Response to interpellation 2024/25:473 on the abolition of the food requirement for serving licenses
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD wants to simplify and clarify the regulatory framework for serving licenses as today's food requirements are not purposeful 1. KD considers today's food requirements to be problematic because they are not sufficiently uniform and need to become simpler 2. KD advocates for a possibility to purchase a small amount of alcohol from other places in parallel with the retail monopoly 2. C considers the food requirement to be outdated legislation that has no alcohol policy impact but only complicates and increases costs for the business sector 3 4 5. C argues that the food requirement is applied arbitrarily by municipalities 4 5 and that the government has the opportunity to completely abolish the food requirement 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! Christofer Bergenblock has asked me if I share the view that there is now a sufficient basis for preparation to proceed with proposals for amendments to the Alcohol Act to abolish the so-called food requirement, following the investigation "A safe upbringing without nicotine, alcohol, and nitrous oxide." Christofer Bergenblock has also asked if I intend to submit proposals to abolish the Alcohol Act's requirement that the serving establishment must have its own kitchen in connection with the serving premises. Finally, Christofer Bergenblock has asked me if I intend to submit proposals to abolish the Alcohol Act's requirement that the serving establishment must provide cooked or otherwise prepared food.
The Riksdag has notified the government that the government should review the issue of serving permits in the Alcohol Act in order to create a simpler and less arbitrary regulatory framework (bet. 2021/22:SoU10, rskr. 2021/22:150). On page 34 of report 2021/22:SoU10, it states: ”Among other things, an investigation should be conducted into a removal of today's requirements for permanent serving permits that serving establishments must have their own kitchen in connection with the serving premises and provide cooked or otherwise prepared food. The legislation needs to be modernized and adapted to today's society, and it needs to become easier for serious actors to obtain permanent serving permits than it is today.”
In July 2022, an investigation was appointed which, among other things, had the task of assessing the scope for and the need for relaxations in the regulatory framework for obtaining serving permits, as well as considering whether the requirements can be modernized, simplified, and clarified without compromising the protection interest. The investigation submitted its report *A safe upbringing without nicotine, alcohol, and nitrous oxide*, SOU 2024:23, on March 25, 2024.
In the budget bill for 2025, proposition 2024/25:1, the government has assessed that the announcement is satisfied and final.
The report of the investigation has been submitted for consultation and is now being prepared in the Government Offices. The Government's objective is to create a simpler and more uniform regulatory framework for serving permits.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! It is nice to see Madam Speaker here this morning after yesterday's late debate, which ended at 21:00.
Thank you, Minister for Social Affairs Jakob Forssmed, for the answer!
The food requirement regarding Swedish alcohol service has existed for a long time. For a serving permit – regardless of whether it concerns a beer pub, a wine bar, a nightclub, or a restaurant – there is a requirement that food must be served. That is not all, but the alcohol legislation also states that there shall be a varied selection of cooked or otherwise prepared food and that it shall be cooked in its own kitchen in connection with the serving premises. Furthermore, the service shall continue until 11:00 PM.
It is very extensive requirements that are placed on businesses. One can wonder how timely those requirements are today, as they were introduced in a completely different time, Madam Speaker, and in a completely different alcohol policy context than the one we have today. The law has actually, for quite a long time now, become obsolete.
The purpose of the law was to reduce the level of intoxication among those who visited an establishment. Further back in time, there was actually a requirement that one should also eat food in connection with drinking alcohol, but that was abolished in the 70s because it did not work in reality. On the other hand, the requirement to offer prepared food – and a varied selection of food – remained.
Is there then a connection to alcohol consumption in our pubs? No, there isn't. There is no evidence whatsoever that someone visiting a pub or a wine bar would drink less because food is offered. There is also no evidence that the level of intoxication would decrease in the places where these offers are made. This is reflected quite well by the fact that today, only Sweden and Romania within the EU still have this requirement – as far as is known.
In the investigation *A safe upbringing without nicotine, alcohol, and nitrous oxide*, which was mentioned here and was submitted a year ago, the issue of the food requirement is addressed. It is no secret that the investigation was a great disappointment for the businesses within this area, as the only thing proposed in the investigation are cosmetic changes to the current legislation. It is proposed that one should move from the requirement that the business owner shall have a varied selection of dishes to that the business owner shall offer several different dishes, and it is proposed that one should move from 11:00 PM to 10:00 PM.
But the interesting thing is actually not the inquiry's proposal, what is interesting is the following: In light of the fact that this has been looked into, this question is prepared, and there is then an opportunity for the government to present a sharp legislative proposal, which is long-awaited by the industry, to completely remove the food requirement.
I had three questions for the Minister for Social Affairs. The first question was precisely whether the Minister considers the issue to be sufficiently prepared. The answer to that question was yes, as I understand it. The Minister is welcome to correct me if I am to understand it in any other way. Question two concerned removing the requirement for a private kitchen. I received no answer to that at all. I would very much like to hear an answer to that. The third question, which concerned the requirement to provide cooked or otherwise prepared food, I also did not perceive any answer to. I would like to know what the Minister thinks about that.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I have accounted for my answers in the interpellation response that I read out here. This report has been received in the Government Offices. It has been subject to referral, and is now being prepared in the Government Offices. The Government's objective is to create a simpler and more uniform regulatory framework for serving permits. Exactly how this is to be achieved, we will, of course, have to return to.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Social Affairs had four minutes to answer; I interpret this very short second answer as him once again choosing to hide behind the phrasing that matters are being prepared in the Government Offices.
This fact that the ministers say that things are being prepared in the Government Offices and that they therefore cannot discuss them publicly is a kind of sickness, Madam Speaker. I would like to request more courage and a bit of grit from the ministers. Dare to discuss in the Swedish parliament, in Sweden's Riksdag, here in the chamber, the questions that are actually on the table! It is not that it must end up that way in the end, but we must be able to speak openly about the issues. Neither I nor the Minister for Social Affairs are any pushovers in political contexts; we should of course be able to have a discussion regarding what is actually being prepared.
As I said earlier, there is a background to the food requirement linked to the alcohol policy context. The Centre Party naturally stands fully behind the current alcohol policy goals of promoting public health and reducing the harmful effects of alcohol. Today, however, there is no connection between the food requirement, the harmful effects of alcohol, and public health.
We have seen that drinking in Sweden has decreased over a long period, primarily among young people but also among the population at large. Today, CAN has presented its report for 2024 and notes there that drinking has decreased by 2.3 percent during 2024.
As has been said, there are not many countries that still have the food requirement. Finland had the food requirement until 2018. It was then abolished, and after that, alcohol sales in Finland have decreased by 10 percent.
There is no alcohol policy motive whatsoever to keep the food requirement. On the other hand, there are very strong motives to abolish it, primarily corporate policy motives. Now, an active business policy has not precisely been characteristic of this government, which has raised employer contributions for youth, stopped labor immigration for companies, and also has not reduced the red tape – something that was promised before taking power.
The issue of the food requirement, on the other hand, is about reducing red tape. Here, there is an opportunity to show a bit of initiative within the business sector. Furthermore, the food requirement is cost-driving for the pubs and restaurants that are to open and must furnish a full-scale restaurant kitchen just to be able to obtain a liquor license in the first place.
The food requirement is also applied very arbitrarily in our municipalities. In about fifty municipalities, it is required that between nine and eleven main courses be served. In thirty municipalities, they are satisfied with one to five main courses. In seventy municipalities, individual assessments are made from restaurant to restaurant. It is naturally not reasonable for it to be that way.
We have legislation that is obsolete. It serves no function today and complicates and increases costs for companies to conduct business.
My question to the Minister is: Does the Minister think this is reasonable? I hear that there is an ambition to simplify the alcohol legislation, but to simplify could mean moving from a varied selection to several dishes or from 23:00 to 22:00. It would be interesting to hear a clarification of what it is the Minister wants to simplify.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! One should, of course, dare a lot in this world, including debating things, but I also think that one should have respect for the constitution. When it comes to answering questions about whether the preparatory requirement is met to implement exactly this or that proposal, I do not think that one should, so to speak, "dare" to speculate about it, but rather one should know one or the other when saying it. That type of questioning has to do with the constitution, and Christofer Bergenblock knows that too.
I am happy to debate different proposals. I do not have difficulty seeing the limitations that today's design of the food requirement entails and the sometimes, as it can be perceived, arbitrary differences that exist, for example, between municipalities. I have clearly indicated a direction for our work, namely that we want to simplify and clarify the regulatory framework surrounding this and make it more uniform. I have also in some contexts said that I see opportunities to go further than what the investigation has proposed in that regard. It is the messages we give regarding this.
I also want to say that we have many products that we need to prepare at the department. We have, for example, devoted significant time and effort to submitting a proposition on the sale of alcohol in stores, something that Christofer Bergenblock has requested from me several times here in the chamber, with a rigorous and very careful preparatory process. We have done something that Christofer Bergenblock's party has not succeeded in when they have cooperated in a government position. Now it will be ready by the summer.
I have now noted that Christofer Bergenblock's party leader has come out and said that we should scrap this before it is implemented. It will lower the small microbreweries' opportunities and pull the rug out from under them, he says. Instead, we should have a new investigation that will take additional years and gather views from hundreds more referral bodies. Is this Christofer Bergenblock's opinion? Should we not implement what Christofer Bergenblock has requested here in the chamber now until the summer?
We have also submitted a bill regarding nitrous oxide, something that has been completely unregulated. It also stems from the investigation that Christofer Bergenblock refers to. It has been very important to establish a regulation regarding a completely unregulated situation. I believe that Christofer Bergenblock and I are in complete agreement on this. The questions regarding injuries involving nitrous oxide are important, and therefore we have chosen to fast-track this.
I see, as I have said, that the food requirement needs to be changed. It needs to become simpler and more uniform and predictable than it is today, because today it is not expedient. On the other hand, it is clear that there are arguments for having a food requirement, and the investigation accounts for these. Then one can evaluate the arguments in different ways, and I have respect for that.
Preparatory work is currently underway where we are incorporating referral views and other matters regarding these issues.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! I am grateful that I managed to provoke the Minister of State so much that he at least took three minutes to respond this time, even though there were some different fabrications in his account.
If we are to use the remaining time to say something about farm sales, I can say that it is thanks to the Center Party that we can now have legislation on farm sales. It was the Center Party that pushed through the investigation that was carried out during the previous parliamentary period and which was ready on this government's table when it took office, so I take all the credit for that.
We have also submitted a follow-up motion. We think the government is timid and could go further regarding the sale of farms, but if the minister had read the follow-up motion, he would have seen that we will vote for the sale of farms to be introduced. We would, however, like to see that one goes further beyond that.
Well – let us not get stuck on the issue of yard sales but go back to the food requirement. We have established that it is outdated legislation that lies behind the food requirement. We have established that it is applied arbitrarily by the municipalities today. We have also established that it complicates things for the business community and that it has no alcohol policy impact.
What is it then that prevents the minister from being clearer? With all due respect to the minister, I hardly believe it is respect for the constitution that prevents him from clarifying his position. I believe rather that it is a matter of the fact that there is not yet full agreement within the Tidö cooperation.
Some representatives for the Tidö parties have been clear and said that this should be abolished. The Moderates are such a party. Others have been more vague. I have not heard the Christian Democrats express themselves as a party on the issue at all. It is perhaps the case that even on this issue, just as when it comes to farm sales, they are split within the party.
My final questions to the minister are: Where do the Christian Democrats stand, and what is the government's actual position on the issue of removing the food requirement?
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I am not the least bit indignant. If the amount of speaking time used is a measure of how indignant one is, I think we have a problem, because then many in this chamber could be perceived as very indignant almost all the time. It is probably good to have other indicators of that.
I, of course, read the Center Party's follow-up motions. I also read interviews with party leaders from time to time. I note that the Center Party does not seem to want to carry out farm sales but believes that it will harm the microbreweries and pull the rug out from under them – I believe that was a phrasing used in some context.
It is not the image I have received of Christofer Bergenblock here, but he has been involved in this. Now we are doing what has been requested, namely, given an opportunity to, in parallel with the retail monopoly, purchase a small amount of alcohol from other places.
Regarding the constitution, I think one should have respect for it. I specifically referred to the question of whether the preparation requirement is met for a specific measure related to the food requirement or not. When one comes to the chamber of the Riksdag, I think one should have good answers. If one does not have them, one should not say anything. A preparation process is ongoing. I actually think that one should respect the preparation requirements that exist when it concerns this type of questioning. That was what I was referring to, not a discussion about what one thinks about the food requirement in general. I have accounted for that.
We see problems with today's food requirements. We see that it is not sufficiently uniform and that it needs to become simpler compared to how the regulatory framework looks today. That is the direction from which the government is working. We will get back to you when the preparations are completed and we can tell you more about how we view the details in this.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.