Response to interpellations 2022/23:252 and 254 on the government's work on regulatory simplification
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that Sweden needs to improve competitiveness by reducing the regulatory burden and administration for companies 1. KD argues that companies are the country's job creators and that administrative burdens have weakened competitiveness 2. KD considers that Sweden is the worst in its class at implementing EU regulations to the maximum 3. KD wants regulatory simplifications to be a prioritized basic view that affects regulatory letters to authorities in order to make Sweden more business-friendly 4. KD sees it as a priority for the government and the coalition partners to make it easier for people to start companies 4. SD argues that an active regulatory simplification policy has been lacking for over a decade 5.
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! Good afternoon, dear members of Parliament, listeners and you who are listening at home, now or in retrospect! Tobias Andersson has asked me how far the government has come in the work with regulatory simplification and which rules are being simplified first. Tobias Andersson has also asked me how far the government has come in the work with the implementation council and how the government intends to design it. I choose to answer the interpellations together.
Sweden needs to improve its competitiveness and reduce the regulatory burden and administration so that companies and entrepreneurs can focus on their core business to the greatest extent possible. EU regulations need to be implemented in such a way that the regulatory burden and administration for companies are reduced or at least do not increase.
We are currently analyzing the points of view submitted in the consultation responses to the proposals from the investigation on simplifications for micro-enterprises and modernization of the Accounting Act in the report Simplifications for micro-enterprises and modernization of the Accounting Act (SOU 2021:60). It can be looked up if one wishes.
Digitalization is an important tool for simplifying things for companies. In May 2022, Statskontoret submitted a proposal for a method for monitoring the simplification policy goal regarding the digitalization of companies' contacts with the public sector. The proposal is now being prepared in the Government Offices.
Statistics Sweden currently has a mandate to follow up on how far the authorities covered by the ordinance (2018:1264) on digital acquisition of data from companies have progressed in the implementation of this ordinance. The mandate shall be final reported by April 30 this year at the latest. The mandate includes submitting proposals for measures that the government can take to increase the pace of the implementation of the ordinance.
For verksamt.se, which is the authorities' joint website for company information and business services, continuous development work is ongoing to post additional information and offer further services to facilitate for entrepreneurs to start and expand their businesses. Through the budget bill for 2023, verksamt.se was allocated a total of 10 million kronor.
The Government submitted a proposition on March 14, 2023, with a proposal to abolish the permit requirement for public dance events. This means that the so-called dance permit is proposed to be abolished at venues that are not public.
The Government announced the establishment of an implementation council in the budget bill for 2023. The goal of the council is to reduce the regulatory burden for companies. In the Government Offices, questions regarding the design and mandate for the implementation council are currently being prepared, and I will not anticipate the government's upcoming proposals.
In addition, there are a number of simplification measures that are now being prepared in the Government Offices. I also do not wish to anticipate here what the government will eventually present as proposals. We will, however, have reason to return to this.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch for the answer.
Today we will debate two interpellations that I have submitted. One concerns the general work on regulatory simplification. The other concerns the implementation council more explicitly. This should be a natural order – the implementation council will hopefully constitute a hub in the regulatory simplification work, and therefore it is reasonable that we debate these two interpellations simultaneously.
I summarized the problem picture that prompted my interpellations in them. An active policy of simplifying rules has been conspicuously absent from the work of Swedish governments for over a decade. During this time, very much has been said but far too little has been done, which is also evident in the estimates of the business sector's costs for red tape and bureaucracy that have been presented – according to Svenskt Näringsliv's estimates, it amounts to up to 200 billion annually.
Madam Speaker! The somewhat strange thing in this context is that, despite this, there is hardly any political conflict in these issues. Actually, there has been no obvious such conflict during these years, and that is also the case today, at least between me and the Minister for Energy and Industry. On the whole, there is probably relatively large consensus even between the government base and at least parts of the opposition when it comes to issues of regulatory simplification.
Otherwise it would be strange, one might think. No party goes to an election on more regulatory complexity or says straight out that they stand behind unnecessary administration and bureaucracy or unnecessary regulatory complexity. Despite this, an over-implementation of EU directives occurs. Impact assessments of new legislation are lacking, and the follow-up on the outcome of new regulations is missing.
With this said, there are however good conditions for change during this mandate period. Hopefully, the interpellation debate that we are now engaged in can demonstrate just that.
The Tidö Agreement stipulates that the cooperation shall result in lower administrative costs for companies. There is a relatively solid basis that has been developed under previous governments - even though they have not succeeded in implementing this, they have developed a basis that the newly appointed government can likely continue to work with. No major new investigation - no SOU - should be needed in this area.
Some things have already occurred from the government's side. Among other things, the Regulatory Council has been strengthened by increasing the appropriation by 5 million. Even verksamt.se has received a budget supplement, which the minister himself accounted for. But beyond the investments in the budget bill, it is only the proposal on abolished permit requirements for public events that has still reached the Riksdag, even though much is ongoing.
I understand from the Minister's answer and from my own work that much is underway, not least regarding the implementation council, which I intend to return to in my next speech. Could the Minister for Energy and Industry nevertheless be able to give some positive news now in the debate to the stakeholders who follow these issues and who risk feeling that not enough has happened yet? Even if some parts are underway, there are organizations and companies that feel they have not been included in this work. Perhaps they have not been given insight into what is to come and are therefore of the opinion that too little is happening or that it is moving too slowly in the area.
My question, Madam Speaker, is whether the Minister can provide an example of something in the area of regulatory simplification that will soon reach the Riksdag.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Now that I have submitted my formal response to the interpellation, which has also been submitted and is available for review, I would like to thank you for the interpellation. Tobias Andersson is, in his capacity as chairman of the Committee on Industry, exemplary in his activity regarding these issues and has, as he himself pointed out, been quite alone vis-à-vis the previous government. That was also a major reason why our four coalition parties received a mandate from the Swedish people to try to steer Sweden in a different direction.
The Swedish companies are Sweden's job creators. They enable Swedish mothers and fathers to have a job to go to so that they can support themselves and their family, contribute to economic growth and strengthen our common welfare. It is the foundation for everything.
I mean that in recent years we have taken Sweden's job creators for granted. From many different parts of society, administrative burdens and regulatory burdens have arrived which collectively have reduced the conditions for Swedish companies to start, grow and hire more. It has also weakened Swedish competitiveness compared to if one had conducted a policy based on this view of Sweden's job creators and the knowledge of how important it is to be careful not to add more stones to the burden.
The dry and honest answer to the question of whether there are new announcements to give today is no. This is because these issues have been significantly deprioritized at the Government Offices. When we entered the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, we were therefore given a clear signal that regulatory simplifications must be prioritized. Strengthening competitiveness through, among other things, reduced regulatory burden is also a crucial part of the Swedish EU Presidency.
The order of business is such that we have chosen to prioritize verksamt.se and the Council of Legislation's work. But we are also trying to increase the bandwidth, as more people need to work on these issues and have the opportunity to prioritize this in order to increase the pace. There is reason for the criticism that there have been investigations and proposals on the previous government's desk that nothing has been done about. We have now set our teeth into this, but we need to do it in the right order.
We will need to return more collectively, not piece by piece and in parts. We will also return to the question of an implementation council.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank again for the answer from the Minister for Energy and Industry.
I agree with the Minister's general approach in the area of industrial policy. This area is not found in the Tidö Agreement as a separate chapter or project. There is, however, a relative consensus here, and the area is managed, not least within the framework of ongoing budget cooperation.
Some of the questions, however, lie outside, and that is why I am posing them in the chamber. If a major change in the area of regulatory simplification is to be implemented, it is required that initiatives are taken during this parliamentary session, at least that a plan for implementation is made for the coming years. It would be unfortunate if something that could have been brought to fruition during these four years is not completed in time. Even better, of course, would be if the effect of the changes could be noticed in the business sector before we go to the election next time.
Among the matters the government is working on, and which the Minister highlighted in his first response, are the referral points that have been submitted on the proposals in the investigation report Simplifications for micro-enterprises and modernization of the Accounting Act. What in the investigation, which is broad and large, is relevant in this debate can be summarized somewhat simplified as partly proposals for concrete rule simplifications, and partly a more systematic review of the rule process in Sweden.
I understand that the government is now analyzing the referral responses and the investigation as a whole. I am curious as to whether it is intended to return to both issues, that is, both the concrete rule simplifications and the more process-oriented ones? Will it be consolidated in that case, or does one intend to take many bites of this large cake?
Let me also bring up what was the focus of my second interpellation, namely an implementation council. Even if the Minister cannot go into detail, I am free to reason based on my perspective on the issue. The Minister for Energy and Industry can then decide whether she wants to comment on it or not, but in any case, I have put forward my and the Sverigedemokraternas view on the issue.
Madam Speaker! Simply put, one can imagine that an implementation council can be designed in two ways. One is precisely an implementation council that receives proposals from the EU, evaluates them, and then proposes how they can be implemented in Swedish law without being over-implemented and making it more complicated than necessary for those affected by the legislation. The other is a broader mandate where the council can be likened to a hub for regulatory simplification work, even beyond the implementation of EU directives.
In her first answer, Ebba Busch said that the government announced the establishment of an implementation council with the goal of reducing the regulatory burden for companies. That sounds good, because it opens up for a broader mandate for this council than just looking at the EU directives.
The Sweden Democrats advocate for the Danish model. The Implementation Council has had a broad mandate there and has worked systematically with regulatory simplification work on a large scale.
Madam Speaker! I have said what I think. We shall see if the Minister elaborates on the government's view.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the follow-up questions.
Let me begin with the question concerning the rule simplifications in general linked to the investigation on micro-enterprises and the modernized accounting act. It is reasonable to expect that we will return to both the rule simplifications in general, i.e., direct legislative and regulatory changes, and the procedural aspects.
In several areas, we see that companies believe they have an understanding of what the legislation stipulates and what rules they have to comply with. But even if they feel secure that they will ultimately receive a yes, they still do not dare to engage with various issues for fear that the process is unclear or sluggish. It is about the rules being comprehensible, applicable, and not too many, but also about what the processes look like, such as knowing where in the system one ends up, where one should turn, how one reports different parts of their operations, and so on. These are connected and affect each other.
Against this background, there is reason to expect that the government will return on both parts. Whether we divide it or return collectively is too early to say. We want to keep up the pace, and I share the member's ambition and desire to be able to launch this as early as possible during the mandate period so that it is also given the opportunity to have an effect.
I also share the ambition to gain as broad support as possible. Many of the Riksdag's eight parties often say that the regulatory burden must be reduced, something that we will also hear a lot about ahead of the EU election next year. But when it is time to move from words to action, it sometimes stops. The government shall try to maintain a high pace and then hope for broad support in the chamber.
The second question concerned the implementation council - for those new to the chamber, it should be said that we are discussing regulatory simplifications for companies. I have great hopes regarding the work with the implementation council, Madam Speaker. The starting point relates very much to EU legislation, given that Sweden is almost best in class - that is to say, in my opinion, worst in class - with what is sometimes called gold-plating, namely that we take an EU regulatory framework and implement it to the absolute maximum so that it becomes as complicated as possible and becomes a competitive disadvantage for our companies. We must stop doing that!
This will be the basis for the implementation council, but I am open to a broader responsibility regarding regulatory simplification here and to us ensuring that the implementation council also has the opportunity to take a broader approach regarding where these issues are prioritized as a whole. Whether it is possible or not is also something that we will have reason to return to and which is also part of the preparatory work.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thanks again to the Minister for the answers! I appreciate that, despite the fact that work is ongoing and that there are limitations regarding the extent and level of detail with which the questions I ask can be answered, a brave effort is nevertheless made to answer them to the extent that it is possible.
With that said, I thank you somewhat for the answers I have received regarding both interpellations. I would like to take the opportunity to ask a question on the same theme that I think is important to include in the overall perspective. If we are to succeed in truly creating a change for Sweden's entrepreneurs during these years, we will need to work from different sides and angles, even while waiting for the implementation council to be in place or for the proposals in the Simplification Inquiry or otherwise to actually be enacted and become reality in Swedish law and be applied accordingly.
A task that I believe is important is to clearly identify a set of agencies that today account for a large part of the regulatory burden, the administration, and the costs that have been shifted onto entrepreneurs, and to ensure that they are actually tasked with acting in a simplification-oriented manner. This would have been done, among other things—which has occurred at least when it comes to food—in regulatory letters. I believe it is important to broaden this and, towards more agencies, demand proposals, and preferably obligations, on how they can simplify their operations—it could be proposals for laws and regulations that could be scrapped to facilitate things where the agencies themselves experience problems. This work can be linked with the business organizations that are affected. These could, at the moment, perhaps participate in the Regulatory Council but in the future in the Implementation Council. This will therefore be a joint initiative and a question at the same time.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! On September 11, 2022, the Swedish people voted for a change of power and for Sweden to start moving in a different direction, quite simply that we should ensure that Sweden functions again – that regardless of where in the country one lives, one can trust that the police will come when one calls, that welfare is there when one is most vulnerable, that there is electricity in the socket at reasonable prices, and that we have a crime-fighting system that works, but also that the foundation for prosperity is secured by people being able to go from having an idea in their head to making it a reality by starting a company or having the opportunity to get a job in a company. And if there is one area where this change of power will truly be noticed, it is precisely in the view of entrepreneurship and the growth engine and job creator that it is.
I would like to thank you for the interpellation. But I also want to say that this will be a priority task both at the EU level, for the Swedish government, in the Government Offices, and between the four coalition parties. It would be unwise of me to go into more detail than I have tried to offer in this interpellation debate. Regarding Tobias Andersson's final comment, we will therefore take it as a wise addition, and I would also like to take the opportunity to encourage those watching this debate now at home or afterwards to influence and signal what is most prioritized.
We have a job to do, both with what has been promised – to complete the investigation regarding regulatory simplifications and with the introduction of an implementation council – and with implementing this as a fundamental view that will need to influence the regulatory letters to our agencies, which have a major impact when it comes to how business-friendly Sweden is perceived. And even more business-friendly it shall become!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.