Response to interpellation 2023/24:542 on restrictions on the sale of farms

Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Tobias Andersson has asked me if I and the government intend to propose all the restrictions in the report of the Inquiry into a possibility for small-scale farm sales of alcoholic beverages (S 2020:15, SOU 2021:95). Tobias Andersson has also asked me if I and the government intend to add further restrictions than those proposed by the inquiry. Tobias Andersson has further asked me if I and the government intend to implement farm sales during a trial period of six years, as the inquiry proposes. Tobias Andersson has finally asked me if I and the government intend to limit farm sales to fermented beverages in accordance with the alternative proposal in the inquiry.

Work is currently underway within the Government Offices to prepare a referral to the Council on Legislation for the purpose of introducing farm sales of alcoholic beverages. The intention is for the government to produce a referral to the Council on Legislation as quickly as possible that enables farm sales while simultaneously protecting Systembolaget's monopoly and submit a bill to the Riksdag on the matter, so that a legislative change can enter into force at some point in early 2025. This, however, presupposes an EU process that does not drag on. The government intends to submit the proposals to the European Commission in accordance with customary notification procedures and applicable directives. I cannot precede the government's decision and the work that is currently underway within the Government Offices.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. Farm sales can become a reality as early as 2025, as Jakob Forssmed has expressed on Expressen's debate page. It is a timeline that the Minister adheres to in this interpellation debate. That is good, because farm sales is a long-awaited reform that, in my opinion, should have been in place a long time ago.

The investigation "En möjlighet till småskalig gårdsförsäljning av alkoholdrycker" from 2021, which the department is working from, has been on the minister's desk since day one.

Mr. Speaker! Do not misunderstand me – it is positive that the Minister gives assurances that it will become a reality next year. But I still think it is strange that the already investigated farm sales are delayed in relation to other departments that spit out Council of State referrals and proportions.

I choose, however, to interpret it positively. Since the proposal has a number of limitations, the delay, as I see it, could be rooted in the fact that Jakob Forssmed and the department are actively working to remove the limitations that exist in the investigation's proposal and are thus taking the time to ensure a better final product.

In the investigation, there are limitations regarding, for example, production volume, which would be directly growth-inhibiting because the actors involved, in the event of success and increased sales, risk losing their right to precisely farm sales. There are limitations regarding the fact that the purchase must take place in connection with a study visit or a lecture of some kind regarding the product in question, even if one lives near the vineyard and has already purchased the wine in question three times before.

There is also a time limit on how long farm sales as a concept shall be permitted. The investigation proposes that the regulation should apply in a first step for six years from the date of entry into force. This means that a company that invests in its production facility to be able to receive visitors and engage in farm sales will likely not have time to write off the investment costs before the six-year deadline expires. From my side and from the perspective of industrial policy, we believe that policy should create long-term conditions for the business sector, which is definitely not what is done with a potential sunset clause for farm sales.

The farm sales investigation also contains an alternative proposal that excludes distilled beverages, i.e., different types of spirits. It would be undeniably tragic given Sweden's unique beverage culture and history when it comes to just distilled beverages. It is something that we are significantly more known for than wine and beer.

Mr. Speaker! Against this background, I have submitted written questions and interpellations regarding the sale of farms to ensure that, from the department's and Forsmed's side, the interests of the business sector and the tourism industry are protected in the work with the bill that is to be presented and implemented during the next year.

Today, Aftonbladet published a debate article in which Moderate MPs claim to have taken part of the proposal that Jakob Forssmed and the department have worked out and express strong criticism of this. In the article, it is claimed that the proposal from the department and Jakob Forssmed limits itself to alcoholic beverages under 15 percent and that the farms must have their own production of grain or raw materials, which we know very few of those concerned have.

I simply want to know whether these facts are correct or not, Mr. Speaker.

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

Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Tobias Andersson, whose commitment to this issue is well known both from the chamber and from other contexts!

I am keen to come forward with a proposal that holds, that works, and that makes it possible to have small-scale farm sales of alcoholic beverages on the condition that the retail monopoly is protected. This is the mandate that the Riksdag has directed in the matter, and therefore it is important that we work with it in that way.

I believe that Tobias Andersson and others are aware that this issue is complex and difficult. It touches upon different types of EU law, and it is therefore important to ensure that we are able to achieve the goals we have set for the process. There are, therefore, three government inquiries that have investigated the issue with vastly different conclusions. That, if anything, testifies to the fact that the issue is difficult. Furthermore, I have personally been involved in appointing two of these inquiries.

My starting point and the government's collective starting point is that we view this positively. Our ambitions in this area remain, as does our ambition to get this in place. We know that it is a long-awaited reform, but we also know that Systembolaget enjoys a high level of trust, and that is something we want to safeguard in order to safeguard Swedish alcohol policy. Alcohol is, after all, not just any commodity, but also entails significant medical and social consequences. Therefore, it is important that we also ensure this.

An addition is also that it is not uninteresting for small-scale manufacturers of beer, wine, and distilled beverages that there is a local assortment at Systembolaget. It is a consequence of the previous alliance government's work with the issue, which has also been an important part of the large development that we have seen in the beverage market in Sweden.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answers! First, I would like to touch upon parts of what Jakob Forssmed says and then repeat my question.

As we all know, the investigation was appointed with a kind of portal paragraph stating that what is concluded should not challenge the retail monopoly. We know that. Then the EU, just as Jakob Forssmed says, will ultimately have opinions depending on how we choose to implement the farm sales. Exactly where those boundaries will be drawn we may not know until the government has posed the actual question to the commission and received an answer. It could happen that one poses a question, receives an answer from the commission, and thereafter realizes that one needs to rework the product that the department is working on. In that case, one must do so.

I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that my ambition is that the government listens to the business community, producers, and consumers as much as possible, carries out their requests, and enables this rather than listening too much to Systembolaget – which undoubtedly has a horse in the race – or to the temperance movement. One should instead look at what the Swedes want and what the producers can offer. If it then turns out that one has too liberal an interpretation of what the EU accepts and the EU therefore says no, one simply has to do it over, do it correctly, and adapt before taking it to the Riksdag. That possibility exists, but we do not know where the EU sets the boundaries until we have asked them. It may also need to be tested legally.

With that said, neither I nor the Minister wish to challenge Systembolaget's monopoly, nor the local assortment. It is therefore unfortunate, as is claimed, that Systembolaget engages in lobbying, which in my opinion is unnecessary and inappropriate in this context. It is understood to have been said to various producers that if this becomes a reality, the local assortment will disappear, even though it absolutely does not need to be so in practice. I can think that Systembolaget should not engage in that type of political influence that the Riksdag has previously had opinions about.

Enough about this. I have now addressed the parts of the Minister's answer that I wanted to respond to, Mr. Speaker. I would like to step back a little: This is, therefore, a product that will likely not be coordinated between our four parties, but it will take place between the government parties. The Sweden Democrats will, as it looks at the moment, need to use the Chamber and public opinion to make our voice heard. Then it will probably become a budget issue in some context, but beyond that, it will not be coordinated formally as some other policy areas do.

That is why I have not taken part of the material that the Moderate MPs Mats Green and Oliver Rosengren commented on in Aftonbladet today. In that article, they are deeply shocked by the choice of design from the department's side.

For my part, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is true. I do not know if the information in the article is correct or not. The information states that one does not want to allow the inclusion of distilled spirits, which is perhaps the most uniquely Swedish thing we have from a beverage perspective, as well as that farm sales should only be enabled for those producers who have their own production of grain and raw materials.

In the investigation, it explicitly states that if any beverage producer in Sweden today manages to conduct a beverage production that includes their own grain production. If the information in Aftonbladet's article is correct, it means that the proposal that Jakob Forssmed and the department have presented to the Moderate MPs will in practice not result in much farm sales at all. This would be a failure, and I want to know if it is true. The Minister should want to deny the information if it is incorrect.

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

Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The procedure in Sweden is to prepare proposals. Work is ongoing in the Government Offices, and when the government has a proposal, it is presented to the Riksdag or to the Council on Legislation and to the public. Then the proposal is debated.

In this case, there are naturally different types of working materials in the process, which I would like to return to. It is a complex issue. I am eager to produce a proposal that works and that we can produce in a reasonable timeframe, so that the reform can actually be implemented after decades of investigation. We know that many want to see it, not least smaller companies in the countryside where this can have significance. At the same time, there is a great point in that we follow what the Riksdag has said and what the parties and the government agree on, and which I perceive that even the Sverigedemokraterna agree on, namely that we safeguard the retail monopoly. Then it is simple.

The investigations we have and the EU processes we are aware of indicate that it is not quite that simple. The processes are naturally affected by how the proposal is designed, at what tempo and speed they can proceed, and in what way they can be implemented.

We are working at a high pace to make the trade-offs and produce a proposal that works. It would be unique because we have not done it in Sweden until now. I look forward to it, and I am eager to produce such a proposal.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank again for the answer from Minister Jakob Forssmed.

I really appreciate that the Minister repeats that there is interest, that there is a desire to put forward a proposal, and that there is a desire to do so expeditiously and get it right from the beginning. I emphasize that it is good.

I also want to problematize this. If the information in Aftonbladet's article today is correct, which Jakob Forssmed has not yet denied in his speeches, it means that it is the product that is currently being worked from. Then I understand that one can make adjustments before the proposal reaches the Riksdag, and that is what I hope for. But if the existing proposal that the Moderate MPs refer to is correct, it means in practice that farm sales will not take place. You exclude all distilled spirits, everything over 15 percent, which is the traditionally Swedish, that which distinguishes Swedish drinking culture from international drinking culture. There is an opportunity to drive stakeholders to the tourism industry, namely the companies that have capital to invest in farm sales. The individual artisan of small-scale beer cannot do that in the same way.

Hardly any producers today have an existing production of grain and raw materials or the capacity, ability, and interest to establish themselves in that market. Today, these products are purchased as input goods, just like any other business. But if one says that the only ones allowed to engage in farm sales are those who have their own production, it will in practice likely mean no farm sales occur. Then it doesn't matter how eager the minister is to get the proposal in place, if the proposal one is trying to get in place means that the sale does not take place in practice. In that case, in a peculiar way, one has rather shot farm sales into the ground but can still argue that one has made it possible, even though it in practice has not been made possible for the actors concerned. I want this debunked so that we know.

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

Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Tobias Andersson for the interpellation and the opportunity for me to say that we are working on the issue.

The procedure in Sweden is such that when the government has proposals, they are presented. They then become subjects of discussion. During a process, there are different types of working materials, and one discusses and goes through questions.

I want to emphasize once again that many in the discussion are making it easy for themselves. The legal material is complicated. It concerns rules for trade barriers, competition, monopolies, exceptions, and the possibilities to implement these things.

This is manifested by the fact that the issue has been investigated many times with the starting values that Tobias Andersson describes, namely to enable the proposal but at the same time maintain Systembolaget's monopoly and the sales channels that exist there, as well as preserve the possibility for Sweden to have an alcohol policy that is decided in Sweden, not in Brussels. This is guiding for my work, and I have no other ambition than that we should get a system in place that works and enables small-scale farm sales. Both Tobias Andersson and I realize that it will naturally involve limitations if it is to be possible to reconcile the proposal with the regulations, but it is important that it becomes something that can seriously and truly make a difference for companies, not least in the countryside.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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