Response to interpellation 2024/25:382 on the EU and the need for regulatory simplification
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD drives an offensive simplification agenda in Sweden and the EU to increase companies' competitiveness and reduce the regulatory burden 1. KD welcomes the EU Commission's simplification package and emphasizes that climate and competitiveness must go hand in hand 1. KD has appointed the implementation council to counter unnecessary regulatory burdens during the implementation of EU directives 1. KD argues that Sweden must act as hawks in EU processes to secure competitiveness against the USA and China 2. KD wants to use the simplification council to continuously propose regulatory simplifications 2. KD is aware that companies' administrative costs are high and that companies may leave Sweden if one does not dare to stand firm 3. SD asks how the government will ensure that simplification initiatives do not stall or become ineffective and how one should balance environmental requirements against regulatory simplifications 4. SD safeguards free trade agreements without state subsidies 5. SD welcomes the simplification council and the implementation council 6.
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! Finally! We come to the fourth interpellation for today. I have asked the Minister for Climate and the Environment how she and the government will work to ensure that the EU does not only drive the issue of green transition but also actively work for regulatory easing to increase the competitiveness of Swedish and European companies. The work within the government is so distributed that it is I who shall answer the interpellation, so I hope that Johnny Svedin can be satisfied with me.
It should be easy to start, run and develop companies in Sweden. The Government is therefore pursuing an offensive simplification agenda, in both Sweden and the EU. Swedish and European companies need a purposeful and simple regulatory framework so as not to fall behind in the competition with companies outside the EU.
With this said, I mean, the questions of green transition and competitiveness are closely linked, which is also the signal we receive from the Commission. The Commission has, among other things, stated that climate and competitiveness shall go hand in hand, and they have also promised an ambitious simplification package that will be presented shortly.
The Government welcomes the European Commission's initiative and increased efforts in the area of simplification. The Government actively promotes the issue of simplifying existing EU legislation, reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, and well-conducted impact assessments.
The Government has, in this context, among other things, pointed out to the Commission that the EU's impact assessments should reflect broad stakeholder dialogues. The Commission's proposals for action should, in balance, both promote the green transition and simultaneously reduce and prevent the regulatory burden for European companies.
The government has furthermore appointed the Implementation Council, the purpose of which is to reduce companies' regulatory burden and administrative costs. The Council shall provide recommendations during the implementation of EU directives in order to counter unjustified regulatory burdens.
Johnny Svedin (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer! I do not intend to be so long-winded.
Competitiveness is based on several parameters. In my interpellation to the Minister, I asked a question about how the government intends to balance the drivers for green transition against the need to maintain and strengthen Swedish and European competitiveness, especially in light of the administrative and regulatory burden that Swedish companies experience.
In the State Secretary's response, the government's offensive simplification agenda is emphasized and the EU Commission's upcoming simplification package, which is now a reality, is welcomed. This package aims to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and strengthen companies' competitiveness while simultaneously supporting the green transition, which is considered crucial to ensuring balanced growth and sustainable development within the EU.
Given the extensive administrative burden associated with the green transition and which is presumably one of the reasons why the EU has fallen behind regarding international trade, I would like to ask the Minister: How does the government plan to ensure that these initiatives do not experience delays and that they do not become ineffective? And what approaches will be used to ensure that the environmental requirements do not come into conflict with the regulatory simplifications?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I will try to answer in as much plain language as I can. When it comes to the latter, I believe they will come into conflict with each other, both the environmental interests and the competitiveness interests. I believe that from Sweden's side, we need to decide to push as hawks in the EU processes. Either we succeed in balancing the equation and uniting high-level climate goals with competitiveness, or the companies will move somewhere else.
My own assessment is that the EU has one year. The coming year will be decisive for the companies' plans.
In various EU contexts, we often talk about the need for a level playing field, i.e., that one should have an even playing field. What the hell does that mean? Well, if two football teams meet in a match, one team cannot be doped and have two extra players on the pitch who have also trained five years longer than the other team, while the other team has to run around with extra weights in the form of regulatory burdens. But that is exactly the situation we have when it comes to the opportunity for Sweden and the countries in the EU to meet the tough competition from the USA and China. It is not a level playing field.
We find ourselves in the middle of an industrial war, and the sooner we grasp the seriousness of it, the better. It has a direct impact on investment willingness and job opportunities, and also on something as large as faith in the future. We can measure this and see it in various surveys. We have parents who wonder if their children will truly have it better than they did. When faith in the future begins to falter, it is truly a danger for countries and continents. There is, therefore, a lot at stake here.
How are we then to ensure that this does not delay? I believe we must establish that the EU is not the same thing as the Commission. Those who sit in the stands or perhaps sit at home and study the European Parliament, the EU Commission, and the Council of Ministers, where I as a minister travel and meet energy ministers from different parts of Europe, should know that all these bodies are crucial for what becomes the EU line. But the EU is not the Commission – the EU is the member states – and Sweden does not need to wait for the Commission here. We can decide ourselves.
Right now, people are looking for leadership. I am tired of meeting fearful European leaders who go to Davos – where I recently was at the World Economic Forum for the first time in my life – and talk about Trump and the USA. And the USA wasn't even there. This is what is talked about instead of talking about how we should do our own homework and secure our own competitiveness.
Sweden does not need to sit and wait for the EU Commission to decide how to behave towards J.D. Vance or Donald Trump. We can choose our own Swedish line and join forces with other countries in Europe.
Let me return to the core of my answer, namely regulatory simplifications. The Simplification Council is not, as someone else here in the chamber said, an inquiry, but it is a group that can provide proposals for regulatory simplifications continuously. I look forward to starting to receive deliveries from them later this autumn.
Then we have the implementation council. How many times have we not had debates and election campaigns where it has been said that we in Sweden are so good at "gold-plating" things? It means that we introduce EU legislation and push it as far as it can go, so that it becomes as complicated as possible. The implementation council shall help us to even roll back such things where we have gone a bit too far and also, before it happens, flag such things where we are about to go too far.
These are two really good pieces of advice. This year is the first year where they can work for an entire year and move from words to action.
Johnny Svedin (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Minister, for the detailed answer! The recently presented simplification package from the EU sounds promising, and it feels like there is a desire to take this seriously.
I was in Brussels myself last week and listened to Professor Draghi. I also had the opportunity to ask a question on the same subject, but there it was made very clear that the green transition must not give way to regulatory simplifications. At the same time, we must make regulatory simplifications, otherwise we will lose competitiveness. We have already done that in any case, but we will then lose even more.
As Sweden Democrats, we – and pretty much all parties do – cherish having free trade agreements with all countries, and preferably, it would work without a lot of state subsidies. But is it possible for the Minister to answer which method the government intends to use to follow up and measure the effects of these initiatives that one wants to take from the EU side? Have you given any thought to this?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! If I understand the question correctly, it is about how we ourselves should judge whether we believe the European Commission's measures have the desired effect. I will answer directly to the point and say that we have not come that far yet. But we shall now look at what has been presented and consider whether we believe that what has been proposed is correct and whether it is sufficient or if we are missing something.
I want to agree with Johnny Svedin's comment that it sounds very good when one adds what is now coming from the commission and what it signals. It is a rather sharp tone from, among others, Ursula von der Leyen and several responsible commissioners.
I have had the pleasure of being a committee chair for nearly ten years. I am, therefore, on my third commission now. Quite a few commissions have come and gone and said about the Brussels machinery that they will "cut red tape", as it is called in English, and "ease the regulatory burden" – to lighten the regulatory burden for companies – but then it has still gone in exactly the opposite direction.
I am, therefore, doubtful as to whether what has been presented is sufficient. I believe it when I see it. It is precisely now a very tough goal conflict between the green deal and what Draghi signals in his report regarding the need for competitiveness. I believe we will have a discussion about what needs to be paused in terms of implementations. Is a moratorium needed on certain parts? The government has no such proposals on the table now, but I expect that there will be such a discussion in Europe where Sweden needs to take a position and be active. We can do that, among other things, based on what the commission has now presented.
Before I yield the floor, I nevertheless want to emphasize one thing regarding the analogy with the football teams where one team has to run around with many more weights than the other team. Companies' administrative costs and so-called compliance costs continue to increase even in Sweden, partly because we are trying to tackle organized crime in the business sector. That cost increased during 2023 by approximately 1.4 billion kronor. This means that the total annual cost for companies to comply with regulations is a staggering 379 billion kronor, according to Näringslivets Regelnämnd.
It is tough. What do we dare to pause? What do we dare to remove? But I am aware of the investment decisions that many companies are making right now. They will leave Sweden and Europe if we do not dare to stand our ground in the right direction.
Johnny Svedin (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Minister, for the answer! It is lovely music to listen to the Minister, I must say. There seems to be an insight into which problems we are living with.
For me as a Sverigedemokrat, it is good to hear that one has that insight. The Regulatory Simplification Council, which the minister himself mentioned, and the Implementation Council are very good things that we truly welcome. We also hope that this can really lead to something in the future. Not least in the Committee on Industry, I will monitor and keep track of this.
I am actually quite satisfied with the answers I have received from the Minister, so I will stop there.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin my final contribution by thanking Johnny Svedin for the interpellation.
For my part, there have been many interpellations in a row in the chamber where some have asked: Why is the government spending so much time and effort on regulatory simplifications? It seems to be the primary reform in the business sector. Yes, it is, in addition to tidying up and getting order in the energy policy.
I will not make any summary of the answers I have already given, but I want to build on and say that I perceive that Johnny Svedin and I read the situation the same way. But action is incredibly much heavier than words. We have words from the EU; now we need action. We have words from the government – from myself. Now we have moved from a period of appointing a thousand inquiries to being able to make decisions on this. Things are beginning to take effect. It is new legislation, new tools, new implementation advice and new simplification advice. Now we are going to go from there to it beginning to show a clear difference for the companies.
It is this that we will subsequently be evaluated against. Keep up the momentum! I look forward to reporting on what we have achieved in action in a year's time, based on all these words I have delivered today.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.