be beneficial, not least when it comes to children and young people's movement, mental health, and opportunity for organizing. It would also mean an improvement for the e-sporting itself.

I refer to the joint reservation by Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet that e-sports should be equated with other sports. The Riksdag cannot decide which actors should enter the Riksidrottsförbundet, but if e-sports is not taken up within RF, the public has a responsibility to ensure that all the children and young people who actively engage in this sport are given better support and conditions.

The question of entry permits for participants in e-sports competitions has also been mentioned, and it is obviously something that must be resolved in legislation. I therefore look forward to proposals from the government on how we can move forward in this matter. This issue was, as mentioned, significant during the last parliamentary term, and during the pandemic, strong statements were made, not least from the Moderaterna, that this must be resolved. We now need to have a long-term regulation in place.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet stands behind the government's proposal for amendments to the gambling act. This has been processed for a long time with broad political agreement and great commitment. This concerns, for example, the reporting obligation for payment service providers, the possibility for the Gambling Inspectorate to conduct so-called test purchases, and an improved possibility for the sports movement to share information.

Let me mention an area where Miljöpartiet believes that one should go further. The match-fixing council that has existed for a number of years has not had sufficient capacity. Therefore, it is good that Riksidrottsförbundet gets a better opportunity to share information. We know that match-fixing is one of the major challenges for sports, not least when organized crime pushes its way into sports and creates mistrust towards all players in the teams and towards the individual athletes who risk being drawn into the criminality that it actually involves.

The Green Party argues that the government should be tasked with reviewing further possibilities to limit match-fixing in more sports and in individual events. We know that one can go a step further to minimize the possibility of betting on such game moments that are easy for an individual athlete to manipulate.

Madam Speaker! The marketing of gambling has previously been discussed in the chamber. After the gambling market was deregulated, the opportunity to control the gambling targeted at consumers living in Sweden has increased. Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, in a joint reservation of motive regarding the motions from Sverigedemokraterna and Socialdemokraterna on this matter, consider that the motive is not sufficiently sharp. We believe that the motive should be that the motions do not sufficiently curb the risks associated with the aggressive marketing of gambling.

I refer to previous debates in the chamber where Miljöpartiet has argued that there should be tougher regulation when it comes to this type of gambling, that a risk classification of the different forms of gambling should be introduced, and that one would need to go further in the definition of moderation. We would like to introduce the concept of "special moderation" because the risks of gambling abuse need to be taken seriously. Online casino is the absolutely most dangerous form of gambling, and a system with risk classification would make it possible to differentiate which measures are taken and which marketing restrictions are made.

The question has, as mentioned, been discussed previously in the chamber, and I look forward to following up on the current legislation and hope that the government is prepared to take further initiatives if necessary.

Madam Speaker! So, regarding the question of political lotteries. This week, the Tidö parties announced that they intend to appoint an inquiry with the aim of prohibiting political parties from running public benefit lotteries. They referred, among other things, to insufficient transparency in party financing, the problematic nature of parties creating exception rules for themselves, and the risk of gambling addiction. The Sweden Democrats were also not secretive about their intention that the purpose was to harm the Social Democrats and the opposition's possibility of financing.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet does not run a party lottery. We are also strongly pushing to increase transparency to reduce the risk of corruption regarding party financing. But for the government to take the initiative to ban political parties from selling lotteries as part of their financing is, of course, deeply remarkable. The arguments used are closest to hypocrisy.

Madam Speaker! It is one thing to have views on the regulation and questions about credit, increased transparency in party funding and sales methods – all of this is, of course, such things that are legitimate to discuss within the framework of both the gambling regulation and the issue of party funding. It is, of course, something that Miljöpartiet can be prepared to discuss further. But the holistic approach and the broad dialogue that has existed in the gambling issues – the broad consensus that the Moderaterna spoke about here in the rostrum earlier – is being destroyed by this procedure.

Madam Speaker! Political parties are part of civil society. Here, the Green Party shares the Center Party's starting point as they describe in their statement of motive: that all public benefit lotteries shall be treated equally regardless of the principal.

Here we also mean that it is important to separate the issue of gambling regulation on one hand and the issue of regulation regarding political parties' financing on the other. If one takes such an initiative that so seriously risks damaging the largest opposition party's financing, it should of course be done in a broad political initiative, with dialogue across the block boundaries and also with a breadth regarding the party financing issue generally.

But it is obvious that this is not what is being sought from the side of the Tidö parties. "Next year, there will be a poorer May Day parade for the Social Democrats," says Tobias Andersson, Member of Parliament from Sverigedemokraterna, with the stated purpose of depriving the largest opposition party of an important source of income - one "turns off the tap for S".

Madam Speaker! The uninhibited joy in striking at the opposition's funding rhymes poorly with democratic principles. It is a question of decency. I deeply regret that the government has chosen this path, and I hope that one will reconsider. There are questions in a democracy that are fundamental: freedom of association, freedom of organization, freedom of speech; all the different democratic cornerstones. A free, living, and strong opposition is also such a cornerstone. I assume that the government will think deeply before risking in this way to seriously damage both the trust, the dialogue in this chamber, and the opposition's opportunities to act.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all of the Miljöpartiet's reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 12 of Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to extend a big thank you to Amanda Lind. I think it is welcome that Miljöpartiet is now joining Centerpartiet's defense of e-sports and its conditions.

It is quite a turn of events, one might say. When The International, which we spoke about earlier, went off the rails – or would have gone off the rails but was forced to be postponed – it was actually Miljöpartiet and even Amanda Lind who sat as minister at the Ministry of Culture. Her predecessor there, who was also a Miljöpartist, Alice Bah Kuhnke, stated that esports is obviously sport and that gaming is culture. Despite that, we still have the same rules now seven years later. What did Miljöpartiet actually do in a government position regarding these issues? Why has the legislation not changed if you now think that way?

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is no secret that Miljöpartiet stands for both an active gaming policy and that the conditions for e-sports need to be improved.

When it comes to the issue of entry permits, it was something that we were finally able to resolve. It was obvious then that we need to change that legislation. I am pleased with the Center Party's commitment to these issues in the Riksdag, and I look forward to continuing to cooperate in taking more initiatives to strengthen e-sports.

Gaming culture issues and e-sports issues concern different policy areas, and Rickard Nordin is well aware of that. When it comes to creative and cultural industries, where game development is an important part, we took an initiative to appoint an inquiry, Kreativa Sverige, where games reasonably are a part. Kreativa Sverige has submitted its proposal to the government, and it is being prepared at the Government Offices. Here I assume that game development is a strong part of the strategy that will hopefully soon be presented.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is of course good to have inquiries, but it is the actual legislative proposals that matter in the end.

If we talk about cultural issues specifically, we have, for example, parliamentary-bound cultural goals, and there, gambling is still not mentioned in any way. It creates major problems all around in Spelsverige. One falls between the chairs. One is not classified as sport and is not allowed to be part of the Swedish Sports Confederation, and one is not classified as culture, despite the fact that we have had ministers who say that it is culture.

Why then have no proposals been submitted to change the cultural policy goals? You could also have done that from the Miljöpartiet side during the previous parliamentary term.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! The previous parliamentary term was characterized by the pandemic. A large cultural investigation was something that neither the Riksdag, nor the Center Party, nor, I believe, Kultursverige benefited from.

However, we took the initiative for the restart investigation, which pointed out the need to develop cultural life forward, among other things through the Kreativa Sverige investigation, but also the review of the cultural cooperation model that is currently taking place and which we know is also important when it comes to the possibilities of gaming culture around the country. It is often at the regional level that some strong initiatives are taken, and it is there that one also has the opportunity to work in cooperation with both the voluntary sector and the business sector to strengthen this area.

Miljöpartiet has furthermore submitted a motion regarding the appointment of a cultural policy inquiry. Centerpartiet has not chosen to stand behind it.

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by thanking Amanda Lind for the speech.

It is almost as if one could believe that Miljöpartiet and Amanda Lind have missed the reporting we have been able to see in these days regarding how it actually works when the political parties - in this case through Kombispel - conduct their lottery activities. It is about secret sales scripts to get poor pensioners to part with their last hundred crowns, and after that, one celebrates with trips to the sun in the Canary Islands. That is how reality looks.

I do not think the example of the small football club in the smaller town that needs the lottery tickets to get by is comparable to the enormous million-dollar revenues that this is about for a political power party. Does Amanda Lind not see that there is a problem with political parties tailoring legislation with such direct personal gain for their own party?

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall now pose some questions to Jonas Andersson: Do not the Sweden Democrats and Jonas Andersson consider that parties are a part of the voluntary Sweden - voluntary organizations? And if the issue of gambling addiction is so important for the Sweden Democrats, why do they not stand behind the proposals for tightening measures that we have submitted, for example regarding risk classification when it comes to gambling? Does Jonas Andersson consider that lotteries are just as dangerous as online casinos when it comes to falling into gambling addiction?

Madam Speaker! I must say that the arguments being used are hypocritical. If one seriously wanted to look at better transparency regarding party financing, it is not through the gambling legislation that one should work, but in other ways. And if one really means business with the gambling legislation, that one considers it a problem for non-profit lotteries, how does one then view the fact that there actually are other non-profit lotteries that are not this small association that needs a lottery? We have the Svenska Postkodlotteriet – which contributes millions of kronor to Swedish association life – which is operated on a large scale and falls under this legislation. Is Jonas Andersson also critical of that regulation?

One could have proceeded in many other ways if one wanted to apostrophize these issues. Instead, it is done in this way and one talks about wanting to turn off the tap for the Socialdemokraterna. It breathes a very strange view of democracy that one is prepared to, in this way, make it more difficult for the opposition's opportunities to act. It is not a serious game of politics that is being conducted, but it is an attack against the free opposition in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I note that I did not receive much of an answer to my question. Instead, I received a lot of counter-questions from Amanda Lind regarding this.

It is actually not the first time we have seen that the Social Democrats' gambling companies target elderly and vulnerable people. Already in 2017, one could read in Dagens Nyheter that a total of 8,000 people were sent to the Enforcement Authority because of this. The money then goes straight into the party coffers of a political power party in Sweden.

The political parties in Sweden are of course non-profit organizations and so on, but they operate under completely different conditions. If we are to safeguard the legitimacy of the exceptions that exist for the state and civil society, I believe it is important for the public to see that they are not being abused for enormous personal gain by political power parties in the way that occurs, when they also sit in this chamber and enact laws that directly benefit them themselves.

I think it is a pity that Amanda Lind and Miljöpartiet do not think more about those who are affected by the exemption. The Social Democrats' gambling company does not have the same rules as the other gambling companies but has a number of exemptions, for example from the written requirement for telephone sales, and they have the possibility to offer lotteries on credit and a lot of other things.

The question is how credible the Environment Party's and Amanda Lind's gambling policy is. They are defending the Social Democrats' ruthless gambling companies, at least. I notice that.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Madam Speaker! Again: If one had wanted to review the credit rules, if one had wanted to review the rules on exemptions, if one had wanted to review exactly how telephone sales are conducted and if one had wanted to review that which Jonas Andersson emphasizes above all else, namely generally aggressive marketing methods, not least when it concerns the forms of gambling that are actually most dangerous in Sweden, one could, of course, have done this in a completely different way.

One could have done it in line with the way the red-green government worked, by working broadly in the committee and processing issues in a broad manner. In issues that directly concern funding for the opposition, it should of course be handled in a broad manner, in broad dialogue.

The way it has been done entirely is remarkable, and it doesn't matter how much one tries to legitimize it.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! I move that all motions be rejected.

I want to bring up two areas in the government's various proposals regarding gambling issues. First, we have the public utility lotteries and the debate that has flared up, primarily concerning party-affiliated lotteries and the appropriateness or inappropriateness of political parties running lotteries to finance their activities. I shall try to nuance the picture of this.

The Government will now investigate the exception regulations for public benefit lotteries in the gambling legislation. It concerns various exceptions, including VAT exemption and the freedom to offer bonuses, which is heavily regulated for other gambling activities.

The question is how public-spirited the lotteries that finance political parties are. The most important issue for me and the Kristdemokraterna concerns transparency, which was also touched upon in the exchange of remarks just now. The Socialdemokraterna's A-lotteries have previously received criticism from Spelinspektionen for a lack of transparency, as they have not clearly shown in their marketing where the surplus goes.

Madam Speaker! It is the Social Democrats who have become angry now that the parties' lotteries are to be investigated. The reason they are reacting so strongly is that their lotteries - Kombilotteriet, Drömreselotteriet, Motorlotteriet and whatever they are called - bring in large winnings, around 130 million every year.

According to information, 90 percent of the Social Democratic Youth League's activities are financed by lottery income. It would therefore be a hard blow for the Social Democrats if the lottery activities for political parties disappear or are significantly changed.

In Sweden, it is forbidden according to the so-called duty of care to sell games and lotteries on credit, but the Social Democrats and their youth wing are among those who have an exception from the law. We recently heard here that people have ended up with the enforcement authority and also received payment remarks when they were unable to manage their gambling. A large part of them were pensioners born in the 40s and 50s, and many were also party members.

An investigation will therefore review this. There are two questions that must be asked in this context. One question is: Are lotteries for political parties public-benefit as other lottery activities within civil society? Unlike a large part of the rest of the gambling market, the public-benefit lotteries represent non-profit organizations and associations. Do political parties count among those? It is a question that I think one can ask. The investigation must address it.

The second and completely decisive question is: Is the ongoing lottery activity transparent? Where does the surplus go? What public benefit is it that I benefit from when I purchase or subscribe to my lottery ticket? This should be clearly stated and not hidden.

I went on the website for Kombilotteriet, which is part of the Social Democrats' lottery activities, and I could not find where the surplus goes or who is behind the lottery. On the other hand, it says: "Sweden's entire lottery movement since 1956". It is the lack of transparency in the Social Democrats' lottery activities that has resulted in the investigation that is coming.

Madam Speaker! Now there will be a radio transition to my next item, which concerns gambling addiction. Gambling should, as someone said here earlier, be a pastime. For many it is exactly that, but for far too many it is devastating. It is primarily the online games that bring the greatest allure and ruin for players.

I was part of the parliamentary group that participated in Håkan Hallstedt's drafting of a new law on the licensing of gambling in Sweden, where companies that had operated in a market that could be likened to the Wild West then began to pay tax and follow laws and guidelines. Among other things, the marketing was to be moderate, as it was called.

For me, the marketing today, even though it has diminished somewhat, appears more sophisticated than before. It plays on a sense of context and community and winnings that are within reach. However, I argue that the impact is extremely destructive, with companies taking help from various celebrities to lure more people to gambling. It is estimated that approximately 350,000 people in our country have some degree of gambling problems, and 40,000 children are affected.

During 2021, 26 billion was turnover, and 70 percent of the revenues to the gambling companies come from problem gamblers. The same year, 4 billion was spent on gambling advertising, which TV companies and evening newspapers see as an important source of income that they do not want to be without.

Gambling can be a pleasure. It is the very thought of it. Buying a lottery ticket now and then creates a bit of excitement in life. It should be said that there are also some positive aspects. We have, for example, heard about spelpaus.se, where one can pause their gambling for one, three, six, or twelve months or indefinitely. I think this is very positive. I checked today's figure, and it is 93,316 people who use spelpaus.se.

Many gambling companies, however, are purely ruthless in their marketing and do not seem to care much about the well-being of people and families. We Christian Democrats will combat the destructive and dark elements in the marketing of gambling in our country, with consideration for the many vulnerable.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! The only reason I am standing at the rostrum is that I reacted to something that Roland Utbult said in his speech, which actually made me worried. I have already pointed out that I feel concern over what Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said during the question period last week.

Roland Utbult also expressed in his speech that a review of public benefit lotteries in general needs to be carried out. Does Roland Utbult want to clarify or elaborate on whether it is about a review of all public benefit lotteries?

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Azadeh Rojhan for the question.

I would need to go back to my script because I do not recognize that all lotteries would fall under some kind of control. But that will be the consequence since it is the same regulation in all of civil society. If one counts in the parties where, it becomes the same regulatory framework for all.

The questions I have asked concern whether it is appropriate or inappropriate. The investigation may look at how the parties are financed through the lottery activities. It is an open question.

The issue of transparency is most important for us Christian Democrats. If I buy lottery tickets on credit or subscribe, or however I do it now, I should know who is in charge of the lottery and where the surplus goes. That is what is being called for.

I can understand that if one withdraws 130 million every year, it is clear that there will be a significant shortage ahead if the lottery disappears.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand that I cannot get a clear answer. That is what is problematic. On one hand, one can make a different definition of what political parties are if they are not associations. That is perhaps where we eventually land, and it becomes almost unconstitutional to start having that debate.

Then one must say that there is a separate category for political parties and therefore they cannot be included in that part of the legislation concerning public benefit lotteries. Or else one must conduct a review of that entire paragraph in the gambling act concerning public benefit lotteries. Roland Utbult argues that this can happen. Therefore, I ask again clearly and distinctly: Do the sports movement, the Breast Cancer Fund, and all the non-profit forces that today receive a large part of their funding through lottery activities need to be worried?

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! The member can be completely at ease that the review will absolutely not affect any of the non-profit associations. It is not about the Breast Cancer Fund, sports clubs or the like, but rather it is about whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for political parties to engage in lottery activities. That is a question posed to the commission, and the investigator may try to find an answer to it. But it is absolutely not a question of restricting the lottery activities of non-profit associations or anything of the sort. That is not what it is about; it is about what is appropriate or inappropriate in relation to the political parties. But above all, it is about the transparency that has not existed and which is needed in this context going forward.

It is not only the Social Democrats but also other parties that have lotteries, namely the Moderates, Liberals, Center Party members and so on. It is therefore not a question of targeting one party. Furthermore, it is very small sums that the parties receive.

Once upon a time, the Christian Democrats tried to start a lottery, but the party was outside the Riksdag at the time. The party was denied the right to start a lottery. That perhaps says something about the history. But eventually, it was resolved when the party took its place in the chamber.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! Technological progress and digitalization have had a major impact on how we gamble. Suddenly, it was enough to have a mobile phone to be able to gamble at a casino. During the 2010s, it became increasingly common with foreign gambling companies targeting Swedish players.

Since then, a number of political measures have been taken, with broad political anchoring, to develop regulatory frameworks that are better adapted to contemporary conditions. We have, among other things, abolished the Swedish gambling monopoly, which occurred in 2019, and we have established a new licensing system.

With the new licensing system in place, the political debate in recent years has instead come to focus primarily on the marketing of gambling and how consumer protection can be strengthened to create a more long-term and sustainable gambling market. The Social Democratic-led government submitted a new proposal on January 27, 2022, for reinforced gambling regulation in order to further limit aggressive gambling advertising of the most dangerous and most addictive games.

Madam Speaker! The figures speak for themselves. Gambling addiction is a growing public health problem. Around 340,000 Swedes today have some degree of gambling problems. The Public Health Agency's figures show that three out of four 16-17-year-olds are reached by gambling advertisements during a week. Furthermore, 34 percent of 16-17-year-olds state that they have gambled for money at some point during the past year. These are deeply alarming figures that must be taken most seriously.

Madam Speaker! Taking strong measures in these issues is about only one thing, namely protecting individuals from the devastating consequences of addiction. We Social Democrats would therefore have liked to see an adjusted requirement for moderation in the marketing of gambling. The proposal aimed, simply put, at ensuring that in an overall assessment, consideration would be given to how great the risk is that the gambling being marketed can lead to gambling addiction, as well as to what extent the marketing reaches persons under 18 years of age. But unfortunately, the current right-wing majority in the Riksdag chose to vote against this proposal.

We Social Democrats welcome the changes and additions to the gambling legislation proposed to enter into force on July 1, 2023, but we believe that they are not sufficient. Gambling addiction, primarily linked to casino gambling, is a growing public health problem that should be taken more seriously. A gambling addiction is devastating for the affected individual, their loved ones, and for society as a whole.

Madam Speaker! In this report, we also address motions concerning the public benefit lotteries. By games for public benefit, it is meant games that are operated by a non-profit association or a registered religious community with the support of a special license. Today, the public benefit lotteries are one of the Swedish civil society's primary sources of income. Here are the sports movement's lottery activities, but also Folkspel, the Breast Cancer Association, Postkodlotteriet, the Swedish Association of the Deaf, the National Association of Village Halls, the Prostate Cancer Association, and the labor movement's lottery activities.

Revenue from the lotteries means greater opportunities for non-profit organizations to use the resources where they consider the needs to be greatest or within areas that are difficult to obtain other funding for. It creates a more independent civil society that can take advantage of engagement coming from the grassroots level.

This insight has the Riksdag and the government, regardless of party, always carried with them. It states in the gambling act that the goal is a sound and secure gambling market under public control that protects the revenues for the public and which provides good conditions for non-profit public-benefit activities to obtain funding through revenues from gambling. This is something that a united Riksdag agreed upon until as recently as last autumn.

But today, Madam Speaker, the united right-conservative majority in the Riksdag wants to use the gambling area and the lottery legislation as a tool to harm civil society and democratic resilience.

Unfortunately, over the past few months, we have become clearer than ever how the Sweden Democrats want to weaken all types of opposition and silence dissent. It is everything from attacks against heads of authorities, the free academy, the press corps, and public service to attacks against artistic freedom. And now there are attacks against civil society's funding, but packaged as a proposal regarding political parties' possibility to conduct lottery activities.

These attacks against and suspicion of our democratic institutions and authorities from the Sweden Democrats are not surprising. What is frightening, Madam Speaker, is that the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats are following suit. Today, it is about the parties' lottery activities. But what happens if civil society organizations, according to the Sweden Democrats, do the wrong things and say and think the wrong things? Will we then be standing here in a year's time debating the appropriateness of non-profit organizations conducting lottery activities to ensure their funding?

It is not an impossibility, Madam Speaker. Civil society is under attack globally. In just the last few years, over 120 laws in about 50 countries have been rewritten for the purpose of limiting civil society's ability to influence. The laws are largely about stricter state surveillance of the organizations' work and about limiting their resources. We do not even need to leave the EU to find these examples. We can even find examples of shifts in these issues here at home. SD Member of Parliament Björn Söder threatened as recently as last autumn to strip the organization Civil Rights Defenders of their funding solely because they were critical of the sitting government.

Madam Speaker! I would have understood if the collective right-conservative majority, for various reasons, had wanted to have a debate on the financing of political parties and on increasing transparency and highlighting the importance of financing for the parties' work. That would have been a different debate, where all parties could have been invited to discuss the conditions.

In Sweden, we have had a long and important tradition of broad cooperation between all parties when it comes to constitutional issues, because in the end, it actually concerns one thing: safeguarding the rules of democracy. But we are on our way to departing from this tradition. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said in an interview: To simply let the Social Democrats have this kind of funding, with very large amounts that no other party has, is unsustainable.

This quote is deeply problematic when expressed by a Prime Minister. Ulf Kristersson openly attacks the largest opposition party's funding, a funding that makes our party more independent and less dependent on state support and tax revenue.

Madam Speaker! Parties shall wage ideological battles. We shall challenge each other in debates, and we shall surpass one another with political solutions to societal challenges.

A functioning opposition is not a threat. It is part of a functioning democracy but also an asset for sharpening one's own politics. A Prime Minister should also think so. It is actually unworthy and actually a belittling of one's own politics to, instead of devoting oneself to political debate, devote oneself to a cynical game aimed at weakening the opposition.

(Applause)

I shall take the opportunity to move for approval of our motive reservation, number 8. But we also stand behind our other reservations.

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! I actually think that the Social Democrats should stop lying here in the chamber and stop scaring the public by talking about the Breast Cancer Fund, Postkodlotteriet, and civil society lotteries. It is, therefore, party-political lotteries, not public utility lotteries, that are to be reviewed. And it is an inquiry, Madam Speaker, that has been presented. There is very much discussion and debate about an inquiry. We can well have a larger debate and discussion when the results of the inquiry have arrived.

Azadeh Rojhan seems, just like the Social Democrats' party leader, to want to turn this into a question of democracy or, more accurately said, a question of a lack of democracy. It is not the case that democracy is threatened, Azadeh Rojhan, if the voters vote in a different government basis than the Social Democratic government basis. It is not the case that democracy is threatened if political reforms or investigations are developed that are not in line with the Social Democratic party program.

It is pleasing that the Social Democrats, just like the government, want to work for a safe, stable and regulated gambling market. But it becomes strange when Azadeh Rojhan stands here and talks about gambling addiction when she herself belongs to a party that, through its own lottery, has sent pensioners to the Enforcement Authority and indebted people with gambling addictions and which, in a government position, exempted itself and its own lottery from the legislation.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! I read out a quote from Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson. It was with reference to that quote that I asked the question: Are all public utility lotteries now threatened? To that, Carl Nordblom replied: You can ask that question to Elisabeth Svantesson, because I do not know.

I am not standing here lying. I had a quote that I referred to. And it actually did not become clearer in my exchange of remarks with Member Roland Utbult. In the first exchange of remarks, I received the answer that of course there will be a review of all public utility lotteries. There must be, because political parties are also included there. And in the next answer, I heard: No, the other organizations will not be included.

There is still a great deal of uncertainty and no clear answers.

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that the Social Democrats' representative does not seem to be ashamed of their own party's lottery management over the years. I was probably not the only one who felt frustration, Madam Speaker, when I was made aware of the sales script used by the Social Democratic Party's lottery sellers to essentially force lotteries upon pensioners with low incomes.

Is Azadeh Rojhan not ashamed of her party's lottery handling over the past few years? I am ashamed, at least, on behalf of the Social Democrats.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! I am ashamed of the mistakes that were made, but I am proud that measures were taken. The last time any matter was referred to the enforcement authority was in 2017. Since then, this has been handled, and we see that there are no irregularities in that regard. What Carl Nordblom refers to is how a private company has handled the sale of our lots.

But I am not ashamed of belonging to the party that has stood up for regulating the gambling market. We have put forward proposals that would have made it harder for the gambling market to reach already vulnerable groups in society. We wanted to tighten the legislation regarding marketing. We did not want the marketing to reach children and young people under 18 years of age. Some actually end up in gambling addiction already at the age of 16 or 17. In that, I am very proud. That cannot be Carl Nordblom.

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! As early as 2017, we could read in the media about how the Social Democrats' gambling company Kombispel hit our elderly hard. They sold lottery tickets on credit then. They drove thousands of vulnerable people to the Enforcement Authority.

Many had probably hoped that this would come to an end after that. But in recent days, it has shown that these atrocities continue. Last week we could read in the media about how a company in Uppsala, hired by Kombispel, has secret scripts to systematically fleece poor pensioners of their last crowns. After that, they celebrate with boat trips in the sun in the Canary Islands.

The Sweden Democrats want to put a stop to political parties being able to conduct lottery activities. It is important that we investigate that question. But the Social Democrats apparently do not want to do so.

Does the Speaker see no problem with political parties such as the Social Democrats being able to conduct lotteries, given what poor pensioners are being subjected to, as we have been able to read about in the media?

(Applause)

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! It is very good that the Sweden Democrats safeguard ethics and morals within gambling and safeguard the vulnerable groups in society. We shall safeguard that they do not fall into gambling addiction.

That is also why I wonder what Jonas Andersson thinks about the fact that his party secretary Mattias Bäckström Johansson today earns a lot of money from precisely online casinos, which drive many people into gambling addiction.

According to the Riksdag's register of members' financial interests, Bäckström Johansson owns shares worth more than 96,600 kronor each in three different gambling companies: Betsson, Kindered Group and Evolution.

Betsson recently stood alone in court for having allowed a gambling addict to gamble away 4.7 million kronor at 120,000 kronor a month for three years without putting a stop to it.

Jonas Andersson sits in the Riksdag, presses buttons and makes decisions. Was that why Jonas Andersson's party Sverigedemokraterna did not vote to regulate the marketing for gambling companies?

(Applause)

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is the Social Democrats who are conducting a lottery operation that is driving pensioners to the Swedish Enforcement Authority. It is not the Sweden Democrats. It is not we who have rigged the legislation in such a way that it benefits our own party.

I do not intend to enter into a discussion and start commenting on various members' stock portfolios and the like. But it is still the case that different parts of the Social Democrats also have stock portfolios, and who knows what is in there?

The Social Democrats have worked in the Swedish Riksdag so that public benefit lotteries, such as their own, shall have a number of different exemptions. It is a kind of special legislation. There are exemptions from paying gambling tax, exemptions from the prohibition on selling lotteries on credit, and exemptions from the written requirement for telephone sales. All this special legislation for political parties enriches the Social Democrats with enormous amounts annually, obviously at the expense of vulnerable elderly people as well.

Could it be that the Social Democrats have ensured that the legislation for the lotteries is tailored to benefit their own party?

(Applause)

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but be a little flattered that Jonas Andersson thinks the Social Democrats have ruled in the Riksdag alone all these years. That would have been absolutely fantastic, but that is not actually the case.

It has not been the case that the Social Democrats alone have made decisions on these issues. There has been agreement across all parties on this. No party has voted differently. No party has done so, except for the Sweden Democrats who have had an opinion on political parties' lotteries.

But when it comes to the public utility ones, there has been broad consensus in the Riksdag. The Social Democrats as a party are an association in principle and have been included in the category of public utility lotteries. There, there has been a broad consensus in the Riksdag. Today, we have become aware that this is threatened.

(Applause)

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

Robert Hannah (L)

Madam Speaker! Gambling and betting is an amusement for many, but also an addiction that entails lifelong debt for many others. Illegal gambling activity is furthermore an enormously important source of income for criminal networks and gangs and a common way for them to wash their dirty money from things such as thefts into white money.

It is from this problem picture that the regulation of the Swedish gambling market must take place. For far too long, the gambling market has been too weakly regulated. It has had insufficient consumer protection. There has been a major problem with match-fixing and too great opportunities for gambling companies and lotteries to make money in questionable ways.

In recent years, changes have been made, and now, also thanks to the government, new rules regarding match-fixing are being introduced with broad agreement in the Riksdag. New rules are being introduced that prevent game program developers from cooperating with unlicensed gambling companies.

The Swedish Gambling Authority is given better opportunities to block payments to and from illegal gambling activities, mostly in other countries. The Swedish Gambling Authority shall also be able to conduct covert tests of various gaming services. All of this is necessary and very good for tackling the black market, the unlicensed market, and the gang criminals.

Madam Speaker! There are strong reasons to do much more. The bourgeois government has recently tasked the Gambling Authority and the Financial Supervisory Authority with strengthening their cooperation to counter illegal gambling activities and to prevent and deter money laundering. I believe this will lead to much greater problems for the criminal gangs that launder their money.

Furthermore, the bourgeois government and the Sweden Democrats have recently agreed to review the regulations for the party-political lotteries through an inquiry. There seems to have been some doubts about what applies. If one reads the Tidö parties' majority text, it states very clearly that they have agreed to review the regulations for the party-political lotteries through an inquiry.

I really want to convey this to everyone watching and to civil society organizations that have lotteries. They are not threatened in any way whatsoever. The investigation only concerns the party-political lotteries. I intend to repeat it one last time so that it becomes very clear. The investigation that we appoint will only concern the party-political lotteries. The public benefit lotteries are not threatened in any way by the Tidö parties and the government.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats, the Green Party and the Left Party claim in their statement of reasons regarding the party-political lotteries that the regulation must be adopted with a broad consensus in the Riksdag. The Centre Party also has a similar wording in its statement of reasons.

I think it is very entertaining that a requirement for an extremely broad consensus is being set. I sat in the responsible committee for telephone sales, the Civil Affairs Committee, for very many years. When the requirements for written communication for telephone sales were regulated by the Swedish Riksdag in 2018, the Social Democrats and the Green Party chose to move forward with legislative proposals that exempted only their own lotteries from the written communication requirement.

All companies that sell things via telephone in Sweden today must have a written requirement, except for the public benefit lotteries. The Social Democrats and the Green Party did not want to move forward with this.

Let us say which parties were against. It was the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, Sverigedemokraterna and Centerpartiet. It was all these five parties, five of eight riksdag parties. A majority in that riksdag did not want an exception for written form for the public utility lotteries. There was no broad consensus at all.

I do not understand the reasoning from the Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet and suddenly also Centerpartiet today. It has a completely different opinion than it had in 2018.

The government got away with the legislation, because it was the only option that was on the table. There was no bill that was ready which included the public utility lotteries. What happened then, Madam Speaker?

What happened was that the Riksdag issued a notice to the government to appoint an investigation to include the telephone sales requirement also for the public utility lotteries.

One might ask what happened next. Nothing happened. Despite a broad majority in Sweden's Riksdag wanting that even the public utility lotteries and the Social Democrats' lottery should be included in the requirement regarding telephone sales, no proposal ever reached Sweden's Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! That is why I think it is very important that we now review the rules and systems of the party-political lotteries. But that being said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety and rejection of the reservations.

In this speech, Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD) agreed.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! First, Robert Hannah probably needs to polish his glasses and read what is written in our reservation. It says nothing about any broad consensus and that it should take place in some form of parliamentary committee or similar. Robert Hannah has simply made that up. He should study it better.

It is quite true that we stood together behind the reservations that were expressed earlier. Nothing has changed there. Robert Hanna will probably have to come back and correct himself there.

That was not why I requested the floor to begin with. I am curious because we are debating gambling issues broadly. It is not only about things concerning gambling addiction and lotteries, but also, among other things, e-sports. The liberal Minister for Culture recently said in the media that games such as TV and video games are clearly culture.

My question to Robert Hannah is actually very simple: What proposals can we expect from the government that align with this – that it actually is a form of culture?

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

Robert Hannah (L)

Madam Speaker! E-sports, gaming, is culture. It is very good culture for the important reason that it is usually not state-funded. It is self-financed. It is entrepreneurs who create games and run games, and it is young people who participate in this culture. It is one hundred percent culture.

If the Liberals hopefully get what we want – and I believe there is a consensus among the Tidö parties – it will be written into the various directives that this is culture. On the other hand, I do not want the activities to become subsidy-dependent, because they manage it themselves. They are self-sustaining. I believe we need to find a balance where we do not detract from the unique aspect of them being self-sustaining, as this is an enormous advantage for the Swedish business sector and the Swedish industry. It will therefore hopefully be written in, and the Minister for Culture has also said this. One does not need to worry about that.

However, I want to know if the Center Party considers that a broad consensus is needed to regulate the party-political lotteries. Must the three other parties and the Center Party be included? Is a majority of the members in the chamber of the Riksdag required, or is it some kind of 75-percent rule? Where is the limit?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! This thing about broad consensus has Robert Hannah, as he has said, made up. There is nothing in our reservation about that, but it is a majority in the Riksdag that decides on this. It is not more difficult than that, and that is how it has always been. I do not know where Robert Hannah has gotten this from. He is simply fabulating.

I also think it is great that much of the gambling can take place on commercial terms and that it has grown on its own. But there are still things that are not at all about money, and the taxpayers' money, when it comes to culture and gambling.

We had an example earlier in the debate that concerned entry rules and visas for players. There, the Liberals have a different opinion than the Center Party; there you reject the proposals that the Center Party puts forward. One should therefore not have the same rules as others who practice this cultural form, sport, or whatever you want to call it.

When we see these changes from the Liberals and the government – will you then be prepared to present rules that allow one to travel into Sweden together with other cultural performers or athletes?

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

Robert Hannah (L)

Madam Speaker! I myself have been in opposition for eight years, and now I sit in a government position. I understand that one wants other parties to vote on one's motions in the Riksdag, but that is not how the exercise of power works.

We will, together with the Moderates and the Christian Democrats in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, return with regulations in an orderly process to ensure that these cultural providers shall receive all the opportunities that other cultural providers have. But we do not want them to become subsidy-dependent.

I can agree with Member of Parliament Nordin that I did not specify this absolutely correctly from the rostrum. But you write in your reservation that the public utility, that is, the real public utility, lotteries - such as IOGT-NTO, your own which are closely linked to the Center Party, the Bygdegårdarnas Riksförbund's lotteries, and similar - shall be regulated in the same way as the party lotteries. I do not think that is a reasonable position.

When you still make that requirement, you take the Social Democrats' side and argue that the Social Democrats' lotteries are equivalent to IOGT-NTO's lotteries and the local football club's lotteries. Why do you do that? Why are they equivalent? That is what you write in your reservation.

But I apologize; the Member of Parliament is right that I did not portray the whole thing in a proper way.

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Culture Committee's report on gaming issues. The Sweden Democrats support all of our reservations in the report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 7.

The referral that we are debating today handles both motions from the general motion period and a government bill with measures to ensure a sound and secure gambling market. The Sweden Democrats have not objected to the proposals in the government bill; on the contrary, we welcome them.

Madam Speaker! Gambling issues have received great focus in recent weeks after the Sweden Democrats and the government parties announced that they want to investigate a ban on political parties being covered by the exemption that enables them to conduct lottery activities. Therefore, I intend to focus on that question in my speech, even though the Sweden Democrats in the report, of course, also have many other important proposals. This concerns the channeling goal in the gambling market, e-sports, match-fixing, and so on.

Madam Speaker! Finally, something is being done about the party lotteries! It is an important announcement for democratizing Sweden and dismantling legislation that has been rigged by the Social Democrats in the Riksdag during the long period of power they have held in our country.

As I mentioned in a previous exchange with the Social Democrats, this exception which enables parties to conduct lotteries has been marked by many unpleasant incidents. Vulnerable individuals have suffered.

As we have heard earlier in the debate, Dagens Nyheter reported in 2017 that as many as 8,000 people had ended up with the Enforcement Authority after becoming indebted through the Social Democrats' lottery company Kombispel - 8,000 people, Madam Speaker!

A person who ended up with the Enforcement Authority due to the Social Democrats' gambling companies, which one could read about in the reporting from Dagens Nyheter, was the widow Gun, 80 years old, residing in southern Sweden. She commented on the whole matter, among other things, with the following sentence: "One is no longer safe in society, everything is just about tricking us old people."

This review from DN took place nearly six years ago. So does the problem still remain? The answer to that question is yes. A couple of weeks ago, articles in the media followed how the social democratic gambling company Kombispel sells lotteries to vulnerable, poor pensioners through what is most closely to be regarded as a villainous company.

A couple of weeks ago, it emerged that a secret script is being used to manipulate the poor pensioners. I shall read an excerpt from this script, which we could have seen in the media: "No, I understand, my grandmother is what you call a poor pensioner and she has explained that you need to turn every single krona now these days but I mean, now when it's about a measly 99 kronor - that's not even a bun and coffee at Pressbyrån today."

Sellers who participated in the Social Democrats' lottery plan aimed at the elderly themselves say, according to the article, that they have felt that they have cheated people. And as if that were not enough, a few days after this article was published, we could read another article. It was about how the company hired by Kombispel celebrated the sales to the poor pensioners with a dinner and a boat trip in the Canary Islands. So, we shall not have that in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats support the exception in the gambling law that enables civil society to conduct lottery activities for public benefit purposes. But the purpose of this must be to contribute to a vibrant civil society throughout Sweden, for example, to support the local football club in the smaller town so that it can survive by selling Bingolotter or similar.

The purpose of the lottery exemption cannot be for political power parties to profit from a non-competitive market so that they can gain a massive economic advantage to be able to take power in Sweden. The Social Democrats' money machine has hardly anything to do with pure charity.

In the current situation, the Social Democrats have large advantages because political parties are covered by the exemption for public benefit purposes so that they can conduct lottery activities. This includes, among other things, exemptions from paying gaming tax, exemptions from the prohibition on selling lotteries on credit, and exemptions from the written form requirement for telephone sales.

If the prohibition legislation for the lotteries, with exceptions for the state and civil society, is to be justifiable precisely because this is not subject to competition, it is important that political parties are no longer included. It is about safeguarding the credibility of the exception. I am completely convinced that the legitimacy of the exception that exists for the lotteries is threatened when one sees how political parties exploit the exception to ruthlessly acquire large sums of money from vulnerable people.

Madam Speaker! Another important reason to put a stop to the party lotteries concerns the transparency in the financing of the political parties. There is an important democratic aspect in this. When the public cannot see who is buying the tickets, it is also not certain that one can know who is actually participating in financing the party. It is a kind of loophole in the legislation, if you will, regarding the oversight of the parties' financing.

In addition to all this, it has been highlighted in social media in recent days that the chairman of the Social Democrats' gambling company Kombispel also sits as chairman of the board of the state agency Skatteverket, appointed by the former Social Democratic government Löfven. It stinks that they have appointed their party friends to double seats in this way, especially with the tax benefits that they have arranged for their own company Kombispel.

The Social Democratic doomsday rhetoric that the proposal to investigate a ban on party lotteries would be a threat to democracy is laughable. It is quite the opposite: Abolishing fast lanes and rigged legislation makes Sweden more democratic.

(Applause)

In this speech, Runar Filper and Leonid Yurkovskiy (both SD) agreed.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker and Jonas Andersson! The Sweden Democrats tried to start their own lottery. If this view on the parties' possibility to conduct lotteries has been so strongly anchored in your party, why was there then an attempt to conduct lottery activities from the beginning?

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! From the Sweden Democrats' side, it was realized that this was not a good idea. One had, in particular, seen the deterrent example in the form of Kombispel, the Social Democrats' gambling company, and what they subjected poor pensioners to. Not because we were going to do the same thing, but one can see the general problem with political parties being involved in legislating different benefits and fast lanes that then go straight into the own party coffers, just as was the case with the Social Democrats. It is nothing that we want to be a part of.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! I still find it a bit difficult not to think: Had we stood here and had this debate if the Sweden Democrats' lottery activities and the Moderates' lottery activities had been successful? I unfortunately do not believe so.

If the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, and the other Tidö parties seriously mean that this is a problem linked to how parties are financed and that it is a matter of transparency, why do you not instead appoint an inquiry concerning party financing specifically and review the issue as a whole? Then we could also see how donations from private individuals come to the other parties. We could review the entire package. Why is an inquiry that reviews party financing as a whole not appointed instead?

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

Jonas Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is possible that one also needs to review the parties' financing in a broader sense, but right now this specific proposal concerns the party lotteries. It is a very important proposal for us to be able to safeguard our democracy in various ways.

I understand, given what the Social Democrats' gambling company has done and what it has subjected our elderly to, that you want to talk about different hypothetical examples: What if the Sweden Democrats had a gambling company? What if all public utility lotteries were to be investigated? But now it is only about the party-political lotteries being investigated. Given how these dirty sales to vulnerable poor pensioners are celebrated with boat trips and sun holidays, I understand that you instead want to talk about hypothetical examples.

(Applause)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! Even if one might not believe it from the debate that has taken place, gambling is a true popular pastime. A large part of the population gambles; it can be more or less regular. Many buy a lottery ticket, meet friends in the bingo hall, put together a betting row, or play online.

For the vast majority, it is a pleasant and moderately excitement-increasing element in everyday life. But there is also a group who play often and with a lot of money, who have difficulty stopping, who develop an addiction – a few percent – and are pulled down into a negative spiral and play more than they intended and feel that they then need to play even more to win back what they lost. It is a group that begins to borrow from friends and family, takes out quick loans in secret and ends up in a debt trap, destroys relationships and completely loses their footing. Particularly vulnerable are those who suffer from mental ill-health, other addictions and economic vulnerability.

That is why it is important that we continue to follow up on how today's legislation in the gambling area can protect consumers to the greatest extent possible. We want to be able to have the positive experiences for the individual who follows a match they have bet a small amount on and the revenues that gambling provides to civil society, but without exposing people to the risks. It is a difficult balancing act, and it is important that we listen to the research and take part in the evaluations that are made. It is also necessary that responsible authorities, for example Spelinspektionen and the police, have the resources and knowledge to be able to put a stop to illegal gambling and match-fixing.

Madam Speaker! The bill that the current government has presented, based on investigations commissioned by the previous government, contains a number of good proposals to tighten the gambling market. We agree on those today.

It is high time that the issue of match-fixing receives more focus. A systematic effort regarding that issue is needed, and close cooperation between gambling companies, sports, and the police. The spider in the web needs to be Spelinspektionen. Unfortunately, the police no longer have their specialists in the area, and it is an important piece of the puzzle to ensure that criminal forces do not slip through the net.

From the Left Party's side, we lack two parts in the government's proposal. We believe that there should be more actors who can share personal data than what is proposed in the bill. Today, much activity occurs in, for example, equestrian sports and e-sports, and those actors are not included in the Swedish Sports Confederation. We also lack the Swedish Olympic Committee in the enumeration of organizations. I therefore want to move for approval of our reservation 15, which addresses these issues.

The second important piece that could make a difference is to ban betting on individual events, easily manipulated moments such as corners and throw-ins. Today, it is only forbidden to bet on negative game events such as free kicks and yellow cards, and only within a few sports. Here, we from Vänsterpartiet mean that a tightening was needed and regret that the government has not addressed that issue.

It is much easier to persuade an athlete to do something that probably does not affect the result of the match the first time a person is offered money to manipulate a match or competition. Elite athletes play for money to a higher degree than the average, and the proportion who end up in a gambling situation is much higher than among the population on average. This makes the group extra vulnerable to pressure from acquaintances of acquaintances who want to fix a match, but also to falling into the clutches of more dangerous criminals who turn over large sums of money on match-fixing.

Madam Speaker! Perhaps a bit unexpectedly, I must also say a few words about the public benefit lotteries. I thought that question was settled by the regulation we have agreed upon over the recent years. I thought there was a broad consensus regarding the importance of good conditions for the non-profit organizations that want to have a lottery or a bingo activity, for example.

The years directly after the new deregulation, there were concerns regarding the large costs for the associations to obtain the new licenses. Several of the small lotteries had to close when they were required to have certifications that cost several million and completely used up the small profit that would have gone back to social activities, camp activities, and so on. I then interpellated the then minister Shekarabi and received a good response to resolve the situation. But now, therefore, the question has appeared on the agenda again after the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have said that they want to investigate how to prohibit political parties from conducting lottery activities.

For me and Vänsterpartiet, it is obvious that even those who operate a public utility lottery must take consumer issues seriously and fulfill the duty of care, even if there is no research showing that lotteries lead to gambling addiction. It can be about making it easy to cancel a subscription, not having aggressive marketing, and being transparent about what the money goes to. The exceptions that exist for lotteries, for example, being able to offer games on credit and recurring bonuses, can sound like serious deviations if one does not explain that it is because many people find it convenient to have their lotteries sent home and then pay for them via invoice. It is actually not that strange.

For many lottery buyers, it is about wanting to support a good cause above all else. Some of these lotteries also only have merchandise prizes. I myself, for example, have won really good plastic bins for sorting screws and nails in.

The bonuses offered can be two cups of tea or a beautiful blanket. It cannot be compared with the bonuses that the betting companies and casino companies have used to get people to play for more than they can afford and to keep players with obvious gambling problems. These are bonus structures that have ruined people and which are now being tested in our courts.

After Robert Hannah's speech, I had to quickly try to understand the issue of telephone sales. I found the report that I believe Robert Hannah is referring to regarding the requirements for written form. What I can see is that it was a unanimous committee that stood behind the announcement to review and include, among other things, lotteries and package tours in terms of the requirements for written form. I think that was good. The Left Party was therefore in agreement to look more closely at the issue.

When someone calls on the phone, and one is a bit surprised, it is important that one understands what one is getting into. Vänsterpartiet and all the parties in the Riksdag, as I understand it, were part of that announcement. Either I have read incorrectly when I read quickly on my mobile, or Robert Hannah does not remember correctly regarding how it went in the committee at the time.

Madam Speaker! For everyone who has followed the government's and SD's statements regarding the parties' possibility of conducting lotteries and who may have listened to the debate here today, it is obvious that it is not about concern for lottery buyers but about accessing an important source of income for an opposition party. We have previously heard Sweden Democrats who have questioned contributions to organizations that are critical of their policy. It is obvious that they want to silence critical voices. It is regrettable that the Moderates, who have even acquired their own lottery, lend themselves to the Sweden Democrats' agenda.

I have several times today heard the Sweden Democrats' Jonas Andersson say that he is worried about people who become indebted because of the Slotteriet, Kombilotteriet. The conclusion of and the logic in that reasoning must, in that case, be that the Sweden Democrats and Jonas Andersson also want to ban all those companies and forms of gambling that lead to people falling into gambling addiction today. These cause people to need to apply for debt restructuring from their municipality, end up with the enforcement authority, and spend hundreds of thousands of kronor, which they do not have coverage for, on online casinos. They many times cause people to become indebted for life.

Why do the Sweden Democrats not propose a ban on the risky forms of gambling that today cause people to be ruined and destroy relationships with friends and family from whom they borrow money to finance their gambling addiction? I do not think the logic holds. And I believe that many listeners here today have noticed that.

There is no evidence that scratch cards that one receives once a month lead to gambling addiction. On the other hand, one can have difficulty paying one's bills. This applies to many people today. Vänsterpartiet has many proposals on how we should both tackle gambling addiction and help people who are struggling financially.

I do not think the logic holds. I hope that the other parties, after the question has been investigated, see that it is not logical, take their senses into their own hands and can see the positive in civil society finding other sources of funding than grants from the state, regions and municipalities, which the Liberals say here that they advocate for.

This is a different source of funding than public grants. Some parties might sell pins, tote bags, or backpacks. Other parties sell lottery tickets.

I also hope that all parties here in the Riksdag can agree that parties are public benefit associations. I am surprised when I hear the Christian Democrats express hesitation regarding that. Parties are, of course, socially useful and of public benefit. It is we who develop our democracy together with other organizations in civil society.

Everyone must surely hear that it is an absurd conclusion to come to here in the Riksdag that parties are not of public utility or do not benefit society.

(Applause)

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

Robert Hannah (L)

Madam Speaker! I welcome that the Left Party now considers the Sweden Democrats to be a public service party and that they are pillars of society and positive for democracy. It is probably the first time ever I have heard that in the chamber. I think it is very funny.

Let us talk about the matter. It is a bit dangerous to enter into a discussion about it with someone who has been in the room and to claim that what the person says is not correct. If the Member of Parliament wants to know what happened regarding telephone sales, I can say that we in the opposition were strongly negative towards there being special legislation for the Social Democrats. The Social Democrats investigated nothing other than their own special legislation, the legislation they brought to the Riksdag.

The Sweden Democrats had a reservation. The Alliance parties had their own. There was therefore a majority. When the Left Party also joined the Alliance parties' motion in the Riksdag, a majority was formed.

Since the Left Party has never sat in government, I can state that the custom when one has a parliamentary majority against oneself is to choose to join the opposition, in order to write down the opposition against oneself. When the Left Party turned, S and MP therefore chose to agree to the alliance parties' motion.

Then nothing happened. Or did it? It was 2018. During the Social Democrats' additional four years in power, there was no other change to the exception that the Social Democrats had introduced for themselves. It is clear that it is problematic to have special rules for themselves.

In the case of the motion, you require there to be broad agreement, but you did not do that in 2018, when you joined the alliance parties. How is it that you suddenly have this new requirement, Vasiliki Tsouplaki?

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the clarification, Robert Hannah!

I thought it was important for the audience to hear that it was not quite as Robert Hannah first presented, that three parties were against the announcement. The Left Party also actually thought it was important that it be investigated.

It is regrettable that nothing has happened for many years. That is the case with some, in fact far too many, announcements from the Riksdag. They are not treated particularly promptly, regardless of which government we have. In the Riksdag, we are also usually in agreement in pointing out that it needs to be hurried up. I believe we can agree on that.

Robert Hannah began by saying that it was surprising that I said that all parties, including the Sweden Democrats, are important for society. Of course, all organizations are vote-carriers for their members and voters, if it is a political party. It is important that there are good opportunities to make those people's voices heard through the association. Therefore, the state, the regions, and the municipalities are involved in financing through grants to civil society, so that people can be involved in democracy. This obviously also applies to the Sweden Democrats' voters.

I have many objections to the Sweden Democrats' policy and view of humanity and such. But I want to take that discussion in a political context. I do not want to go in and specifically ban contributions to the Sweden Democrats, if they find some clever source of funding.

We have had to organize part of the regulatory framework for party contributions. It turned out that the Sverigedemokraterna were funneling money from the municipal level to their national organization. We then agreed that it was not intended in that way, as municipal contributions should benefit democracy at the municipal level and benefit the residents in that municipality. Therefore, there is today a regulatory framework for reporting how one uses their party support.

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

Robert Hannah (L)

Madam Speaker! I actually have nothing more to add other than that it is a question of definition whether party-political lotteries are of public utility or not. I do not think that parties can be compared with the local football club that is to finance its footballs and match jerseys and that by having special rules for themselves they should be able to finance a campaign for a certain political orientation.

It is really about special rules for the Social Democrats themselves. The case from 2018 regarding telephone sales is an obvious instance of legislative drafting and presentation to benefit the own party and its own activities. If I call Gun, 65, on the phone and try to sell something, today requirements for written form apply to everyone, except for the party's own lottery.

It is clear that it will not be obvious to pensioners in Sweden who risk being exploited that there is an exception they are unaware of for lotteries that applies to everyone else in society. If one really cared about people being exploited, one would not have introduced a small exception just for themselves that allows one to sell things to older people in this way. It is clearly problematic.

It is even more problematic when a majority in the Riksdag has said that we should not have it in this way. The Social Democrats chose to join forces with the other parties but did nothing for four years when they held power. That is the big problem we have in Sweden with these lotteries. The problem is not that the governing parties are trying to remove a Social Democratic source of funding, but that the Social Democrats have created their own legislation where they have put themselves before pensioners' rights and opportunities in life. It is clear in the case of telephone sales.

(Applause)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe we cleared up that we are in agreement regarding the telephone sales, so we perhaps do not need to discuss that further. But I reacted a bit to the member's claim that there is legislation designed specifically for one party - the Social Democrats -, which he insinuated here. This is legislation that applies to all parties.

The Liberals can start lotteries. The Moderates have tried. The Sweden Democrats apparently also had an idea to do so. This is, therefore, not a special piece of legislation that only benefits one party, as Robert Hannah expresses it. Instead, it opens up for all parties to find other sources of funding than just party support, grants from Timbro and other companies or wealthy individuals who want to donate money. It was a serious case in the autumn when Kalla fakta called around to the parties to offer secret donations to bypass the regulatory framework. There, among others, Robert Hannah's party opened up to find ways around the system and receive anonymous donations.

There is much to discuss regarding how the parties finance their activities. It should be transparent and clear who may have strings attached to a party or a member. That is why the register we previously heard about exists. Azadeh Rojhan stated that we need to report if we, for example, have shareholdings so that it should be clear to the voters that we do not represent any secret person or any secret company's interests other than those that can be seen openly and accounted for.

There is, therefore, much to talk about regarding party funding. Is it large enough or is more needed? How can we keep democracy alive? For me as a Vänsterpartist, it is important to safeguard civil society's opportunities to be voices and to be involved in building democracy stronger.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! For the vast majority, tipping and gambling for money is a fun hobby. It is something that can make watching that football match a bit more fun or provides an opportunity to dream about what happens when one sweeps home the million-dollar win. But even though the great mass handles their gambling well, there is a group of people who do not quite manage the situation. Actually, it is not one but two groups, which are quite different.

It is the classic stereotype of young men playing on the internet, slot machines and other things, but there are also older women sitting in bingo halls who perhaps do not gamble away millions, but who from the beginning have scarce resources and gamble far too much. That group is very easy to forget and is not captured in the same way by society. In the debate surrounding gambling addiction, that group must not be forgotten and must be given the same opportunities for support and care as others.

That gambling addiction since a couple of years ago is placed in the same category as addiction to alcohol and drugs in the psychology manual DSM-IV, which can hopefully accelerate the development of treatment methods. The new gambling regulation that was developed broadly across party lines a number of years ago has, in essence, functioned well. The channeling is relatively good, and the problems with unregulated actors and questionable gambling responsibility have decreased.

Now that the regulation has been in place for a while, it is perhaps time to evaluate it. Should restaurant casinos still have exemptions? It was a vanishing activity, but now it is growing again. What does the channeling actually look like, and are there measures that need to be taken to expand it further? How do the players themselves experience the whole thing? Is there any difference? Are they treated equally by the companies, regardless of whether they win or lose? There are quite a few questions that should be studied more closely. I think this debate should be about that rather than the public lotteries.

Centerpartiet naturally safeguards the popular movements. They have a very important role in society. Funding via lotteries plays an important role for a good number of them. That also means that we here in the chamber of the Riksdag do not need to make decisions on increased support funds, which otherwise probably could have been the case.

In Sweden, we talk about games. It is a word with many meanings. It can be about games for money – what is called gambling in English – but it can also be about games that take place just for fun without any money involved. It can be play, board games and video games – what is called gaming in English. For some strange reason, the Riksdag and the political system think that gaming and gambling should be handled together, even though they are completely different things that have nothing at all to do with each other.

I can certainly predict the outcome of an e-sports match, but I can also predict how it goes in Eurovision on Saturday. That doesn't mean we treat these issues at the same time. Even if they are called the same thing, it becomes completely unreasonable. We don't debate issues about blue whales at the same time as issues about the electoral system, even though both can be designated as election issues.

For me and the Center Party, this demonstrates ignorance. It is an old remnant from when e-sports and gaming were seen as something immoral, bad, and reprehensible. Nothing could be more wrong! The gaming industry generates around 35 billion every year just in Sweden. The ten largest companies pay 1.5 billion in corporate tax to the state treasury. The number of employees is closer to 7,000 and is growing exponentially.

The Swedish gaming miracle is actually greater than the Swedish music miracle. Politicians from other parties are happy to talk about the importance of cultural schools and music education - and those are fantastic things - but we also need to talk about the Swedish gaming miracle and what is needed there. It is none other than the Center Party that fights for the recognition of gaming and equal conditions within the culture and sports movement in the same way that we do.

There have been many lip service confessions, but concrete action is lacking. The government introduced receipt requirements for old pinball machines in the autumn, despite the fact that no pinball machine in the world has the possibility to install a receipt printer and that it has gone well without them for 40 years. Both this and the old government have said and say that gaming is a cultural form, but they do not want to update the cultural policy goals. It is very easy to say that e-sport is sport, but they do not want to make the actual decisions.

During the pandemic, one of the world's largest e-sports events, The International, was supposed to be held in Sweden - or so we thought. But it had to be cancelled because entry permits and visas could not be obtained. On the other hand, it went very well to hold the figure skating World Championships the week after in the same arena.

I thought that in 2023 I would not have to explain that e-sports contribute to such things as inclusion, improved language skills, strategic thinking, and rapid decision-making - nor that older people who play exhibit better cognitive abilities, that drone pilots are recruited among gamers, and that those who practice e-sports at an elite level need to have good physical ability. Research shows that e-sports players secrete equally high levels of cortisol as racing drivers, that their eye-hand coordination is many times better than that of table tennis players, and that their pulse sometimes rises as high as 160-180 beats per minute, which resembles a marathon runner's.

Gaming issues

Is it too much to ask that society - in this case the Riksdag - provides esports with equal conditions? Obviously, the government and large parts of the Riksdag think that esports should still exist in a vacuum with the obstacles and problems it entails. The Center Party wants otherwise. We want to give esports a chance. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 4.

I and the Center Party know that we cannot influence the Swedish Sports Confederation's decision regarding membership, but we can give e-sports the same conditions that a membership would have provided. Much legislation could be changed in this chamber so that one within e-sports can choose for themselves and not be forced into a box and a community that one perhaps might not even be allowed to be part of. We must give all sports the right conditions. We must ensure that those who have problems with gambling addiction receive the care that is needed. It would be no more than reasonable.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

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