Response to interpellation 2025/26:577 on long payment periods between companies and the protection of smaller suppliers
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns long payment terms between companies and the protection of smaller suppliers. M notes that long payment terms are a problem and that small business owners should not reasonably act as an economic buffer for larger actors 1 2 3. M considers the Commission's proposal for a mandatory 30-day rule to be too far-reaching and that Sweden should follow the developments to find well-balanced measures that take into account freedom of contract 1 3. SD argues that the government lacks concrete measures and that small businesses tie up capital needed for growth 4. SD considers the government to be unclear on which binding EU line or national alternatives should be pursued 5 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.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Rashid Farivar has asked me what concrete measures I have taken during the current parliamentary term to counter unreasonably long payment times between companies and what further measures I intend to take if the government maintains confidence after the 2026 election. He has also asked me what line the government is pursuing in the EU's work on rules regarding payment times between companies and whether I believe the problem should be solved through national legislation, through common EU rules, or through no further regulation at all.
I can state initially that the Minister for Energy and Industry, during an interpellation debate as recently as in June, answered in principle the same questions from Rashid Farivar. The answer that I provide here today will therefore in many respects be a repetition of the answer that was given then.
Long payment terms and late payments are a problem that many companies within the EU, not least small and medium-sized enterprises, repeatedly highlight. The issue has long been noticed at the EU level. In the autumn of 2023, the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation on combating late payments in commercial transactions, which is intended to replace the 2011 directive in the area.
The Government takes the issue seriously and has welcomed the ambition to promote faster payments and contribute to a well-functioning internal market by improving the conditions for conducting and developing business activities. It is, however, important that the problems are curbed through well-considered and purposeful measures.
The proposed regulation implies, among other things, a mandatory payment period of at most 30 days for all commercial transactions. Both the government and the Riksdag have judged that the proposal is too far-reaching. The result of the consultation strengthens our view in this matter, as well as the fact that a clear majority of the member states and several business organizations within the EU are of the same opinion.
In view of the criticism that has been directed at the Commission's proposal, a majority of the Member States, including Sweden, have advocated that the Commission withdraw its proposal and return with a revision of the current directive if necessary.
The government will, as said, continue to follow the developments in the area and does not rule out considering further measures. Such potential measures must, however, be well-considered and accurate, taking into account both Swedish competitiveness and the principle of freedom of contract.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the answer!
I want to start by saying that this is a question that I am now posing to the government for the second time in a short period. There is a fairly simple reason for that. In the previous debate with Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch, I received answers to some of my questions, but not all. But as the Minister for Energy and Business mentioned during the debate in June, this issue lies technically and politically in large parts within the Minister for Justice's area of responsibility, both when it comes to Swedish legislation and, above all, when it comes to the EU negotiations. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to ask certain questions again, this time to the minister who actually is responsible for the issues.
Madam Speaker! I appreciate that the Minister for Justice clearly states that long payment times are a problem and that the government takes the issue seriously. But the problem is no longer that the government lacks knowledge on the issue. The problem is that we still lack information on what the government concretely intends to do about this.
In his answer, the Minister for Justice says that the government wants to see well-considered and purposeful measures. But what does this mean, concretely? I would therefore like to start by asking: Can the Minister mention a single concrete measure that the government has taken during this mandate period to actually shorten payment times between large companies and smaller suppliers? I do not want to hear that the government is following the issue or that the business community has a voluntary code of conduct, which has now also been abolished, but I am requesting a concrete measure that has led to or is expected to lead to shorter payment times.
Madam Speaker! For companies, this is not a theoretical discussion. When a small company has purchased materials, completed the production and delivered the goods but then has to wait 60, 90 or sometimes 120 days for the payment, capital that the company needs for its own operations is tied up. According to the survey from FKG's customers that I have with me, 84 percent of the companies say that this problem has a noticeable or significant impact.
Swepart, for example, has described the situation as that they in practice offer their large customers super-cheap financing. For companies such as Together Tech, the consequence can be that the possibility to hire new engineers and get the business to grow is completely limited. That is why this is a competitiveness issue.
Madam Speaker! I want to return to the government's reference to the reporting obligation. It has existed since 2022, and the reporting began in 2023. The Minister says that the government is following the developments. But my questions are: What has the government concretely been able to establish through this follow-up? Which indicators is the government following? And, above all: When will the government move from follow-up to action?
Madam Speaker! I want to ask the Minister to be as concrete as possible. What is the government's plan if today's system does not yield sufficient results? Is there any time limit for when the government considers it time to act?
For Swedish small and medium-sized enterprises, this is not an issue that can wait for any length of time. They need help now.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I just want to confirm the problem, not least that small business owners with these long invoicing times, also in relation to large companies, can be kept waiting far too long to get paid. In practice, one can say that they become some kind of economic buffer for larger actors. I think that is a problem. I also think it is worth discussing the issue and seeing what can be done about it.
Regarding the measures that have been taken during the current term, I am happy to take them with me into the next term. I fundamentally do not think it is reasonable that small business owners practically act as a bank for other actors in that manner. I therefore think it is good that the issue is being raised, but regarding the measures that have been taken, I refer to the answer that has been provided today.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Justice, for the answer!
I want to move on to the part of the question where the Minister for Justice actually has a specific responsibility, namely the EU negotiations. The Minister stated in his answer that the Commission's proposal for a mandatory 30-day rule is too far-reaching and that Sweden, together with a majority of the Member States, has advocated that the Commission withdraw the proposal and return with a revision of the current directive. This is the government's line, in my opinion, but what remains completely unclear is what the government wants instead. It is easy to say no to a proposal, but saying no is not the same as having a solution.
The European Parliament has supported the 30-day principle by a large majority: 459 votes in favor, 96 against and 54 abstentions, in democratic order. At the same time, the negotiations in the Council have stalled.
My question to the Minister of Justice then becomes very concrete. I hope that I receive an answer. Which binding EU line is Sweden following instead? If 30 days is too far-reaching, what is then reasonable? Is it 45, 60, 90, or 120 days, or longer? What maximum payment time does the government want to see? What concrete protection does the government want to give smaller suppliers? What supervision or mechanism does the government want to see to ensure that the rules are actually followed?
Madam Speaker! The Minister also refers to freedom of contract. I agree that freedom of contract is an important principle. But we must also ask ourselves how free a negotiation actually is when the bargaining power is so unequal. If a small supplier company is given the choice to accept 90 days of payment terms or lose the deal, is it then really a negotiation between two equal parties? Or is it, in practice, a matter of market power? When a large company can shift the financing cost onto a small supplier, it improves the large company's liquidity while the smaller company bears the cost. The difference is that the bank receives interest and collateral; the small supplier bears the risk.
Madam Speaker! Long and unpredictable payment terms also risk acting as an actual trade barrier in the internal market. They make it harder for smaller companies to do business with larger customers. They make it harder to grow across borders. And they make it harder to compete on equal terms within the EU.
My question to the Minister is: If the government considers the Commission's proposal to be wrong, what concrete alternative is Sweden pursuing? Or is Sweden perhaps pursuing nothing? If the negotiations continue to stall, is the government prepared to consider national measures? We cannot end up in a situation where the government says no to an EU solution but does not simultaneously present any solution of its own.
It is precisely there that I experience the government's line to still be unclear. One acknowledges the problem. One says no to the concrete proposal, but one still does not say what one wants to do instead. It is this that I hope the Minister for Justice can provide answers to today.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! What I can say today is that I confirm the problem picture that Rashid Farivar presents. I understand the issues underlying the 30-day concept. It is unreasonable for entrepreneurs, not least small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, to act as an economic buffer in relation to larger actors. It is particularly bad if larger actors systematize this. If one has a large economic turnover in an operation and can hold onto one's money for a long time, it means that the money can do the work in one's own operation instead of in another's operation. Even from that perspective, I think this is a problem.
One can also note that small and medium-sized enterprises have a different perspective on the issue compared to some large companies and certain industry organizations, which possibly primarily listen to the larger interests. The entire problem picture is relevant to highlight.
If this is then to be regulated in the way that was proposed in an EU directive, whether it is to take place at the EU level at all, or whether we are to arrange it nationally and what the balance points should look like, are some of the questions to be addressed in the work that is now ongoing at the EU level. I cannot today report any specific Swedish position in that discussion, other than that the proposal that has been on the table must be processed.
I also think that we should continue a discussion at the national level on how we can handle this. I think, as I have said, that the issue is reasonable. I am fully aware of the objections that have been raised, both regarding avoiding overly extensive restrictions on freedom of contract and regarding the fact that there are many other practical reasons that speak in favor of the current order. But I think that the views coming from, not least small and medium-sized enterprises, are worth taking very seriously. Where that will lead us during the next mandate period, we will have to return to.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the explanation! I still lack an answer as to what the government's concrete line is. What does the government want to do if it remains in power during the next mandate period? Do we want to handle it at the national level or at the EU level? What is the reasonable payment period – 30 days or 60 days? What does the minister think? I am a bit disappointed. But it is what it is.
Madam Speaker! I believe that we all in this chamber – now we are not so many who are present – agree that the problem exists. We also know that it is primarily smaller companies that bear the cost when large companies use long payment terms to strengthen their own liquidity. I thank the Minister once again for confirming that picture.
What is missing is a clear announcement of when the government intends to move from following the issue to actually taking action. My perception is that this will need to be handled during the next mandate period. For every month that passes, capital is tied up in Swedish small and medium-sized enterprises that could instead be used for investments, innovation, productivity, and new jobs.
Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by thanking the Minister for Justice for the debate. Gunnar Strömmer and I have had a good cooperation during this parliamentary term even when we have had different views on different issues. That is why we have our democracy.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank the minister for his efforts for Sweden during the term of office and for the work he has put in, not least in a time when Sweden faces very great challenges regarding the justice system, security, and the fight against organized crime. Thank you for a good cooperation, and thank you for the debate!
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I return the generous words regarding our exchange during the parliamentary term. It has been very pleasant and rewarding.
Regarding the issue – without me being able to provide any new information on exactly how we intend to work further with the issue during the next mandate period – I just want to offer a compliment that the issue has been raised. Even if it is not entirely simple from a legislative standpoint, and there are different views on how the balance should look between regulation at the EU level and national regulation and between different interests otherwise, it is a reality that many small and medium-sized entrepreneurs suffer great harm when they need to front money for others for a very long time. So simply can one describe the problem. I believe we are obligated to come up with a better solution than we have done until now.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.