EU's new rail passenger regulation

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal in the report and the rejection of the motions.

The Tidö parties continue to get Sweden in order together, and today the Riksdag decides on the EU's rail passenger regulation.

Mr. Speaker! It may sound a bit dull with the EU's rail passenger regulation, but it contains fundamental rules on the transport contract, information, and tickets. Among other things, it regulates how a transport contract is entered into, how tickets shall be designed and provided, and what information the passengers shall receive. This, Mr. Speaker, will collectively give passengers increased power in relation to the train operators.

The regulation also contains rules on the right to compensation if the passenger or luggage is damaged and rules on compensation and assistance if the journey is delayed. It further contains provisions on the right to assistance for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility.

EU's new rail passenger regulation

The new train passenger regulation aims to provide passengers with better protection and encourage increased rail travel. It is good and important that train commuting works, not least for all work commuters.

Mr. Speaker! By strengthening consumer protection, we want more people to be able to travel by train. Today, it is almost the opposite. Many who have an important meeting in Stockholm and live in Gävle take the car to be sure of arriving on time. That is not how it should be.

The provisions mean that passengers' rights are strengthened in a number of respects, which is naturally welcome. The protection for those traveling by train should be strong. Through the new train passenger ordinance, passengers' rights are strengthened in several respects. Persons with disabilities shall always have the right to assistance. Requirements are placed on infrastructure managers to provide real-time information. And, Mr. Speaker, it shall be easier to take a bicycle on the train, which will surely please one or another.

The requirements for information are tightened in the new regulation. An obligation is introduced for infrastructure managers to provide real-time information on the trains' departures and arrivals. Requirements are also introduced for information on the accessibility of facilities for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility.

When it comes to rights for persons with disabilities, personal assistants shall, in certain cases, be allowed to travel free of charge. And, Mr. Speaker, it shall always be permitted to bring a guide dog or assistance dog on the train. Rules are also introduced regarding liability and compensation if a railway company or a station manager causes damage to a wheelchair or any other aid.

The railway companies must also ensure that new or rebuilt trains have sufficient space for bicycles.

Mr. Speaker! The Government proposes that a provision on force majeure in local and regional transport shall be introduced in the Act on the Rights of Public Transport Passengers. The provision means that passengers shall not be entitled to a price reduction if a delay has been caused by extreme weather conditions or other circumstances which the carrier could not avoid or prevent the consequences of.

According to the proposal, however, railway traffic that is conducted exclusively for historical purposes or tourist purposes shall be exempted from the 2021 Railway Passenger Ordinance.

Mr. Speaker! As a long-time train commuter, I want to flag that if the exception regarding force majeure is abused by the train companies, the Riksdag and the government will take action. We who have traveled with SJ know that extreme weather for train commuters from Gävle can mean summer, autumn, winter, and spring. But these are not extraordinary circumstances; rather, they are normal seasons.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and look forward to significantly strengthened rights for us train passengers.

(Applause)

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lars Beckman, for the presentation! I would like to get some clarifications regarding certain questions, if that is alright.

Lars Beckman and the government state in the bill that there are currently several ways for passengers to purchase tickets in advance: in machines, on the internet, in mobile apps, over the phone, and in ticket offices. But what happens if there are no ticket offices or ticket machines at the departure station, or any other available way to purchase a ticket in advance? In that case, is it not still reasonable that everyone should be able to buy a ticket on board? Many passengers still have difficulty handling mobile apps, the internet, and telephone purchases. This is something that is raised in consumer guidance and by various organizations.

My first question is therefore: How does the government reason regarding not letting everyone have the opportunity to buy a ticket on board?

On another matter. Lars Beckman points out that this bill will give more power to the passengers, and I partly agree in some respects. But the government's proposal for a law amending the Act on the Rights of Public Transport Passengers implies, among other things, that the passengers, as Lars Beckman said in his speech, shall no longer have the right to a price reduction if a delay in local or regional transport has been caused by an extraordinary circumstance, for example, weather conditions. The justification states that the need for such a limitation is not necessarily particularly great.

But even here I wonder how the government reasons, given that external factors account for almost one-third of all disruptions on the railway. One-third of the affected passengers will therefore lose out on compensation due to circumstances that they cannot control.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Nadja Awad, for important questions!

As a Moderate, I believe in a market economy. I understand that this may seem foreign to some parties, but fundamentally, in soul and heart, I believe in a market economy. That means that the train companies, which want people to travel by train, have their own responsibility to ensure that one can, for example, buy a ticket. It is naturally in the train companies' own interest to sell train tickets. That is, therefore, the answer to the member's first question as to why we do not legislate on this.

I would, however, like to raise this and say that it is a problem. I thought it was a significant problem when SJ decided to close its ticket office in Gävle. There is no Pressbyrån in Gävle, so you cannot buy a ticket at Pressbyrån there. Instead, there is a ticket machine. Not everyone has access to payment cards. You might not have BankID, or you have been cut off from the bank, or you have not been granted a bank account. That makes it difficult to buy a ticket digitally. I therefore share the member's concern that there are groups that have difficulty buying a ticket today, not least in Gävle.

Who is affected by this, besides the individual? In that case, naturally SJ, which is not allowed to sell a ticket. It should be in the absolute self-interest of SJ and other train companies to sell tickets to passengers. I therefore hope that the market solves this.

When it comes to compensation for delays, there are two parts. If we give a significantly increased right to delay compensation, it will raise the ticket price. Someone must ultimately pay that compensation. We Moderates want it to be cheap and simple to travel by train, and we want low ticket prices. That is, therefore, the explanation.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! Lars Beckman says that he believes in the market economy and that the railway companies should do the right thing. I can interpret that as meaning that politics should not take responsibility for the climate transition, but instead, that should be placed on the market and market forces.

Vänsterpartiet believes that the policy and the politicians - we in the Riksdag - need to take responsibility for the climate transition. We need to steer and ensure that what needs to be done gets done. The time of the climate crisis is not a time for passive politicians who shift the responsibility onto others.

Introducing requirements for ticket sales on board for all passengers is a transition, but it would be an important incentive to get more people to want to travel by train. It is actually called climate transition and not climate passivity.

We in Vänsterpartiet also oppose the deregulation that has long been prevalent within transport policy and which has led to a lack of cohesion. It is a consequence of the advancement and establishment of the market economy, where the choice was made to deregulate and fragment a coherent railway system by removing SJ's monopoly on operating the main lines.

The government therefore seems, based on Lars Beckman's answer, to focus on the companies' right to establish themselves on the market and secure large profits at the expense of the train passengers and the climate. It is expected, in fact, that the train companies will do the right thing on their own and cater to the consumer perspective.

We need legislation. The legislation shall be the basis for how the railway companies shall act.

It is with great disappointment that I received Lars Beckman's answer regarding how the government intends to proceed regarding the consumer perspective when it comes to the ticketing system on the trains.

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

Lars Beckman (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that there is disappointment in the Left Party. But thank goodness this government and previous governments have ensured that, for example, there are 20-minute departures in the train traffic from Gävle. It is fantastically good.

Had Nadja Awad been in Gävle and taken the 06.03 train with me, she would have seen that it was a full train. It was the same with the train after, at 06.20. There are those who want to travel with Upptåget or Mälartåg and so on. It is thanks to the deregulation that we have received these opportunities.

We who have been around for a long time know how it was when there was one railway company and there was two-hour traffic from Gävle. It was difficult to commute by train then. Thanks to deregulation, we have completely different functioning labor market regions today. That is something I am happy and grateful for.

Then it sounds as if there were very large differences. I would argue that there is a very broad majority in the Riksdag today that will adopt the EU's rail passenger regulation. Fundamentally, it strengthens the rights for all rail passengers. We are moving power from the train operators to us passengers. We are providing better conditions for people with disabilities. It provides better opportunities for compensation, and it provides better protection. We want there to be expanded rail travel. This is evident from the report.

But just as I said in my speech, the person who lives in Gävle and has an important meeting in Stockholm or an important flight to catch at Arlanda should be able to rely on the train running or on being able to get there even if the train does not run. This will be a significant improvement for Sweden's train travelers. I think it is good that we, in a large majority, will make this decision today.

Then it was exactly as I flagged: If the train companies abuse what is normal weather, the government and the Riksdag can come back and tighten the legislation in that case. But fundamentally, the Moderaterna and I believe in the market economy. Sell many train tickets, and let more people travel by train!

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

Denis Begic (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 2.

We Social Democrats view the EU's new rail passenger regulation positively in broad terms. It is important for strengthening train passengers' rights. Above all, it will be important as more and more countries invest in rail connections. One must not forget that the train is one of the most climate-smart ways to travel. Therefore, a regulation was needed, and one also needs to provide incentives that make more people choose the train.

That one today, for example, cannot bring a bicycle on the train is truly to disregard the passengers' needs and in the future. It is very good that this is included in the regulation, but there are far too many exceptions where the train operators can simply disregard allowing bicycles on the train. There, I would like to see a change.

Mr. Speaker! More neutrality between the different modes of transport needs to be seen. In order for us to be able to choose correctly and choose climate-smart in the future, the rules of the game need to be changed. There are far too large differences between different modes of transport. Therefore, it would be smart of the government to seize this opportunity and do more to specifically create neutrality between the modes of transport. It is a pity if this opportunity is missed.

I hope that, nevertheless, in the near future we can ensure that a national regulation coordinates this more. I do not know if such plans exist or if there is an intention to work with this, but it would be reasonable to try to create a more coherent regulation so that travelers do not need to navigate between different laws and regulations depending on how many miles they travel by train.

Today, different rules apply depending on how far one travels. Furthermore, it is far too cheap for the operators to cancel trains. I read somewhere that passengers pay seven times more than the train companies for cancelled trains. It is an unreasonable distribution of the cost.

If it becomes more palpable for the train operators to cancel trains due to, for example, poor staffing, they would work much more actively to have competence within the company. Today, it is far too easy to cancel trains without being hit by economic consequences. In aviation, for example, they have worked much more with this to adapt to today's reality. I would like to see the same thing also in rail traffic.

In aviation, there is a standardized compensation for cancelled or significantly delayed flights. In those cases, passengers can receive between 250 and 600 euro.

The second thing I want to bring up is, of course, the repayment period. We live in a digitized world today. If I return an item I have bought and am dissatisfied with, I can have the money back in my account within two days. If I am affected by a cancelled flight, I can have the money back within seven days. Why then do the train operators need 30 days to repay?

As I see it, it is about nothing other than that one works with old structures and old habits instead of modern methods. Travelers should not have to be out of pocket for so long. Such a thing in turn makes people choose other modes of travel.

If the train operators had been smart, they would have already done everything themselves to facilitate travel. Instead, everything needs to be legislated to get them moving! It is an unreasonable path, Mr. Speaker. The train operators must be a bit more forward-looking if they are to achieve an increase in rail travel. My party and I are prepared to listen to the proposals that may eventually come from the government regarding facilitating travel.

Mr. Speaker! In these times, it should be obvious to think about how we should make it easy for everyone to travel. What shall we do if it is not possible to pay digitally? What do I do if I have forgotten my mobile or my wallet and happen to board the train? It has surely happened many times for many of us.

I am also thinking about the fact that we are in a time of crisis right now. We have learned from the pandemic and from the war in Ukraine that we need to have robust systems. Therefore, we all need to consider legislation that ensures that one can pay in cash, for example, on the train. Today, there are many smart solutions and good systems that make it possible to pay in cash even on the train if one is worried about security.

I know that every company - as the colleague Lars Beckman also mentioned - shall decide how it is to be paid. But we have a changed playing field, which means that we in the Riksdag must think differently than just a few years ago. Both the pandemic and the war in Ukraine have taught us that, as I mentioned. Therefore, we must be prepared to reconsider decisions that previously may have been very smart and very good but which today may be problematic. In peacetime, we must be prepared for times of crisis, Mr. Speaker.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 3.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are discussing the EU's new rail passenger regulation. The Government has proposed legislative amendments, and the purpose is to improve train passengers' rights.

Much in this ordinance is good, but there are certain shortcomings that we address in our reservation. This concerns, among other things, passengers' right to a price reduction in the event of force majeure. The wording "extraordinary event" - without mentioning what it entails - risks stretching the right to compensation for train passengers.

It is obviously reasonable that, for example, a natural disaster is counted as an extraordinary event. But that extreme weather conditions without further definition, description, or grading should fall under the concept of force majeure and be exempted from the right to compensation for travelers in the event of delays is a line that does not lie in the consumers' interests.

As an example, it can be mentioned that it is not uncommon for transport companies to cancel departures and that delays occur due to snowfall. Not infrequently, snow weather is called extreme weather by both transport companies and in the public debate. But what is actually meant by extreme weather, Mr. Speaker?

If travelers are not given compensation for extra expenses due to delays caused by, for example, snow weather, very many will lose time and money on delayed or cancelled train journeys.

The rules for when one is entitled to compensation and when one is not must simply become clearer.

Mr. Speaker! The rights of public transport passengers are an important area, and when it comes to information management, we see potential for improvement. It is about making information more accessible regarding train departures and delayed trains, and how one can easily obtain compensation for cancelled trains or when delays occur.

Mr. Speaker! In our reservation, we also point out that the rights consumers have when they fly should also apply when they travel by train. This means that the refund of the ticket price should occur within 7 days, as currently applies for flights, and not within 30 days, as currently applies for trains.

If we want to encourage more people to travel by train, we must also create good incentives for it. It is about making it smooth to book tickets. It is about the suppliers offering consumers a high level when it comes to safety and punctuality. And train passengers' rights and conditions in the event of delays and cancelled trains must be good. That is how we get more passengers to choose the train as a means of transport, Mr. Speaker.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would first and foremost like to move for the approval of reservation 4.

The climate crisis is acute, and we must quickly reduce emissions. During the spring, Italian farmers who grow raw materials for standard dishes such as pasta with tomato sauce have observed that the lack of rain threatens the entire production. Here in Sweden, we have instead been hit by snowstorms late into the spring. That is also something we can expect more of as the climate is disturbed and changed. And in Southeast Asia, people are seeking shelter from a brutal heatwave, even though the hottest season has not yet begun.

There is a strong movement and popular opinion to create a long-term sustainable society.

The blind faith in the market and turning a blind eye to the climate crisis is yesterday's politics. The climate transition needs to happen immediately, and all political decisions need to take into account the acute crisis we find ourselves in. With a green policy from Vänstern, we can create more jobs, companies, and faith in the future even outside the large cities.

Domestic transport accounts for one-third of Sweden's total emissions. Road traffic, in turn, accounts for more than 90 percent of the transport sector's emissions. Sweden has had the interim goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport by at least 70 percent by 2030 at the latest, compared to 2010. According to Trafikanalys' follow-up of the transport policy goals 2021, the transport sector will not reach the 2030 goal under current conditions and decisions.

In order to reach our climate goals, our society needs to become more transport-efficient, and an increased share of passenger transport needs to be carried out by walking, cycling, and public transport.

According to Svensk Kollektivtrafik, a person who takes the car to work emits 45,000 times more carbon dioxide than someone who takes the subway, tram, or train.

Public transport has good conditions to create accessibility for large groups in society - in particular for those with low incomes. It is about getting to workplaces, education, leisure activities and services. Public transport is an efficient and climate-smart mode of transport. That people choose climate-smart public transport to a greater extent instead of the car is important for an effective climate transition.

Mr. Speaker! At the end of March this year, the government's own climate policy council stated that for the first time in 20 years, Sweden has a government whose policy involves increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of reduced ones. Previous governments have done far too little. Now Sweden has a government that is actively worsening the situation.

Before the new government had even taken office, the Tidö parties announced that they would stop the plans to build new main lines for high-speed trains. The failed railway investments shrink labor market regions and hinder fossil-free freight transport.

For the sake of the climate, it needs to become better, easier, and cheaper to travel by public transport. Vänsterpartiet wants to invest more in public transport so that it becomes cheap or free and functions well across the entire country. This can reduce car use in our cities.

In order to be able to achieve an ecologically sustainable transport system, the proportion of journeys by public transport must increase, as I have noted. In that case, a well-functioning ticketing system for the trains plays an important role.

For the sake of the climate, we must invest much more in the trains. It must be comfortable and smooth to choose the train, and one must be able to rely on it running on time. Vänsterpartiet is pushing for increased investments in new railways and improved maintenance of the tracks.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is important that the traveler has access to a coherent and accessible system with good overview, where it is easy and smooth to switch between lines and to receive information from one and the same source.

We believe that it is the individual traveler who should be in focus when a transport need is to be solved within passenger transport. For example, the accessibility to stations, interchange points, and stops is of great importance to increase the interest in traveling by public transport.

Therefore, Vänsterpartiet welcomes several of the changes in the EU's rail passenger regulation, and we naturally expect the government to provide the relevant authorities with sufficient resources to ensure that the legislation is fully implemented.

At the same time, Vänsterpartiet agrees with the criticism from referral bodies that the requirements on who should have to offer direct tickets are not sufficient. Instead of the railway companies should take all reasonable measures, we believe it is reasonable to set requirements that they shall offer direct tickets.

In the government's proposition, Resplus is highlighted as an already existing form of cooperation for ticket sales. However, there is no requirement that transport companies shall offer passengers the purchase of direct tickets via Resplus. Therefore, the Left Party, Mr. Speaker, considers that the government should return with a proposal that entails that the railway companies shall offer direct tickets.

According to the government's legislative changes, it shall also be permitted for persons with disabilities to purchase tickets on board the train without extra cost if there is no ticket office, a ticket machine at the departure station, or any other available way to purchase a ticket in advance. We in Vänsterpartiet believe this is good from a disability rights perspective.

However, we agree with the criticism from Sveriges Konsumenter that this should apply to everyone. Everyone should be able to purchase a ticket on board if there are no available ways to purchase a ticket in advance. There are still many travelers who experience that it is difficult to handle mobile apps, the internet, and telephone purchases. This is something that is raised in consumer guidance and from various organizations. It is also not entirely uncommon to have problems with, for example, the connection or with one of the apps through which one purchased their ticket when purchasing a ticket or when showing their ticket.

Vänsterpartiet also thinks that we need to invest offensively in reducing the unsustainable alternative to the train, which is aviation. The aviation sector's emissions have doubled over the last twenty years, and if nothing is done, emissions could grow by an additional 300-700 percent by 2050. We in the Nordic countries are among those who fly the most in the world. Therefore, we as a country have a great responsibility to change how we live and offer alternatives to air travel.

The regulation and also the government state that the train passenger has the right to a refund or a price reduction of the ticket within 30 days in the case of cancelled or delayed trains. Train passengers shall therefore continue to have fewer rights than air passengers have.

Vänsterpartiet believes that the same rules should apply to flight and train tickets so that it is not more attractive to take the plane. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet, Mr. Speaker, believe that the government should return with a proposal that means that refunds for train tickets shall be made within seven days.

In the government's proposal, more situations are introduced where the train companies are no longer obliged to compensate passengers when a departure is delayed or cancelled. According to the proposal, passengers in local and regional traffic shall not have the right to a price reduction if a delay has been caused by extreme weather conditions that the carrier could not avoid or prevent the consequences of.

Vänsterpartiet considers this to be a clear deterioration of consumer protection for everyone who travels by train. The transport systems are complex, and it must therefore be clear who a passenger should contact if they are affected by a delayed or cancelled departure. It must be clear whether passengers are to be compensated or not in a specific instance. The government's proposal means in practice that the carrier will no longer be obliged to offer compensation in circumstances that can be attributed to external factors.

External factors account for almost one-third of all railway disruptions. Still, the government says the need for such a limitation is not particularly great. But it sounds completely unreasonable that one-third of all train passengers traveling today will no longer be entitled to compensation in the event of delays. They will be hit hard.

In addition to the fact that this will erode the consumer rights perspective, it will also lead to fewer people wanting to take the train if they know that they can no longer receive compensation in one-third of all instances when they take the train. This will only lead to more people choosing to opt out of the train and instead choosing car or flight. Consequently, emissions in society will continue to increase.

Mr. Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet are not surprised, however. We have a government that, for the first time in 20 years, is increasing greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them, according to the Climate Policy Council.

Vänsterpartiet combines climate and environmental initiatives with a policy for justice, because they are connected. Therefore, a well-functioning and fair ticketing system for the trains is important for our train passengers and our future climate.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We humans both want and need to transport ourselves. We travel to work, the store, or the dentist. We visit friends, and we go on holiday. Regardless of how and where we live, we need to transport ourselves.

We are simultaneously becoming more and more numerous and need to take into account how our transports affect both others and ourselves. Traveling by public transport is a way to save resources and is often the environmentally better alternative if one disregards walking or cycling. The emissions from a train journey are usually minimal, and even the bus is significantly better from a climate perspective than traveling by car or flying.

There are, therefore, great advantages if more passenger transports can be moved to trains, especially if we are to reach the world's climate goals. But there are also many of us who want to take the train because we genuinely enjoy traveling by train and want to see a bit more of the world. The interest in train travel during holidays is also growing steadily.

However, it is not always easy to travel by train, and it is certainly not the easiest. Delays are often something one needs to get used to. Booking a train journey to Italy or France can sometimes require a university degree in train timetables and simultaneously require that one masters train terms in several different languages. Once on the train, the information can often be insufficient, and one can feel quite alone when suddenly finding oneself standing on an unmarked platform somewhere out in Europe.

For everyone's sake, it needs to become much simpler and more reliable to travel by public transport and by train, whether it is to get to work or to go on a holiday trip to Italy.

Mr. Speaker! The EU's rail passenger regulation, which we are debating today, aims to provide passengers with better protection and to encourage increased rail travel. This is, of course, a very good intention, and there are several points in the new regulation that make travel safer. The requirements for information are tightened, and rebooking is facilitated in certain cases. The possibility of taking a bicycle on a train will also likely increase in the long run. The rights of persons with disabilities are also strengthened.

I do not, however, believe that the new train passenger regulation will completely fulfill what it was intended to solve - increased and simpler travel. With the proposal that we will vote on today, there are even deteriorations for travelers, not least for all those who travel by train locally and regionally.

In the EU's rail passenger regulation, new legislation will be introduced that will not apply to local and regional train journeys. In Sweden, this applies to train journeys under 15 mil. These journeys shall continue to be regulated in the law on public transport passengers' rights. A change is now proposed, however, even for public transport passengers, which provides an exception from the passenger's right to a price reduction if a delay is due to an extraordinary event such as extreme weather conditions or a major public health crisis. No such exception has previously existed in either the 2007 rail passenger regulation or in the law on public transport passengers' rights, and we believe that this new addition should be deleted. The proposal means that many more than today risk being left completely without compensation when a journey is cancelled. The proposal implies a clear deterioration of consumer protection for, for example, job commuters, who can already today be significantly affected by heavy snowfall, sun curves, or leaf slip.

Mr. Speaker! I also consider that this would have been a very good opportunity to move forward with the proposal from the previous investigation on a national ticketing system for all public transport in order to further improve the possibilities of traveling by public transport and to facilitate train travel and booking trains. The Moderates spoke here about deregulation, but deregulation also creates new needs.

EU's new rail passenger regulation

In the new train passenger regulation, there are improved opportunities to purchase direct tickets. However, there are no requirements that all different transport companies must offer tickets within common platforms. That different carriers have different ticketing systems and booking methods complicates things when booking train tickets. I am convinced that a common ticketing system would facilitate things for public transport users and train travelers and further facilitate access to direct tickets. I believe that there is still a great deal to be done to make it easier and smoother for everyone who wants to use public transport.

With these words, I wish to move for approval of Miljöpartiet's reservations 1 and 5.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

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