Digitalization and postal issues

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all reservations.

Tonight we are debating the Committee on Transport's report TU8 Digitalization and Postal Issues. The report addresses various issues, including the direction of digitalization policy, digitalization of the public sector, digital participation in society, robust and secure IT infrastructures, skills supply in the digital society, the importance of a functioning postal service throughout the country and, last but not least, artificial intelligence, which has been, is, and remains a hot topic of discussion.

From my perspective, I can say that we in the Swedish Riksdag are more or less in agreement on most things within these areas. This is very important when it comes to the expansion and supply of Sweden's digital infrastructure as well as its resilience.

Since 2011, Sweden's overall goal has been to be the best in the world at utilizing the possibilities of digitalization. Sweden is today one of Europe's most digitized societies. Everyday life is more or less dependent on digital services and online services – from healthcare and banking to transport and communications.

But despite this, the government makes the assessment in the budget bill for 2026 that Sweden will not reach the overall goal. Why? Well, because the world has not stood still. Other countries have invested faster, more coordinatedly and more strategically in AI, data economy, digital infrastructure and technological independence. At the same time, Sweden has had fragmented governance, slow processes and sometimes an over-reliance on the market alone to solve structural challenges.

Against that background, it is positive that the government in May 2025 presented a new digitalization strategy for 2025–2030. The strategy aims for Sweden to be a leader in digital innovation, while security, robustness, and the individual's civil liberties and rights are protected.

The strategy focuses on five central areas:

a strong and secure digital infrastructure

a more efficient public administration

the competitiveness and innovation of the business sector

digital competence and inclusion

data-driven development with privacy protection.

These are the right priorities, I think, but the decisive factor is the implementation. If the strategy is translated into concrete reforms, clear mandates and long-term funding, it can contribute to Sweden regaining a leading position – not only when it comes to usage but also when it comes to development and control over digital technology and infrastructure.

Madam Speaker! In the report, the government's ambition to merge the Agency for Digital Government, Digg, and the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority, PTS, is highlighted. This is an interesting step.

Today, Digg is responsible for digital administration and interoperability, while PTS is responsible for electronic communications and robust infrastructure. Combining these functions can strengthen the holistic view of digital infrastructure – from fiber in the ground to data flows between authorities. If implemented correctly, this can reduce siloed thinking and create better coordination between technology, regulations, and security. But it requires clear governance and a strong security dimension.

When we talk about infrastructure, we must also talk about broadband and mobile coverage. The report presents the goals in Sweden's broadband strategy: that virtually the entire country should have access to fast broadband and that mobile coverage should be good where people live, work, and travel already in 2025, i.e., last year. This is not a matter of convenience. It is a matter of competitiveness.

If we want more people to choose the train and be able to work during the journey, reliable 5G coverage is required along high-traffic railway sections. It is part of the sustainability work, productivity, and a modern working life. Digital infrastructure and physical infrastructure are connected.

Madam Speaker! Let us move on to artificial intelligence, AI. At the end of December 2023, the government tasked the AI Commission with developing a roadmap for how Sweden should strengthen its position within AI. The Commission presented its report with 75 concrete proposals at the end of December 2024, almost seven months earlier than the announced deadline, considering how urgent the political issues surrounding AI are. This was historic.

The government has already moved several of these proposals forward, among others through investments in the research and innovation bill in December 2024, through the new digitalization strategy, and through the budget bill for 2026, where 479 million kronor are allocated for the AI and data area. This concerns an AI workshop in the public sector, an AI factory at Linköping University, reinforcement of the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection's AI sandbox, data steward functions, and strengthened co-financing of the EU's program for a digital Europe. These are important steps and are very welcome.

But from my perspective, the best we can do is to implement all 75 proposals in the roadmap as quickly as possible. The development within AI is exponential. Countries like the USA and China are investing enormous amounts. Several European countries are acting collectively and strategically. Sweden risks falling behind in terms of both innovation, productivity, and security.

We cannot afford protracted preparation and referral processes in the form of gold-plating measures. It is also important that we dare to make mistakes.

Madam Speaker! I also want to raise the issue of the resilience of digital infrastructure. Digital infrastructure is, in practice, society's nervous system. If networks, data centers, and communication systems are knocked out, healthcare, payment systems, transport, and the services of the authorities stop. Digital infrastructure must therefore be fully recognized as part of Sweden's critical infrastructure.

The implementation of the NIS 2 Directive and the CER Directive implies stricter requirements for cybersecurity and physical protection of critical societal activities. It is the right way to go. But we must see this as more than just regulatory compliance.

It is about our national security, and here we come to the question of digital sovereignty.

In the new security policy situation, Europe and Sweden must have greater control over their hard and soft digital infrastructure. We need to build our own data centers, our own cloud services, and our own digital platforms, APIs, and apps. We need to gradually reduce our dependence on American solutions where it is strategically possible. It is not about protectionism. It is about robustness, self-determination, and resilience.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to touch upon a structural issue. Today, digitalization issues are handled in the Committee on Transport and Communications, while cyber and information security issues are handled in the Committee on Defence by other members. It is like a car where one person handles the accelerator and another handles the brake. This does not work in the long run, especially considering the serious security policy situation in the world around us.

Digitalization, AI, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure are closely intertwined. They should be handled collectively both in the government and in the Riksdag. Sweden will likely need to move towards a specific Minister for Digitalization, AI, and Cyber after the 2026 election. And in the Riksdag, all aspects of digital infrastructure should be gathered in one and the same committee. If we mean business about being leaders in the digital era, our institutions must also reflect that reality.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Madam Speaker! When the Transport Committee meets and debates, it usually concerns boats, aircraft, cars, concrete and asphalt. But today we are going to talk about the internet, as we say in Östergötland.

This is perhaps one of the larger changes occurring in society and which affects, and will affect, us all the most. Digitalization and artificial intelligence are changing our society fundamentally, how we work, how we educate ourselves, how we provide healthcare and elderly care, and how the state meets its citizens.

I want to be clear from the very beginning: The Social Democratic Party is a pro-technology party. We see digitalization and AI as powerful tools to strengthen the welfare system, increase productivity, and make Sweden more competitive.

AI can help doctors make faster and more accurate diagnoses. It can relieve teachers, social workers, and administrators when it comes to administration. It can contribute to the climate transition through smarter energy systems, more efficient transport, and better resource use. For us, digitalization is not about a distant future. It is already here, and it shall be used to its full potential.

Mr. Speaker! But technology is never neutral. How digitalization and AI are used is a political choice. The Social Democrats' ambition is that technological development should strengthen equality, build trust and improve people's everyday lives, not create new divides or a society where some are left behind.

Here we see that the government's policy is not sufficient. Sweden has high ambitions but does not reach the goal of being the best in the world. State digitalization projects lack coordination, follow-up, and clear responsibility. For the citizen, this is noticeable through cumbersome services, unclear systems, and sometimes pure issues of legal certainty. The Social Democrats argue that digitalization requires political leadership, not just technological optimism but direction.

Mr. Speaker! Digital participation is crucial for digitalization to succeed. Today, there are still people who cannot fully take part in digital services – elderly people with disabilities and people who have a weak economy. This is not an argument against digitalization. It is an argument for making it better.

We want to see digital solutions that are accessible, understandable and user-friendly and complemented with alternatives where needed. Digitalization should simplify people's everyday lives, not make them more difficult.

In the public sector, there are enormous opportunities through data sharing, common standards, and cohesive systems. It is also a prerequisite for AI to be used in an effective and responsible manner. Therefore, it is important for us Social Democrats to see a stronger common digital infrastructure, better conditions for secure data sharing, and a much clearer state coordination.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to artificial intelligence, our position is clear: Sweden shall be offensive but also responsible. AI shall be used broadly in welfare and in the state but always with human control, transparency, and the possibility of oversight. People must be able to understand and be able to question decisions that affect their lives. It is about trust. Without trust, the technology will not be used to its full extent.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: digitalization and AI are a couple of our time's greatest opportunities, but they require political choices. We Social Democrats choose a path where technology serves the human being, where the state takes responsibility, and where the entire society is part of the journey.

I move for approval of reservation number 1.

(Applause)

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Ottosson!

As I have understood it, Member Mattias Ottosson is critical of the government and, I assume, the Minister for Civil Affairs. This concerns a lack of leadership and governance regarding digitalization and particularly the AI policy. I would like to know what Member Mattias Ottosson thinks the government has not done or has done wrong. I would like to have specific examples. How would Member Mattias Ottosson wish that the things that have either been done wrong or have been neglected should have been carried out?

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We had an AI commission in Sweden – the member touched upon it himself in his speech. They worked quickly and efficiently, because they said: This is important. It is urgent. We must do something as soon as possible. We shorten our investigation time so that the state and the government can act as quickly as possible, so that we do not fall behind. That is exactly what we have now done.

What happened after this? It was in the autumn of 2024 that this occurred. In the spring of 2025, the digitalization strategy arrived. It contains some good things and lacks quite a lot. But perhaps the most serious thing is that an AI strategy was supposed to come. It is said that it should come in the spring – I don't know. It has almost been two years. I don't call that fast. Imagine if the business community joined forces and did this job and said that they must do this quickly and that they are shortening the time! Nothing has happened in the government since then. It is going very slowly.

The youth school is not touched upon here; that is what I miss. How will today's youth meet the new technology? How will we ensure that there are no class differences in how the technology is used? There is not a word about it, possibly there is a little about adult education.

When it comes to access to data, I respect that it is a difficult issue, but it is also not being addressed. Furthermore, the same applies to most of these strategies. Some different proposals have now appeared in budgets, but it is very little. Most of it is unfunded, and we do not know what is going to happen.

To conclude by quoting the industry, it was very vague and messy here.

(Applause)

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Ottosson, for a very good answer! I do not agree with all the criticism that was mentioned, but I agree with part of the Member's criticism. I thank you for this.

I had a question about the Social Democrats' proposal on AI in the report. According to Morgan Johansson and others, the main challenges with AI are that it has the potential to affect all aspects of society, and that without adequate global regulation, a distorted use of AI can arise.

Having a global AI regulation is good – if one can get such – but I do not see such an opportunity. For example, the USA absolutely do not want to regulate AI. They have tried with this but absolutely do not want to. China absolutely does not want to regulate it. The Social Democrats' proposal is good, but I wonder if it is really feasible – and if it is feasible, who will then take the responsibility? Is it the UN? The UN does not even take its own basic responsibilities today. Which body shall take this responsibility?

The intention is good, and I agree with the Social Democrats on this issue. This is what I myself also wish for, but how are we to implement it? Is it feasible or just a wish?

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think the member is touching on something important, and I also share the member's view that this is difficult. Having a global common regulatory framework that handles these types of issues would naturally be optimal. I share the member's perception that this is difficult and a challenge. I believe that the UN can be such an organ, and I believe that the EU can work on the issues.

I believe, however, that we should turn to ourselves first of all. I think that even today there is a very large resistance in Sweden. We only see that there are problems and challenges. To have that attitude, I believe, is the absolute most dangerous thing that can happen, because it makes us stand still and not dare to develop these issues. There is a large resistance in Sweden, I think, and I believe that it is dangerous.

We have always been a small country that has competed with technology and knowledge, and therefore we must be at the forefront here. We are not doing that, instead, resistance exists. If I am honest, perhaps the resistance is greatest in this house, and it is dangerous when the political decision-makers try to back up and do not move forward. I believe that we are going to address that.

The member still belongs to the largest party, or rather the party that enables us to have a government with a majority today. My plea to the member is that the Sweden Democrats should take on a responsibility to drive these issues. I have, in fact, not seen anything happening at all. It really seems to be at a standstill.

The Commission said that we should start working on this immediately, but so far almost nothing has happened. Only a few crumbs have arrived. I believe that the Sverigedemokraternas and the member's perhaps greatest task is to ensure that the government acts – because if you were to say no and do something else, the government would fall, and then nothing would happen. Then perhaps we could create other variants, what do I know, but this is something I believe would need to be done.

It was a long answer, but I believe the member received a quite good answer to his question.

(Applause)

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

Leif Gripestam (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today I will make my first and probably last appearance in the Riksdag's rostrum after a long political career primarily within municipal and regional politics. It has been interesting to see the work from the other side, that is, as a Member of Parliament, during my four months in the Riksdag. I was, in fact, the Moderates' press chief 25 years ago and had an office at Neptunus then as I do now, so one has been involved a bit even earlier.

Today we are dealing with report TU8 on digitalization policy. This is not just one report among many others. This is about Sweden's future, our competitiveness, our welfare and our security.

We stand at a historical crossroads. Artificial intelligence is not just another technical innovation. It is a technological leap that will affect the world in the same way as the steam engine and electricity did. From being something that companies aimed for on a five-year horizon, AI has, in just a few years, entered the everyday lives of many people. The question is not whether AI will change society. The question is whether Sweden will lead the change or be left behind.

Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear. Sweden has good prerequisites. It is a country where many see the advantages of new technology, and we have a well-developed infrastructure with a high degree of connectivity. The Government assesses that Sweden places very high within the EU when it comes to utilizing the possibilities of digitalization. But – and this is a big but – we do not reach the goal of being the best in the world at using the possibilities of digitalization. We lag behind leading countries such as Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands.

Even more worrying is that we are losing ground. Ten years ago, Sweden was third in the world. The forecasts show that we continue downwards towards place 22 while Finland, Estonia, and the Netherlands remain in the top ten.

This is not, however, predestined. The Government is now implementing major reforms so that Sweden will become a leader. These are not beautiful words in an investigation that is placed in a filing cabinet, but concrete reforms that are being implemented now.

Let me give concrete examples of what the government is doing. Firstly, it is about simplifying regulations and creating the right conditions. A simplification council has been established within Tillväxtverket to reduce the regulatory burden on companies and promote innovation. A council for implementation has also been established, which, early in the EU process, shall highlight a company perspective and work to ensure that EU legislation above the specified minimum level is not implemented in Sweden. It is, as you know, common.

Why is this being done? Well, it is because many AI projects in the agencies have reported obstacles to development and implementation in the form of a lack of competence, a lack of resources, and ambiguities in interpretations of EU directives and laws. We are now removing these obstacles.

Secondly, it is about computing power and infrastructure. In December 2024, Sweden was selected as the host for one of seven European AI factories. The Swedish AI factory, called Mimer, is now being established at Linköping University. Through the AI factory, companies, startups, and researchers will gain access to necessary computing capacity and the conditions to develop their own AI solutions. This is crucial.

The amount of electricity needed for the server halls required can be measured in entire nuclear power plants. All the leading American tech companies are investing in developing fourth-generation nuclear power plants to be able to meet the need for electricity in the future. Computing power must be given the same status as other critical social infrastructure.

Thirdly, it is about research and competence. The Swedish Research Council has been tasked with nationally coordinating the work to promote the use of AI in research. The Government is investing in strategic research areas within, among others, health, life science, AI, and quantum technology. It also supports the Nordic Council of Ministers' initiative to establish a Nordic-Baltic AI center with coordinating offices in Stockholm.

For the fourth, it is about security and crime fighting. The Government has proposed a new law that gives the Police Authority and the Security Service the possibility to use AI tools in real-time for facial recognition and other biometric remote identification in public places to fight crime. This is not a surveillance society, but it is a safe society where we use modern technology to protect law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Speaker! AI is not about technology for technology's sake. It is about improving people's everyday lives, and the potential is enormous. The Agency for Digital Governance estimates that Sweden could save 140 billion kronor annually in efficiencies if we fully implemented today's AI technology in the public sector. What does that mean in practice? Well, it means that healthcare staff can focus on the patients instead of on administration. It means that teachers get more time for teaching, and it means that social workers can help more people.

Mr. Speaker! The digitalization of society has a revolutionary effect on the labor market. Jobs will disappear and new ones will emerge, and AI will affect how people work as certain work tasks can be automated and new work tasks emerge. But history shows that technological leaps create more jobs than they take away if politics creates the right conditions. Therefore, the government is investing in skills.

The government's digitalization strategy emphasizes that the basic, broad, and specialized competence of citizens needs to be strengthened to increase digital inclusion, increase the use of new technology in the labor market, and improve innovation and competitiveness. We are investing in higher education and basic research in AI.

The Government has tasked Digg, the Public Health Agency, and the National Board of Health and Welfare to offer competence-enhancing initiatives to support municipalities in being able to use AI in a purposeful and cost-effective manner. The structural transformation requires that no one is left behind, and opportunities for further education and retraining are crucial for the individual.

Mr. Speaker! Access to data is a fundamental prerequisite for the use of AI. Data is a strategic resource, and 90 percent of all data that exists in the world has been produced during the last two years. Sweden, however, lags behind other countries when it comes to the use of data – in the OECD's measurement OURdata Index 2019, we ended up at the bottom. But thanks to the government's efforts, we have now begun to climb. We must be able to utilize data to improve the quality and efficiency of publicly funded services and operations. At the same time, we must safeguard personal privacy. One does not exclude the other.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude where I began, namely at the crossroads. The opposition can choose to stand aside and hesitate. They can choose to focus on the risks, on the problems and on the obstacles. They can choose to brake development out of fear of change. We Moderates, however, choose a different path: We choose to lead. We choose to see the opportunities. We choose to build the future.

With the government's efforts, Sweden takes the step from words to action. We create the conditions for companies to grow and innovate. We give the public sector the tools to become more efficient. We invest in research and competence. We safeguard security and integrity. We build a Sweden that is wealthier, safer and more competitive – a Sweden that is leading in the world on digitalization and artificial intelligence. That is our vision, that is our policy and that is our future.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing with a report that spans a large area. It encompasses postal services, broadband, digitalization, and AI. It concerns large and current issues that are also under rapid development, which is particularly true in the area of AI.

That the development is moving fast, we must respond politically, and that can be done in different ways. The AI Commission, as several have mentioned here earlier, submitted its final report in November 2024. The Commission had its approach: They submitted the report ahead of schedule – eight months before the deadline – and the overall message was almost overt. Now it is urgent, they said. Sweden risks falling behind in AI development, and the important thing now is to act quickly.

Of course, the AI Commission is free to present its report in the way it finds best, but the interesting thing is what happens thereafter, when the report is to be handled politically. If one reacts reflexively to the message that there is a hurry, it risks leading to decisions being rushed through and measures being forced through quickly, without anchoring and without necessary preliminary work, and I think everything indicates that the government has done precisely that.

In December last year, the government required via the regulatory letters for 2026 that 100 agencies shall expand their use of AI. Those agencies that do not do so risk a reprimand. When the assignment was presented, the responsible minister said: It will be wrong here and there.

It means that the government accepts that there will be errors at agencies that handle very sensitive data. It can therefore result in errors here and there at the police, Migrationsverket, Brottsoffermyndigheten, Försäkringskassan, and 96 other agencies, and then it is real people who are affected and impacted. These are people who are dependent on and have a right to a secure and correct exercise of public authority.

I would say that this has not only been rushed but also done in the wrong order. Instead of starting by demanding some form of broad implementation, the government should have started by ensuring that there is competence and resources for a safe implementation and that public actors receive the support and the conditions required to be able to handle the many risks that exist with the use of AI.

We have seen several examples lately of what can happen when things go wrong. Arbetsförmedlingen is one example; there, they had to urgently stop a Chinese AI system that had been installed on the agency's servers. Another example is Försäkringskassan, which was revealed to be flagging people in its systems based on algorithms built on a division of people based on gender, origin, income, and education level. For a woman with an immigrant background and low income, the probability of being flagged in the system was very high. This is profiling, which violates the principle of equal treatment. It is extremely serious.

The reasonable thing in this situation should be to thoroughly investigate what has happened and then take measures to ensure that it does not happen again. Instead, the government chooses a handling that risks making the errors more numerous, and one is furthermore open about the fact that there will be errors.

I really want to emphasize that AI has great potential and is already contributing in several ways across several areas. It is a new technology that entails great opportunities, but it also entails great risks. Safe AI use requires that these two perspectives – opportunity and risk – are balanced, and the government has not succeeded in this in its mission to these 100 agencies.

Mr. Speaker! Now I would like to speak a little about postal services. It is not just any good or service, but a socially important activity that must function and maintain a good and equal quality across the entire country. It is a principle that is well worth guarding and standing up for.

In recent years, however, we have seen major changes to the postal service in Sweden. In 2022, every-other-day delivery was introduced in Sweden, in 2024 almost 3,000 of the yellow post boxes were removed, and last year the postage was raised to 22 kronor. It is a doubling of the postage cost in four years. More changes may be waiting: In a memorandum sent out for consultation last year, the Government proposes that every-other-day delivery should be replaced with delivery every third day. It is a proposal that has met extensive criticism from a large number of consultation bodies.

From the Left Party's side, we clearly say no to a hollowed-out, deteriorated postal service. The society-wide postal service needs, on the contrary, to be strengthened through a clarified social mandate. In the same way, we need to strengthen equality across the country. From the Left Party's side, we want to see an in-depth analysis of the conditions and needs of the countryside and rural areas together with clear proposals on how rural mail delivery, which has been depleted for a significant number of years, can be strengthened and developed.

Every-other-day delivery was introduced with economic arguments – to save money. According to the same logic, daily mail delivery was described as something that was no longer socio-economically sustainable. But what is sustainable at a societal level, and what are the principles that should be governing?

Vänsterpartiet argues that the postal service should not be subordinated to a market logic where profit interests and return requirements determine what is seen as socio-economically sustainable. We must ensure a society-wide postal service that meets the requirements of the law as the law is formulated, that is, a postal service that reaches everyone and that maintains a good and equal quality across the entire country.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 14.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Östh for the speech.

If I understood Malin Östh correctly, she stated in her speech that she, or her party, wants to see faster work from the government regarding the AI commission's roadmap. I now see from the member that I misunderstood her.

I move on to the assignment to 100 agencies. I understand that the member is critical of this assignment from the government, but I hope she understands that Sweden is already lagging behind when it comes to AI development and AI use. According to the Global AI Index, Sweden is in 25th place. The United Arab Emirates are in 20th place. USA is in first place, and then comes China, France, Germany, and England.

The change within the AI world is moving very fast; sometimes new functions and tools arrive every week or every month. How are we to learn to do this if we do not dare to make mistakes?

I come from the world of technology. In the world of technology, one cannot learn without making mistakes. What do we do if we don't even dare to make mistakes?

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

I maintain what I attempted to express in my speech. I believe that the assignment the government gave to 100 agencies was hasty and rushed. It also did not occur in the order that I believe it should have occurred in.

Exercise of authority is exactly that, exercise of authority. It is not a pilot project. As I said in my speech: If mistakes are made in these operations, it is ordinary people who are affected. Does the member not think that people have a right to a safe and correct exercise of authority? I would very much like to get an answer to that, because I believe this is an important principle that we should all stand behind.

I also think the escalation here is remarkable. At the end of last year, a mandate was given to these 100 agencies in the regulatory letter. Earlier in the same year, 25 agencies were asked what their AI use looked like. Some of the 25 agencies said that they have some AI use in their operations. All agencies, however, were very clear that they are only at the beginning of the process. They also requested clear governance as well as ensuring that competence and the right conditions are in place. Obviously, the government has chosen not to listen to what these 25 agencies said. Furthermore, they have escalated it enormously by moving forward and giving a mandate to 100 agencies. I think it is remarkable that it has been done in this way.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Malin Östh for the questions and the answers.

The committee members asked if I think individuals deserve fair treatment from the system. I absolutely think that the rule of law must be upheld in our authorities and organizations; it is very important. This, however, is about technological development and the use of technology that is developing rapidly. We are not at the forefront; rather, we have already fallen behind. If we do not increase the speed and try to catch up, we will end up even further behind when it comes to the development and use of new technology.

The member described here what I addressed in my speech, namely gold-plating. If we are to gold-plate all assignments, all regulations and all legislation, especially those that are technology-related and concern technology in rapid development and of world-class standard, we will not be able to do anything.

I am rather critical that the government did not give this assignment to 100 agencies already when the AI Commission had released its report last year. With the view that Member Östh has, we will never be able to implement any of the AI Commission's 75 proposals.

I understand the criticism, but if we want to benefit from AI, we must dare to make mistakes. We are not to make mistakes intentionally, but we must do certain things even if we do not know exactly what the result will be.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! What I hear the member say is that all citizens in Sweden have the right to a secure and correct exercise of authority, but that the government is not prepared to ensure that it actually happens in that way. I find that remarkable.

I am not going to stand here and review the AI Commission's final report, but perhaps it will become that indirectly. The AI Commission also says a lot of other things. Slow decision-making processes are described as an obstacle. The Swedish administrative model with decentralization is described as an obstacle. Regulation is also described as an obstacle, and it is emphasized that Sweden, at the EU level, should hold back further regulation.

I think this is problematic. If we are to ensure functional AI use, we must also ensure that it is safe AI use. There is no contradiction here. We must be able to handle both of these perspectives politically – otherwise, it is not much of a politics. If we are to build legitimacy for new technology, it requires that we ensure that everything here is in place.

I think it is remarkable that the Swedish administrative model is being problematized. We in Vänsterpartiet do not see the Swedish administrative model with decentralization as an obstacle, but as a strength.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When I listened to the previous speaker, I couldn't help but reflect a little on an old saying, even if it is not the whole truth: USA develops, China sells and Europe regulates. Somewhere I actually believe there is a truth in that. This is probably also one of the reasons why the European economy has fallen behind over the last 10–15 years. We are far ahead in many parts, for example the green transition. We are good at a lot, but for those who look at the economic development and our eagerness to regulate, it is completely obvious that we are falling behind. This was a reflection on the previous exchange of remarks.

I want to say something about communication and being human. What is it that makes us who we are? Probably it is precisely communication. It is perhaps one of the great differences between us and other creatures here on earth.

We have devoted ourselves to communication for a long time. There are very exciting cave paintings. There are images and texts that are carved into clay and stone. As early as the 400s and 500s, the Persians built up a functioning postal system. Even the Roman Empire had a postal system. The Inca people had a knot system – they tied knots and could in this way convey text to one another. I can also mention the pony express and the Swedish postal service from 1636 until 1994, when it transitioned to becoming a company.

It is probably the case that we humans have a need to communicate, and when we build civilization and move from the small, nearby village to a larger society, communication becomes even more important.

Communication is interesting from a purely historical perspective because it changes. Today, no one is carving cuneiform, but we are typing on computers. But the function is the same: We convey some form of experience to one another.

However, a major change has occurred, and it has consequences. I have debated mail and how often it should be delivered in the chamber on numerous occasions. It probably doesn't matter which government we have, because if citizens no longer send letters but instead send information digitally, it will be quite expensive to maintain mail delivery. On the other hand, if we end up in a state of unfinished business, traditional letters may be important. In Ukraine, however, they seem to manage to maintain the digital system, so the concern that the digital will collapse is perhaps exaggerated. This is probably an issue we have to carry with us.

Now I will let go of the post and move on to the discussion on the future. Digitalization is difficult. I get just as grumpy every time my 19-year-old daughter tells me how the TV works.

Development is moving very fast. But there are advantages. Some of us from the Committee on Employment were on a study trip to Japan to see how they work with an increasingly aging population. Digitalization is one of the solutions here, also for loneliness. Loneliness will never disappear with the help of a computer, but one can at least connect, write to a neighbor and meet up at a suitable time, and so on.

This is already happening. I have a friend who thinks it's really fun with Wordfeud. He plays with people from all over the world, and it becomes its own village – a community.

The exciting thing about this is that it just happens, and it happens faster than we in politics can keep up with.

I heard a program on P1, and if I understood correctly, 20 percent of Ireland's electricity consumption goes to cooling data centers. When we move to the next generation of data centers, which are to have even greater capacity, it will therefore require even more energy. The question is what is most important: the power line or the computing capacity that drives the power line?

We are moving in an exciting world because digitalization is already here.

The Traffic Committee was in San Francisco last mandate period and looked at self-driving vehicles. As this technology grows, we will become completely dependent on AI. Either it was Tesla or Google Maps that said that self-driving cars in the future will not be able to collide with each other. Google Maps will have track of all vehicles within 100–200 meters, so even if one tries to collide, the AI will prevent the collision.

What is then expected of politics? We will probably have to accept to some extent that the legislation will come in retrospect because the development is moving so fast.

Say that you get into your own self-driving car after having been at the pub and drunk some beers. Are you then sober when you drive home? If you instead get into a self-driving taxi, are you sober then? If you can grab a steering wheel and take control of the vehicle, most will probably think you are sober, but if the vehicle does not have a steering wheel, you are probably not sober.

We find ourselves in an exciting world where digitalization exceeds our ability. We must probably have respect for the fact that we as politicians will not always be perfectly on time. A teacher today educates students for professions that do not yet exist. When I was young, a school in Gullspång was proud to have the first computer room in Skaraborg. They had VIC64, and the language was Basic. Two years later, that computer was stone dead, for then the Amiga 500 arrived.

We will need to have great respect for one another in what is happening and try to follow up with legislation. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Sverigedemokraterna that there will first be some errors and that we will then have to enact laws. Does that mean I think it is good? No, here I agree with Vänsterpartiet. The order should be that a land shall be built with laws. But technological development is moving so fast. Just look at Västra Götaland. If I remember correctly, all parties were in agreement about developing a digital system, but then it stalled.

What am I trying to get at? Well, first and foremost, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions.

The AI Commission points out a number of needs. The Government is doing quite a lot, and I am convinced that more proposals will come before the end of the mandate period. But regardless of this, we are all moving within an area where we are not entirely sure.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we are good at talking about security and services, but a deficiency that the Christian Democrats have highlighted in an internal investigation is how dark fiber is to be guaranteed. The state owns dark fiber in several different places. Svenska kraftnät owns dark fiber, just like Trafikverket, Telia, Teracom, and surely some more. But no one is responsible for holding the system together. As we now enter a paradigm shift and leave the stone tablets behind in favor of digital tablets, it is super important that all the technology behind it works. This is what I want to send with.

As you can hear, I am a bit humble in this matter. I believe that we all here are moving towards a goal that we will not be able to reach. It is frustrating for us politicians, because we would like to regulate in advance and be secure.

The basic principle is to build a school with law, but when it comes to IT, we will probably make mistakes sometimes. Here we must be humble.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report TU8 Digi talization and postal issues. I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 11 under point 6 regarding access to electronic communications.

Mr. Speaker! The digitalization has only just begun. We must build robustly from the start, and then we must also build up a network. We have heard discussions about black fiber, and here we must think about robustness. Even if other committees are working on this, we must also be involved, because everything is interconnected.

Robustness is fundamentally about building stable networks and finishing the construction. I think that both the current and the previous government have done this in a good way. Money has been injected in a way that has allowed for the expansion to be carried out. However, we are not finished. We must finish the construction in order to be able to derive benefits, but I will come to that later.

Robustness has improved. Today we build networks that allow us to withstand a breach that we could not handle in the beginning. What we have left to do is to link this with both masts for mobile communication and the existing network system. There we must also have electricity during any power outages. We have seen in Ukraine how important it is to have systems that can be made to function if they go down.

An extra focus is markets that do not function. In many places, the market can solve it itself, but in rural areas and peripheral areas, it does not function. There, the state must be involved and ensure that the expansion is completed. Once we are finished with that, we can continue the development. Then we can begin to phase out 2G and 3G as a consequence of that, and we can continue with both 5G and 6G and take large steps forward.

This is a necessity for us to take the step and want to embrace new technology. We should not take that for granted, Mr. Speaker. The problem we have in Sweden today is that we have very few who are connected with service in our networks. Today we are at just over 50 percent, correctly calculated. That is far too low and too costly. One of the reasons is that we have not finished building. One does not want parallel systems, and then one does not enter into the new technology. Then we cannot exchange the benefits of digitalization in the right way, especially not within the healthcare sector, the education sector, and that part.

When it comes to the solutions with AI, we are talking about the state taking a large responsibility and having a control activity there. I am personally quite convinced that we see many private actors here. We see a lot of capital and that people are interested in entering this industry in a very positive way.

I do not think we should have too much of a Sweden-perspective, Mr. Speaker. The companies we are talking about today and that are to enter this industry do not have only Sweden as a market but in principle the whole world, not least our neighboring area. There are many interesting actors here, and it is moving fast.

As a customer, we don't really need to care that much about what is AI and what is not, the main thing is that it works. An upgrade can make a product that was purchased just a few years ago and which worked quite poorly then work today. There is often an AI solution behind that does the job. It is not actually harder, but someone has to do the work behind it. That is where the market rules.

AI has the future ahead of it, and we will see many super interesting solutions, not least on the energy side. Today, a lot of energy is consumed for AI, but wait two years! Then we will have other solutions where significantly less energy will be required for the same action. We will see solutions there as well.

However, we must not forget old technology, Mr. Speaker. There we can talk a bit about postal matters. When things do not work, letters are a type of backup for the digital systems. One cannot really get away from that, even if it hardly feels like it actually.

I believe we have all accepted the day-to-day distribution as a development resulting from the decreased demand for mail delivery. But there is a minimum level, and I believe that with ownership directives and ownership control, we must ensure that we maintain it. That is approximately the level we have today, I want to assert. It will probably cost the money it does today to maintain that backup across the entire country. That is the Center Party's view on mail.

There are also private actors involved in postal matters. Here it is important to maintain competition so that it becomes equitable. In the postal infrastructure, for example, postal codes can be shared by all actors, so that there is no double work and so that competition functions better.

In conclusion, we have something that is actually a detail, namely digital ID documents, which today are almost synonymous with BankID. It is an important issue. Almost all systems today require some type of login with BankID or similar. There, a number of major banks have taken on a role, almost a bit involuntarily, I want to assert, because there has been no other solution. It is possible that we will have that solution even in the future, but even there we must look at the robustness.

The problem we have with today's documents is that they are not really credible. They cannot be used for everything. You cannot use them as an ID document in the same way that you do with, for example, a driver's license. We must have a higher reliability. Here, the state has an opportunity to collaborate with the larger actors or take it over on its own so that we get a more robust digital ID system. It is really needed. The advantage could be that everyone gets access to it. That is not quite the case with BankID, which unfortunately not everyone has access to. We must achieve some type of robust solution here.

Mr. Speaker! With this, I conclude.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ulrika Heie (C) agreed.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on Digitalization and Postal Issues.

The Liberals are technology optimists. The development of AI will have as great an impact on our society in Sweden, in the EU, and globally as the ongoing climate development. We must therefore increase the pace of our use of AI so that we in Sweden, based on our values regarding individual freedom and our unique position as the world's most innovative country, can be involved in steering how AI – an AI based on ethical guidelines – will be applied here at home and in our global environment.

It is particularly important here to safeguard and develop the structures we have in Sweden that facilitate and drive the innovative system, for example Vinnova and the universities' work with the utilization of research results and cooperation with the business sector.

Sweden has good conditions to be among the leaders in using AI, perhaps not by developing the algorithms themselves but by applying AI in society. That is where Sweden's strength lies.

At the same time, we must counteract the negative side effects. We are good at cooperating and finding solutions where many actors do their part in the development. Let us utilize that ability!

We have, however, for a long time had the self-image that we are good at digitalization. That is true in a number of areas, but the self-image has unfortunately led to us not seeing the whole picture and that Sweden is no longer counted among the foremost. We can, however, change that with joint efforts.

The Social Democrats' representative in the debate says that the government is doing nothing. Nothing could be more wrong.

The government appointed an AI commission, which at the beginning of 2025 presented its mandate and submitted 75 different proposals in a number of different areas.

The government has already introduced a number of measures. As an example, I can mention that after a quick application from the government, Sweden has been selected as the host for one of the EU's seven AI factories. It is now being established in Linköping.

The government is reviewing the impact of the register acts on data sharing to facilitate access to data, which is a prerequisite for AI development, and is providing increased resources for computing power for AI use.

Furthermore, a large number of authorities have, in their regulatory letters, been tasked to report on how they are developing their use of AI so that the development of AI in Sweden can be monitored.

Skatteverket and Försäkringskassan, which are pioneers in public Sweden in using AI, have been allocated 100 million in the budget for 2026 over three years to build the capacity to test new AI solutions for public activities.

This government creates conditions for innovation and simplifications based on AI. The policy can provide conditions during rapid technological shifts, but it is through the companies' innovations and development within all sectors of society that we realize the great potential of AI.

The real big challenge is that people should be able to understand and utilize the potential of AI in their work. Therefore, the Liberals have submitted a motion for a new home-chat reform similar to the home-PC reform that boosted digital skills in the 90s. By gaining access to good tools at home, adults and children can sit in a home environment and test and investigate what AI can contribute. With such a basic competence, one can more easily understand and develop one's work tasks with the help of AI.

At the same time, AI, like all technologies, can be used for negative purposes: to control the population, spread disinformation, allow well-known people to make statements that run counter to their values – yes, the list can be long. The risk of spreading disinformation in a credible way is perhaps the greatest danger to our democratic system. Who can one trust?

TikTok has stored data about Swedes on Chinese servers despite having repeatedly denied this.

A study shows that we Scandinavians are among the most monitored online in the world, as third-party collections are carried out digitally despite us clicking that we do not want to be registered.

The Swedish use of American cloud services is based on an executive order, signed by Biden, that the NSA in the USA shall not be granted access to stored personal data. Trump could, with a new executive order, remove it and make all storage in these cloud services illegal.

The digital interconnection constitutes an opportunity, but it also constitutes a danger. I raise this because it is important to be able to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. We shall embrace AI's and digitalization's enormous potential while simultaneously we must counteract the negative effects. Now in our [government] comes therefore the government's AI strategy to optimize AI's advantages and simultaneously parry the negative risks.

The AI development also points out that the fundamental digitalization of our public sector must increase significantly. Today's data systems must interact, and we must develop effective ways to share data. The AI development is based on our ability to utilize different ways to share data effectively while simultaneously securing personal privacy.

In the basic structure, the expansion of our 5G network and broadband network is also fundamental. To increase people's and companies' access to broadband, we need to open up for different technical solutions in order to get broadband also in sparsely populated areas and in the countryside. The Government is investing billions on the continued expansion of broadband throughout the country.

At the same time, it is necessary to place a defense aspect on what we do and analyze the vulnerability now that we collect a lot of data with easy data access, when the 5G network causes society to be connected, and when the alternatives to the digital are dismantled.

The Liberals welcome the increased interest in our country's preparedness in these matters. Total Defense's requirement for a plan B, a system that functions if the electricity is disconnected, is very important. This can also, to some extent, be linked to the fact that all people must be able to perform necessary services without being connected. We shall have an inclusive digitalization, not one that places people in exclusion.

Mr. Speaker! The postal service in Sweden is important, not least from a preparedness perspective. Digitization has drastically reduced the number of letters sent, which can be a natural development. It is, however, important that the postal service functions throughout the entire country. Mail, parcels, and broadband are important parts of the society's infrastructure for all of Sweden to function and for people to feel included.

I also want to bring up this matter regarding electronic identification, which has been part of the debate. Now, there are decisions at the EU level that we are to develop an electronic ID. The Government is currently developing what it should look like here in Sweden. But there are already decisions that one should be able to have an electronic ID that one can carry with them everywhere in the entire EU, which is very positive. It shall also have high security. We spoke earlier about BankID, but BankID does not have the highest security. The electronic ID shall have such security, and it is being discussed who it is that should issue it.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: We Liberals are, as said, technology optimists. We truly believe in Sweden's ability to take a leadership role in Europe within AI, in our capacity for data-driven innovation and in digitalization's potential for old and new companies and for reducing costs within a continued good welfare with good personal contacts. We also believe that Sweden can show the way for a development where the risks are minimized.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and against all motions.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is, as others have pointed out, no small area that this committee report covers. On many occasions when I have read it, I have been surprised or pleasantly surprised by areas that I perhaps had not thought of.

Fundamentally, these are relatively uncontroversial issues regarding the infrastructure that makes our society function. But there are some with slightly more abstract layers that reflect how we view this society, how we want it to function, and who should have which conditions, either to level differences or to reinforce them. In some cases, our opinions diverge there.

Let me start with the preparedness. Society is increasingly dependent on functioning internet and telephony. A robust digital infrastructure is crucial for our society's resilience and also makes it more difficult to attack the stability of society.

I and Miljöpartiet therefore believe that the readiness fees, that is, the fees of around ten kronor a month that are charged on the electricity bill, should be adjusted so that more resources can be allocated to also make the internet more robust through public-private cooperation between the broadband providers and PTS.

I want to emphasize the importance of the digital infrastructure functioning throughout the country and that the connection is robust and secure. Fiber and fast mobile networks should be built out across all of Sweden, and the state needs to take increased responsibility for the financing of the expansion in rural areas.

Sweden has been a world leader when it comes to access to internet connection, but I can unfortunately state that one area that has been neglected is the connection on the trains. Traveling by train should, of course, have the great advantage that it should be possible to combine it with work, often digital, entertainment, or other types of relaxation. I tried to write this speech on the train from Gothenburg on Monday, hence my somewhat hesitant attitude toward the whole thing.

In order to be able to utilize the positive factors that come with train travel, good internet connection and conditions for telephone calls are required. We therefore mean that fast internet connection on all train routes in Sweden must be ensured.

Mr. Speaker! We have talked a lot about AI. AI poses both threats and opportunities when it comes to our preparedness. On one hand, AI tools can be applied to increase our ability to meet various threats, and on the other hand, there are great risks linked to different threat actors applying AI for hostile purposes. As the AI Commission describes it in its final report: ”AI makes it possible to quickly, easily, and with little effort create large amounts of text, audio, and moving images as part of disinformation and influence campaigns. AI can also be used to effectively spread material and messages in, for example, social media.”

AI can therefore be an effective tool for those who want to influence society, for example by polarizing, dividing, or creating mistrust. This can ultimately affect the will to defend and our democracy. In addition to this type of behavioral influence, AI can of course also be used for a multitude of other purposes to influence technical systems and also for military purposes. It is therefore important that the government now continues to work on implementing the AI commission's proposals and further measures within the AI area with a focus on safeguarding security and personal privacy, as well as considering risks to society.

Mr. Speaker! We must not bow down to the AI companies and AI advocates of various kinds. What the large American companies say about everything we must do to not be completely left behind is not necessarily true. There are some really big players: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and a number of others. If they say that we can create ourselves an AI friend or that we need to understand that they must chew up every little piece of information about us, we do not necessarily have to do as they say. However, it is not always that easy.

One must also remember that AI implies a plunder of our personal information, such as things we have submitted or published on social media in all good faith, for example where we are, that we accept all cookies, which advertisements we look at and what we search for on the internet. There is even information gathered about how we move in large stores, which shelves we stop at and what we might buy. Therefore, do not be surprised if ads appear for what you have just looked at! This is often compiled into advertisements but above all into knowledge about everything we do, everything we own and everything we say publicly.

I am not entirely positive about this development, as you understand. On the contrary – I think it is a real challenge that we must discuss under the overarching heading "Is this really what we want?".

Mr. Speaker! I mean that higher requirements for transparency must be set generally when it comes to AI. I mean that transparency and openness regarding, for example, the algorithms used is necessary for assessment and potential accountability. We have the case of the allocation of school places in Gothenburg which failed, and where it turned out to be impossible to obtain information on how it had proceeded. The Government should therefore work for and support the development of such solutions at a national and perhaps especially at a European level.

National guidelines need to be established for how AI should be applied and developed in an ethical and transparent manner. We also mean that the AI Commission's proposals should be implemented, and it must be ensured that AI is used and developed with respect for fundamental freedoms and rights, especially when new legislation, strategies, and guidelines are being developed. It is therefore important with a coordinated effort regarding data and AI use within Swedish administration.

I also want to emphasize that the government should ensure that Sweden in the EU works for a safe use of AI that does not violate privacy and rights and that is not used to develop weapons systems. I also want to highlight that Sweden in the EU and within the framework of the EU AI Act, or the AI Regulation, shall work for a safe development of AI, even in areas such as so-called transformative AI. The development of AI involves both opportunities and threats regarding the work with climate adaptation and climate change itself, which is, of course, something that I welcome.

The use of AI consumes very large amounts of energy, primarily in the form of electricity. It is also an industry that requires very large investments in hardware, which in turn places demands on further extraction of, for example, rare metals. Therefore, I think it is important to take into account the large climate and environmental costs that AI development entails and to work towards limiting the harmful effects and promoting the recycling of electronics. At the same time, I want to highlight the opportunities that the technology provides to, for example, analyze and utilize large amounts of data within the climate field.

I could have spoken about this for another half hour, but let me just say that in order to truly make AI a democratic tool, extensive efforts in education are required for the many, not just today's students but also those of yesterday and those of us who went to school some time further back.

Mr. Speaker! As a resident of Halland, one is, curiously enough, part of the Greater Copenhagen Region. No one probably foresaw that in the 1600s when Halland became Swedish, and it perhaps seems a bit exaggerated. But nevertheless, it has brought with it a number of contacts and information. Among other things, we have been invited to take part in the significant investments made in digitalization within the public sector in Denmark, including the extensive work to develop a system for age verification within the framework of the work with the digital wallet. Let me return to that just a moment.

First, just a few words about the Danish police's cooperation with Palantir, the American company that has developed surveillance and AI to previously unimaginable levels. It is partly about the possibilities of using AI to make existing information from many different sources available, and partly it includes systems to predict crime using algorithms, which risks leading to forms of surveillance, serious violations of people's privacy, and not least a large number of false identifications based on flaws in the system and incorrect assumptions about which persons one suspects could be engaged in these activities. It is concerning that this will also be proposed in Sweden, not least after the Prime Minister's meeting with Palantir's founder Peter Thiel this past summer.

If we stay in Denmark, there are upsides regarding digitalization that have nothing to do with Palantir, for example a Danish system called F2 which 21 of 24 Danish ministries – departments in our world – use. This includes, for example, such stress-reducing features as that your personal data is only submitted once and for all. There are templates and questionnaires, and it should be easy to find what one is looking for.

Mr. Speaker! That is all for now. With that, I move for the approval of reservation 19, Promotion of AI use.

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

Inga-Lill Sjöblom (S)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we are debating the Committee on Transport's report TU8. I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 26.

We must talk about the mail – the good old mail. We have talked a lot about AI and digitalization. Much has changed during the last decades. We remember the time when the mail came Monday to Friday. There was A-mail, B-mail, and post offices in every town – several post offices, for those of us who lived in large cities. Packages came all the way to the door for those who lived in the countryside. That time will not come back. Today, one has to wonder what day it is. Is there mail today? Is there mail tomorrow? No, I usually collect my mail on Fridays now. Then I know that there are a few letters there.

Mr. Speaker! Fewer letters and more digital communication does not mean that the need for the postal service has disappeared. On the contrary – both letters and parcels still play a crucial role in people's everyday lives. It should not matter where in the country one lives. Regardless of whether one lives in the city center or in the interior of Norrland, one should be able to rely on the mail arriving on time and that the service functions as it should. It cannot be that short-term profit interests determine what socially important service should look like. The postal service is about something bigger: about social service, about security, and about the whole of Sweden living.

Mr. Speaker! Digitization is changing our society at a rapid pace, but it does not reach everyone in the same way. Some elderly people, some people with functional variations, and people without a stable internet connection are still dependent on physical mail. Should their needs be subordinated to quarterly reports and profitability requirements? No, of course not.

Posten is an important employer. Behind every delivered letter and parcel are mail carriers and terminal workers who ensure that Sweden functions every day. Secure jobs and fair conditions are part of the Swedish model. It is not a responsibility we can outsource to the lowest bidder.

Mr. Speaker! The question of the mail also concerns preparedness. In a time of uncertainty and increased security threats, we must ask ourselves how our country will function in the event of a crisis or war. How will important information reach the citizens? How will medicines and supplies be distributed? Postnord already plays a large and decisive role in the total defense. The employees are war-stationed. By keeping the postal operations running, the state can ensure that communication between authorities and citizens functions even under difficult conditions. It is not just about letters. It is about maintaining society's basic functions.

Mr. Speaker! Of course the postal service needs to be developed. Fewer letters and more parcels require new solutions. But the solution is not to phase out or weaken the common service. The solution is to invest, modernize, and take political responsibility. The postal service cannot be completely handed over to the market. It is and remains a social responsibility. It does not matter which government it is; the government has a responsibility to ensure that the postal service functions throughout Sweden, in everyday life as well as in a crisis. To stand up for the postal service is to stand up for cohesion, justice, and a Sweden that holds together. It is a social democratic stance, but it is needed more than ever.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on 25 February.)

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