Response to interpellation 2022/23:364 on regulatory simplifications and regulatory improvements
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD considers that the government is actively working to reduce companies' regulatory burden and administrative costs 1. KD argues that it is important to avoid over-implementation of EU regulations and that Sweden needs to improve its competitiveness through simplifications 1. KD emphasizes that the government prioritizes strengthening the Regelrådet and establishing an implementation council 2. KD acknowledges a conflict of objectives between removing obstacles and introducing rules to combat fraud 3. KD argues that Tillväxtverket should report on efforts to simplify companies' reporting 3. KD emphasizes that the priority in the budget lies on the reinforcement of Verksamt.se 4. KD considers that there is a broad consensus on the need to reduce the regulatory burden 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist has asked me whether I intend to act so that the government proceeds with all or parts of the content in the report Simplifications for Micro-enterprises and Modernization of the Accounting Act (SOU 2021:60) as well as in the department communication Better Impact Assessments (Ds 2022:22). Furthermore, she has asked me which other measures for regulatory simplification and regulatory improvement I plan to implement in the near future.
Here comes a relatively long introductory answer to this.
The Government considers efforts for regulatory simplification and regulatory improvement to be very important and also sees that it is important with measures that reduce the administrative costs for companies. The Government is actively working to develop more measures that can contribute to reducing the regulatory burden on companies and limiting their administrative costs.
During the spring, the government submitted a bill to the Riksdag with a proposal to abolish the requirement for permits for organizing dance events at locations other than public ones from and including July 1, 2023. This is perhaps one of the more talked-about proposals in the committee report. But the other proposals in the committee report that have not received as much media attention and which are in the department memorandum Better consequence investigations are currently being prepared in the Government Offices, and work is actively being done on them. That means I cannot anticipate that work. We look forward to returning to that issue.
The government has also, among other things, strengthened the business portal Verksamt.se, which was mentioned earlier in the chamber during this round of interpellations, and the Rule Council's work in reviewing impact assessments of proposals that may have effects of significance for companies. Furthermore, the government announced in the budget bill for 2023 that an implementation council shall be established with the goal of reducing the regulatory burden for companies.
EU's regulations need to be implemented in such a way that Swedish companies' competitiveness is maintained and so that the regulatory burden and administration for the companies is reduced, or at least not increased. Over-implementation in Swedish law of EU regulation shall be avoided, or clearly justified when it is deemed necessary to fulfill national Swedish goals.
In order for companies to have competitive conditions, measures for simplification and regulatory frameworks that create room for maneuver for the companies' renewal in line with global changes are needed. Sweden needs to improve its competitiveness and reduce the regulatory burden. In the Government Offices, questions regarding the design and mandate for the implementation council are currently being prepared, and even here, it means that I cannot anticipate what the government will eventually come to and return with here.
Simplification of regulations has been a priority issue within the Swedish EU Presidency. The Government's cooperation with the European Commission has led to the Commission presenting a communication on long-term competitiveness, which contains extensive elements on growth-promoting regulations at the EU level.
The communication highlights, among other things, the use of the "one in, one out" principle, which means that regulatory costs directly affecting companies shall be compensated by a corresponding reduction in costs in other contexts. The communication also contains an enhanced analysis of the total regulatory burden, a new competitiveness check when new laws are enacted, and targets for administrative costs in terms of reporting requirements to be reduced by 25 percent at the EU level.
The work of the Presidency has also resulted in the European Council deciding on Council conclusions on 23 March which confirmed the objectives set out in the competitiveness message.
In conclusion, the environmental permit processes need to be simplified and shortened by making the assessment more flexible, efficient, and predictable. The Government has therefore decided to appoint an inquiry into shortened and simplified permit processes according to the Environmental Code. The inquiry shall take a holistic approach to the Swedish environmental assessment according to the Environmental Code. This includes, among other things, investigating how the Swedish regulatory framework can be changed so that Sweden does not set unjustifiably higher requirements than what EU law requires.
Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for Energy and Industry for the answer to a comprehensive but important question for Sweden's companies!
Svenskt Näringsliv has previously estimated that it costs companies approximately 220 billion every year to comply with the regulatory requirements. A few weeks ago, Tillväxtverket, one of the minister's own agencies, concluded that the total sum is likely closer to 370 billion. Just to put it into perspective, that is therefore twice as much as the companies pay in corporate tax.
All these rules are obviously not bad. Many are completely necessary for the rules of the game between companies to be fair and for one to know that one is doing business with companies that also have okay accounting and clean hands.
I do know, however, that the Minister and I agree that the amount and the cost must be reduced. There are actually two ways to reduce the regulatory burden for companies: either by ensuring that new rules do not make it worse for companies or by removing rules that are not needed.
When it comes to ensuring that new legislation does not unnecessarily burden companies, but perhaps even makes it easier for companies, we who sit here and make decisions must know that a consequence assessment of the proposal has been made. A consequence assessment is, for those of you listening, an analysis of the effect for companies of a specific proposal. That analysis must be made by all investigations. That analysis must be made by the departments before the proposals come here. The analysis must also be made by all agencies when they are to write their ordinances.
As former chairman of the Regulatory Council, I could state that many impact assessments did not measure up, and it has not become any better. 50 percent are rejected, and many even seem to simply ignore carrying them out.
If a bill, which may look good on paper, can become a catastrophe for companies, it is important that the proposals are stopped and that there is a sharp scrutiny of the proposals. That scrutiny is carried out today by the Council on Legislation. But the Council on Legislation's structure is 15 years old, and it is obvious that the Council on Legislation must enter much earlier in the legislative process. It is not possible to treat the Council on Legislation as a referral body like others. It is a tool to start working away the 370 billion.
Madam Speaker! The consultation response to the departmental report Better Impact Assessments was submitted in early February. The Minister refers to the fact that the proposals are now being prepared in the Government Offices, which is, of course, a correct answer. But, Madam Speaker, the Minister's answer also raises two new questions. What does the Minister think about the proposals to broaden the mandate for impact assessments so that they become worse for the companies specifically? And what does the Minister think about the Regulatory Council entering the review process earlier?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to say that the government shares much of what the member is raising here. This is an area where significantly more should have been done in recent years. When there has been no restraint and several years of regulatory changes have accumulated at the companies, the regulatory burden suddenly becomes very heavy. I therefore truly agree with the problem regarding the costs. It is something that we need to address and manage to solve in some way during the coming year.
That the government strengthens the Rule Council is a clear marking of our will, our desire, and our opinion that the council should carry more weight when it comes to assessments of which laws are introduced and in what way, as well as how the implementation should look. We shall, as mentioned, introduce an implementation council, and we can only note that an implementation council was not succeeded in during the previous mandate period, nor during the mandate period before that. It was not sufficiently prioritized in the January agreement, and it was also not sufficiently prioritized when S governed themselves.
Now we are making a clear prioritization, both in the budget and in political will, regarding the need for an entity that will not only provide opinions in hindsight but also constantly review and actively drive towards the state and other authorities and agencies how the implementation of EU directives and laws should look. Quite a few of our problems, though not all, actually relate to the EU, and we need to have a much more active work in this.
I also want to emphasize something that is known by many of those who, like the member himself, have worked with business issues for a long time, and that is that Sweden has a tendency to enter EU processes quite late. It is not reported quite as much in the media; it is difficult to get media pressure in important EU processes before it is time to introduce them in Sweden, and by then the train has already left for the opportunity to be able to influence the EU directives that set many of the basic rules of the game even nationally.
If there is anything that we, regardless of political color, need to join forces on in the chamber, it is that Sweden actively needs to monitor its interests in EU processes significantly earlier. This, together with a clearly strengthened implementation council in Sweden, can become a very strong combination in the coming years to both hold off further burdens on our companies and lift burdens that we have placed on our companies.
Otherwise, I will probably continue to stick to my somewhat boring answer that we are working very actively on that which came in in January. We are trying to maintain as high a pace as possible in that, with the possibility of returning to the chamber when we have made a decision on what has been proposed.
Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.
I am also glad that bars and restaurants no longer need to apply for permits and that there will be dancing. It has been a matter of freedom for many of us. But that the government's entire, concrete work in the area of regulatory simplification is hung up on and manifested by the fact that a permit has become a notification may not make all of Sweden's entrepreneurs very happy.
The Business Rules Committee has today published a debate article. I did not intend to quote praises for Maud Olofsson here and now, but I intended to get straight to the point and bring up the regulatory letters.
The Business Sector's Rules Committee writes that they are reviewing the regulatory letters for a number of selected agencies with particularly large impacts on the conditions for companies. Even there, the development is negative, and the number of assignments concerning rule simplification has become fewer and fewer under several governments despite stated high ambitions in matters of rule simplification. In this year's regulatory letter, it still looks exactly as it did last year from a rule improvement perspective. There are very few concrete assignments.
If we previously spoke about how important it was to stop bad regulations for companies, I would now like to turn our attention to how we remove more regulations. There is actually only one tool for this, and it is a tough job internally within the departments to ensure that all agencies receive sharp targets on how many regulations or how many billions in regulations they need to trim away.
Madam Speaker! I therefore wonder if the Minister can describe how she is working to ensure that her colleagues roll up their sleeves and remove regulations. Are there any interdepartmental working groups at the level of State Secretaries? Are there such groups at the civil servant level? I also wonder why no agencies in this year's regulatory letter were tasked to inventory, that is, examine, all their regulations to see what can be changed, removed, or simplified.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I begin with a direct answer: We have what are called IDA groups, i.e., interdepartmental working groups, and secretary groups that are actively working on these issues. A special review of all regulatory letters will be carried out before the autumn. It can happen at any time, but now we are doing it collectively before the autumn – and then partially in connection with the work on BP24, that is, the budget for next year, where we will adopt the perspective of regulatory simplification and easing the burden for Sweden's job creators.
In a previous interpellation debate, I pointed out that we have a challenge, and I want to be straight and open in this chamber regarding the conflict of objectives. In certain sectors, we need more rules and tougher measures to tackle cheating, for example within the welfare sector. There, we have many fantastically skilled entrepreneurs and providers who meet patients and users – some within the home care service wish to be called customers – as well as the elderly and residents in a fantastic way, but we have others who truly abuse the system.
There is a need to address this properly; there are calculations showing that billions of our tax dollars are disappearing due to abuse and loopholes in the regulations. When a part of the state - the government - tries to address this, we sometimes end up in a situation where that work runs counter to the work from the other side, that is, with removing obstacles, removing rules and reducing the burden. I want to be open that this is a tough conflict of objectives, which is partly reflected in the fact that a lot is happening and being worked on, but it takes some time to manage to do both at the same time.
The answer, however, is that there is an active interdepartmental effort underway. This is because there is a lot in these issues where the responsibility for the business climate lies with the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, but where many of the rules are initiated in other ministries. My State Secretary responsible for business issues, Sara Modig, has, among other things, met with the Business Rules Committee as recently as two weeks ago to raise a good deal of these issues. I would say that there is a fairly large amount of enthusiasm in the ministries to make a push with these issues, especially during the autumn. We will also review all regulatory letters and instructions with this perspective.
It is also the case that the Swedish Agency for Economic and Innovation (Tillväxtverket), according to this year's regulatory letter, shall report on the efforts made during the year to simplify companies' reporting. They also have a broader responsibility to provide opinions on other areas as well, which will be important in the review of the regulatory letters and instructions going forward.
Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. It was very pleasing to hear that there is active work being done with the regulatory letters. It will have an effect.
I also agree with the Minister that fair rules for companies are incredibly important for us to have a good business climate. The authorities that are supposed to be sharp in supervision and impose fines must do so, otherwise companies that have fair rules of play and do not try to exploit the systems will be squeezed out. I think, therefore, that we can distinguish between those.
I think it is unclear whether I received any answer to the question of whether the Rule Council should be allowed to come in earlier. It is still the case that the Rule Council comes in far too late if it is treated as a referral body like all the others. The Council would need to come in at a stage where an investigation can receive a comment from the Rule Council and then rework its impact assessment, which is often completely necessary.
In this exchange of views, we have been able to establish that the Rule Council has an important role to play and that the government has added more funds. But the Rule Council is today a unit within an agency. It has a well-composed board with external parties with good experience from different parts of agencies and companies, but it is not an independent agency. I am not fond of the idea of increasing the number of agencies, but I see that no one listens to a council that is hidden within another agency. It needs to become a sharper construction.
We have calculated that it would cost perhaps 40 million. It is not a large amount of money compared to the 370 billion it costs the companies to follow the rules. I therefore wonder if the Minister can work to ensure that the Rule Council becomes an independent agency?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity in this final statement to thank you for the interpellation debate and for the important perspectives raised in the interpellation. What has been noticed in large, not least in this exchange of views, is the need for concretization. There is an opportunity for a fairly broad consensus regarding the need to reduce the regulatory burden, but when it is to be translated into actual action, it becomes all the tougher.
We have made a clear prioritization in the budget through the reinforcement of Verksamt.se. It is worth reminding again, as it is an authority portal that is very appreciated by many companies. It makes it easier to navigate many of our authorities' difficult systems for those who are going to start their own company and move from idea to reality – and be the job creator that only companies can be. There is, after all, not a single politician who has created a single job opportunity. If we always thank the entrepreneurs with more rules and a heavier administrative burden, there will also be fewer job opportunities.
With that said, I choose not to repeat myself further, but in these summer closing times, I am sending, via the Speaker, a request for a coffee with the member – not for the sake of the coffee, but for the opportunity to further discuss the Rule Council and its function. The intention is, in fact, that the council should have real teeth and be able to have an effect in our work.
With that, I thank you for the interpellation debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.