(cont. from § 10) Professional transport and taxi (cont. TU14)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It was quite interesting to listen to the member and his description of history. During the previous parliamentary term, I had probably closer to a hundred debates with various ministers from the Social Democrats about precisely the problem of criminal activity on the roads. Nothing happened, but now, all of a sudden, something is to be done about this. Why was nothing done during the first eight years? That is a question we can ask ourselves.

I go back to this regarding the Swedish Transport Agency. I do not understand why there is such insistence on only going halfway instead of really taking a proper grab at the issue and getting a solution. If we are to manage the controls on the road, the one performing them must have support in the legislation. We must have the whole package ready. Should some civilians be sent out? We have that, in any case, today; we have the vehicle inspectors who work within the police organization. But here, it is apparently a question of starting a new agency.

Then it is significantly better to place this within the police organization, where this already exists, and train the staff so that they can do the job from the moment the vehicle stops until the man is finished and has completed a conclusion. If we are to have a civil organization out there doing this, it must constantly have support from the police. That is how it works; one only has to read the legislation. It is clear in the regulations of who is allowed to stop a vehicle and, above all, in the regulations of what may be done when a fault is detected.

You have to read up on this, Kadir Kasirga. It becomes a bit ridiculous to just throw out something about having a professional traffic inspection. It must, in fact, also have the toolbox.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Member Thomas Morell!

I am a bit tired of the rhetoric that Member of Parliament Thomas Morell pretends that he masters the entire legislation and that we Members of Parliament from the Social Democrats do not read the legal text, and so on.

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost: Member of Parliament Thomas Morell is engaging in historical distortion when it comes to what the previous government did. We actually ensured that the rules were tightened. We introduced harsher sanctions, and above all, we ensured that the mobility package was put in place. Now these tools are here, but when it comes to the mobility package, we also want to follow up on how the implementation has gone. It would be very interesting to see how it works.

The reason we insist on a professional traffic inspection is that we have a regular dialogue both with the employer side and with the workers' organizations, such as Transportarbetareförbundet and Sveriges Åkeriföretag. They request more controls, and they also advocate for a professional traffic inspection.

Actually, I see no conflict in this issue, because I hear from the government and the Sweden Democrats that one should try to establish a section or unit within the Police Authority. The previous investigation, which we commissioned, also actually advocated for that, but a professional traffic inspection is very important for the business sector.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This is getting a bit strange. We were going to arrange a meeting with the taxi industry and discuss the conditions there, but both the Transport Workers' Union and the Social Democrats said no to the meeting. So, it is not that great of a commitment one has to address the problems in an entire industry. If we are really going to do something, we must join forces and move forward.

One must, however, have the legislation with them; I don't understand that it should be so difficult to understand. It is clear that you do not have a grasp of the legislation, Kadir Kasirga. You talk all the time about having spoken with employer organizations, employee organizations, and so on. You have also spoken with Sveriges Åkeriföretag, and that is good – it is one of my old employers. I had their CEO with me last week, and then we discussed this matter regarding controls on the road.

We were in agreement that we must have a powerful organization out there. In that case, one must utilize the authority that today has all the legal basis to do the job. Otherwise, one must go in and redo everything in the entire traffic legislation to explain who is allowed to do what. In the event that an error is detected, there must be support in the legislation to proceed. One avoids the work of changing everything in the legislation when the authority that is designated to perform controls on the road organizes the work. In that case, one gains an enormous amount.

Furthermore, one has the entire register available, including all the laws needed to be able to use force, should that situation arise. You must understand the complexity of conducting a roadside check – it is not just about stopping a car and saying "Good day!", one must have support for almost all the measures one takes against the individual and the company out there.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! This is very remarkable. Member Thomas Morell talks about joining forces, but when the Social Democrats, together with the rest of the opposition, propose a committee initiative to conduct a review of the taxi industry or appoint a professional transport inspection for stricter controls, the Sweden Democrats vote with the Tidö government. The talk about joining forces is, therefore, a bit transparent.

The legislation may be outdated – it may be so. That is precisely why we see that it is important that we conduct a review of, for example, the taxi industry. What do the Sweden Democrats do? What proposals do the Sweden Democrats bring to the committee? What questions have the Sweden Democrats pushed forward towards the government?

We are now in the fourth year of this parliamentary term, and the only thing I have heard from the Sweden Democrats and Member of Parliament Thomas Morell is that they have a very good dialogue with the department and pleasant coffee breaks. Unfortunately, that is the result of the SD government's – the Tidö government's – work.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In 2019, this chamber decided to introduce a reduction obligation, and it was done with a model that was increasing. Quite quickly after that decision was made, I began to be approached, primarily by people in the transport sector but also by people in the countryside, who stated that the price structure that is now emerging does not work.

I note now – partly in the debate in general, and partly in the debate that we all carry out with one another online, in newspapers and in other contexts – that above all the Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Centre Party and the Left Party argue that the price increase that is currently occurring is due to the oil price.

Mr. Speaker! I still think it is very important that we in this chamber stick to basic facts. One of the most basic is that this decision was about a progressive model. If we had followed that decision, we would today be at approximately 50 percent blending for diesel and somewhere around 15 percent for gasoline – it is simply not technically possible to mix in as much in gasoline. If we had been at 50 percent with current oil prices and not made tax cuts, and then placed VAT on this, the price picture right now would have been 35–40 kronor. The price picture is just over 20 kronor. That is how our government acts.

But I still must ask the Social Democrats: You voted yes in 2019. You have not since shifted, unlike us Christian Democrats – I actually managed to get my party to shift on this issue. If the danger is present, will you raise the reduction obligation to these 50 percent that you once in time voted yes to?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Jacobsson for the question.

I am not aware of the 50-percent reduction obligation that we Social Democrats would have advocated for. That is not correct. During this parliamentary term, we have submitted proposals regarding Sweden's fuel prices. During the crisis in the Middle East and the crisis around the Strait of Hormuz, we have also submitted proposals that the government should act.

It sounds very good when the member brings up this issue and focuses on the fuel prices. I can only say: It is a short-term relief for the industry. We are now talking de facto about the transport sector. It is good that reliefs are being made, but it does not solve the underlying problems in the industry. Serious companies are still being competed out by fraud from unserious companies. The controls are still too weak. It takes more than cheap diesel to create a functioning transport sector.

My question back to Member Magnus Jacobsson is: Why do you vote against proposals that focus on how to tackle the cheating in this sector, for example through a professional traffic inspection or by appointing a review of the taxi industry?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have great respect for the fact that a member who is new to the committee has not followed exactly what happened during the previous term. The fact remains, however: In 2019, the Social Democrats voted for a model which, at the current time, if we had not repealed this model, would have given approximately 50 percent blending for diesel, and then we would have had a fuel price somewhere between 30 and 40 kronor. This can each person who is interested examine themselves by looking at the minutes that exist.

But let me take another question, Mr. Speaker. This government allocates 1,171 billion to infrastructure – approximately half railway, half road. Half of that half is then maintenance. We allocate 354 billion to maintenance. Why do we do that? Well, the road is the most important work environment for professional traffic, together with the cabin or the vehicle one works in.

Many people forget it, but Trafikverket stated four years ago that the maintenance debt would increase if the previous plan were implemented. With the strategy and the plan we are now moving forward with and with the budget we have adopted, the maintenance debt will be built down over twelve years.

Judge my surprise, Mr. Speaker, when the Social Democrats in their budget proposals allocate 45 billion less for maintenance. This means, therefore, that the maintenance debt will not be built down over twelve years. It is 13 percent less for maintenance on the way. This means that the working environment will continue to be poor. Calculated for this year, it would take 14–15 years before the maintenance debt was gone.

Mr. Speaker! Let me ask the question: Why are you making this prioritization when it is so important that we address the maintenance debt?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is very good that the government is investing in road maintenance, but we also think it is very important that the historical maintenance debt that exists on the railway side is paid off. When we meet the business community, the railway is very important. And it is not important just for the business community; it is important for all of Sweden, both for passenger transport and for freight transport.

But we are talking about professional transport and taxis today, and the questions remain. Yes, the maintenance debt on the roads must be paid off, but the cheating on the roads still persists. The unserious actors remain. How are we going to tackle this? What has the government done in these issues? Four years have passed, an entire parliamentary term.

This government is engaged in lowering taxes for the very richest. They are borrowing 360 billion kronor to lower taxes. We have received 100,000 more unemployed. That is the result we have in our hands when it comes to the Tidö government and the Sverigedemokraterna.

Mr. Speaker! I hope that Member Jacobsson, in his main speech, will give an update to the taxi drivers sitting in the gallery on what is intended to be done for their situation. Will a review of the taxi industry be commissioned and will the unserious actors be stopped?

(Applause)

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! This will be an interesting discussion. The Social Democrats propose that a professional traffic inspection should be established to handle the illegalities out on the roads. Today, we have a police force that has a monopoly on violence and can handle such parts out there, plus a number of other authorities that are to back them up. The Social Democrats apparently do not think that part holds. Now, a number of officials employed at some kind of professional traffic inspection are to go out and check what is happening on the road.

Then my question is: What powers will they have out there? Can they arrest a person who has done something illegal? Can they tear apart the entire car and go through it? What powers do they have if a situation arises where the police need to be involved? Will they then stand there with their notebook and say "We will call the police soon," or do they have some kind of powers?

This feels like a pure desk product from the Socialdemokraterna that lacks a significant amount of grounding in reality. We have authorities that are to manage this. We put pressure on the authorities so that they can manage this. We give the police resources and financial strength to manage to gear up and take care of the crime that you left behind after eight years. It was a situation that escalated unchecked.

Now we have broken off a part of that piece. We are on our way. Your answer to this is that a professional inspection shall solve the problems we have out on the roads. Then I want to find out: What does Kadir Kasirga consider this inspection should have for powers? What should it do on the road after this long investigation?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Bergheden for the question.

I hear that Bergheden also engages in a bit of historical distortion when it comes to what previous governments have done and have not done.

The truth is, as I have mentioned previously, that we ensured the mobility package was implemented. We tightened the penalties and the rules and introduced clamping, cabotage, and so on. Member Bergheden is aware of this, but he still chooses to spread a different version.

When it comes to the professional transport inspection, there are very many skilled, competent authorities in Sweden: Transportstyrelsen, Trafikverket, the police, and Skatteverket. It is not member Kadir Kasirgas's task to speak about what powers those who are to work at the professional transport inspection should have. An investigation shall come forward on how it should proceed. We do not engage in micro-management.

I know that it is possible to give powers to staff and employees. You will actually do that soon. There is a government bill coming to the Riksdag concerning the manipulation of tachographs. Vehicle inspectors will receive more competence and be able to act. That is good. We welcome that. Why would one not be able to do the same at a commercial vehicle inspection? There are competent authorities, and there are competent employees. This can be solved. Politics is about will, and this government lacks that will.

(Applause)

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is good and well that the member believes that everything can be solved with will. But in the response, I found nothing that this labor inspectorate would have the authority to do. An investigation would look into it and, after a number of years, come up with some proposal. But there are already authorities today that are actually supposed to handle this part, and we are now ensuring that they receive the powers and instruments to manage it. Nevertheless, the Social Democrats propose that this should be solved with an investigation and a review. Then something will happen, but we do not really know where it will land. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is a bit like a desk product without any grounding in reality.

I would like to take the opportunity now that I have Kadir Kasirga here to discuss competitiveness. Will you in the Social Democrats return to the plan you had for the reduction obligation and raise taxes again if you take office? A lot is missing in your budget. You need to finance those things. Will you return to the reduction obligation, which, for example, means that diesel is to rise to a 66 percent reduction obligation in 2030, as was in your plan? Will you raise taxes again? Will we get 10–15 kronor more expensive diesel and gasoline? You need to answer that before the election. How have you intended to do this?

You often talk about the environmental goals, and an instrument for you, together with Miljöpartiet, is to significantly raise fuel taxes and fees, and to vacuum up Europe for biofuels and other things. I want to know if that plan is fixed. If one regains a position of power after the election, does one return to that plan and raise the taxes by 10–15 kronor for diesel and gasoline, or have you come up with other ideas? How, in that case, are you going to finance your budget, where there is a shortage?

(Applause)

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! There are no announcements from the Social Democrats about increasing any reduction obligation by 66 percent. I do not know where the member is getting that information from. But I want to remind Member Sten Bergheden that we also have obligations towards the EU. There is something called Fit for 55, which this chamber and also the government have stood behind. Does the member and the government mean that they will depart from that agreement?

The industry – now we are talking about the transport sector and the automotive industry – is crying out for electrification and clear political guidelines. The government has spread uncertainty. The automotive industry is worried about losing ground in Europe and against the rest of the world. But it is not Bergheden or Sverigedemokraterna who are interested in that. They talk about diesel prices and gasoline prices. It sounds like one will soon launch a perfume that smells like gasoline. That is how important it is. But the future is electrification. Listen to the industry and the business community! There lies the answer.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In the report we are debating today, 31 different motions are handled. It concerns professional transport and taxi. Professional transport is the bloodstream of a functioning society. In the same way as approximately 90 percent of all transports to and from Sweden are carried by boat, about 80 percent of all freight volume within the country is transported by truck. Many companies all around Sweden are completely dependent on these transports as they, in practice, keep their inventory on the truck. There are also many shops, especially grocery stores, that are completely dependent on the transport system functioning.

If it were to go just a few days without the transport system being operational, it would mean major problems for everyone living in a larger city. One can simply state that without a functioning transport system, Sweden stands still. This is extra serious given the situation in Ukraine. We have much we need to learn from that.

Another important part, in addition to those who do the work and are in the transport system, is that which we have to some extent already debated, namely to tackle the maintenance debt. If one does not invest heavily in upgrading our roads, there is a great risk that what falls behind will be the maintenance in the countryside. I believe that many of us who come from outside the larger cities have that feeling. The large cities tend to get what they need. It is further out in the system that it takes time. Therefore, I am very concerned about the Social Democrats' budget.

I have great respect for the desire to invest in railways, and we will soon debate that as well. But 80 percent of all transports occur on roads. That is why the government has invested in maintenance. That is why the government has invested in support for individual roads. That is also why the government has invested so incredibly much in building up the BK4 system. It is about getting a functioning transport system.

We are well aware that the transport sector accounts for approximately 36 percent of carbon emissions. Industry accounts for 30–33 percent. These are large figures. Often in the debate, it almost sounds, Mr. Speaker, as if Sweden were a bad country. But the truth is that we account for 0.1 percent of the world's total emissions. This should be compared with China, which accounts for 33 percent, or the USA, which accounts for 12 percent, and India, which accounts for 7 percent. If, through our technological development, we were to succeed in exporting our expertise to China so that their emissions decrease by one percentage point, that is a greater environmental contribution than all the punitive measures that the previous government subjected ordinary Swedes to in the countryside and in cities.

If we succeed with our technological development and get cars, aviation, and shipping to function in a more environmentally friendly way, it will have an incredible effect on the environment. That is why we Kristdemokrater proudly say that we stand for a Swedish environmental policy, but that it is built on cooperation within the EU. Today there is the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, where one simply pays for CO2 emissions. Here, we Kristdemokrater, with Peter Kullgren at the forefront, have presented a proposal to include goods produced with coal power. The difference is that we believe that one should be able to place a tariff on this. The red side tends to say that the citizens in Sweden should factor in the CO2 fee or CO2 emissions in the goods they buy. This means that our citizens should take responsibility twice for the environmental emissions. First, we are to take responsibility for our own, and then we are to take responsibility for other countries' emissions. It is a completely unreasonable position.

The reasonable position is that we take responsibility for our environmental emissions. Then we tax via tariffs in a common European effort so that China and other countries begin to take responsibility for their emissions. That is the reasonable position, not that we should punitively tax our transports and our citizens.

Another measure that the government has worked a lot on is BK4 roads. The purpose is longer and heavier vehicles. Can we get such [roads] – I personally think Finland is a role model with this – improved environment would be the result.

We from the Christian Democrats hold fast to Fit for 55 and net-zero emissions by 2050, but we want to work within the European system. To be completely honest: Sweden is a pioneer. We have no reason to be ashamed. However, that does not prevent us from continuing to work with fuels and electrification. But if we are to succeed with this, we have the next problem, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone in the transport sector is talking about electrification today. All parties agree that we should try to get professional traffic and freight flows to transition to electrification or hydrogen, which is another variant of electrification. There is only one small problem: If we are to succeed with this, there must be power transmission and power in the right place at the right time.

That is why we Christian Democrats highlight hydropower – small-scale hydropower – and nuclear power. We cannot rely on temporary gusts of wind or daily sun without storage capacity.

Mr. Speaker! We will continue to fight for an environmental policy that ensures we have a strong commercial transport sector and a strong environmental profile, but this must be done together with the business community, simultaneously with an energy development and together within the EU.

A question that I have raised many times here in the chamber and have reason to raise again is distance-based taxation. Here, we in the Christian Democrats do not have all our friends in the government with us, but this is, after all, a debate that also concerns what individual parties think.

I was quite alone in raising the issue during the previous parliamentary term. Furthermore, I was quite alone when I said that we also must abandon the idea of surplus targets, but I am glad that we have a balance target today. One must have goals and economic systems that allow one to invest for the future.

What is the advantage of the distance-based [model]? Well, one can phase out today's vehicle and fuel tax and have a taxation based on distance. That is what the Germans have done. Today we have the Eurovignette system. It has been abandoned by practically everyone except Sweden and Switzerland. Sooner or later we will have to find a new model. The Germans have already worked out a new one such.

The advantage of such a distance-based taxation is that one can include other things, for example, the vehicle's environmental performance. One can include the road tolls so that they do not need to sit on a camera, but instead, one works with them digitally. I and we Kristdemokrater hope that sooner or later more will look at this issue.

The truth is that if we succeed with the electrification and if we get more people to drive electric cars, there will be fewer who pay for the road. Today, it is those who fuel with gasoline and diesel who pay for the road maintenance. But when you drive an electric car, you also wear down the road, Mr. Speaker. This question we will sooner or later have to look at.

There is something else that is important to highlight, namely our rest areas and the safety for those who work in the systems. I have on several occasions raised my travels to Ukraine, and I can state that Poland is a leading country. In their road systems, they have built up gas stations, parking spaces, and opportunities to shower. One can stop and sleep safely for a night, because one knows that there are people in motion. Here we have, regardless of the color of the flag, that is to say the parties, something to look at.

Mr. Speaker! In the debate, questions have been asked about the taxi industry. Here I want to be clear. The Christian Democrats are generally positive towards technological development. A fantastic development is underway. Different apps and systems are emerging. Most likely, there will soon be self-driving vehicles, which will change a good deal of the industry.

For my part, I believe that we need to look at the Danish model. If I did not answer in the exchange earlier, my answer now is that I believe we will have to look at the Danish model. There, they have linked the apps to the taximeter. It becomes very strange if some pay the correct tax and others do not.

There are other proposals that the taxi industry has highlighted regarding how, for example, prices should be regulated. I am considerably more skeptical about those; I am classically conservative. But if an individual citizen is to be able to judge whether a taxi price is reasonable, perhaps it could be a proposal that had a recommended price per kilometer. Whether it is the Consumer Agency or someone else who sets it matters less. Today, it is very difficult to be a customer in Sweden. One does not know what a normal price per kilometer for a taxi is.

It is the same when municipalities procure, Mr. Speaker. Then one can choose not to take the lowest price, but instead take a price with quality. If one as a customer is to be able to make the right assessment, one should know what constitutes a quality price. The Consumer Agency could consider that.

Mr. Speaker! At this time last year, I was addressed by Heie. The question concerned people with disabilities and the phenomenon of transport services. I answered at the time that I actually had no idea. I might have wrapped it up a bit more, but that was what I actually said.

This year, Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed trying to get a bit of an idea. I have listened to those who work with this, including the association for the visually impaired, and I am a bit surprised that we are not moving faster here. I share the view that has been put forward: If one is visually impaired, one needs to be able to get help from door to door.

This is something that I promise – not that the government will carry it out, for that I cannot promise, but I promise that I myself will continue to highlight the issue. I can imagine the situation if one is visually impaired and is left in the wrong place. Then it is not so easy to get the right way. This is an issue that one needs to take to heart.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee report and against all motions.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Jacobsson, for the presentation! It contained many different parts. Thank you also for the answer to last year's inquiry! However, it leaves a fair amount to be desired, and I have a few questions to ask.

I did not hear the member mention exemptions for certain vehicle transports. We know that the possibility of special transports of various kinds is important for the entire business sector. There is an announcement from 2020 and results from 2024. There are writings in the report from 2025, and now we have 2026. Trafikverket said in 2025 that if the government ever changes the rules, it will take an additional two years before it is implemented.

We are starting to speak about ten-year periods in order to be able to address problems like these. I see the member nodding and also seems to think that this is not okay. However, there are opportunities to do more in a relatively short time.

The Acceleration Office, a function under the government, has pointed out that time is money. These are very large costs, and even these matters were mentioned in last year's debate. Therefore, one of my questions is: When will exemptions for certain vehicle transports come? One is so happy that one now has it.

There is a concern out there that one will have to install tachographs for international transport in both heavy and lighter vehicles. The member himself lives in border areas, and it is the neighboring municipality that one often turns to when needed. Here we have a number of horse girls and horse boys who travel to competitions from Bohuslän to Norway, and some from Skåne to Denmark. One is therefore going to have to install tachographs because it concerns international freight transport. I have heard that concern from the horse industry, and I wonder if the member can clear up the question marks.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the horse transports, I cannot clarify the question marks, as this is a process that is ongoing both nationally and internationally within the EU. I do not believe, based on what I know, that this has been fully processed yet, so in that regard, I owe you the answer.

Regarding the exemptions, I have made a large number of study visits. I have personally been out and looked at, among other places, Gothenburg. It is a fantastic city, and construction is happening everywhere. It can be about as simple as adding or removing a crane. I simply share the member's view: This is something we should have come up with faster. I don't actually believe that it has a budget impact.

One can sometimes think that four years is a long time. I can think that four years is a short time. One forms a government, and then one is supposed to sit down and start working on the first issues – and then more and more issues come. I would probably like to say that we have to take that matter with the exemptions into the next mandate period, once we have won the election.

It is the same thing with the transport service issue. I do not think there will be time now; the list of government bills is largely closed. But it is an issue that at least I will carry with me into the election and into the future work. It is the same thing with transport service – it is not an issue that costs the state money. It is an issue that, on the other hand, will cost municipalities and regions money. It will be a question of responsibility. But if we are to have an equal society, those who are visually impaired must also have equal opportunities.

I will therefore take both of these questions with me. Regarding the question of these transports, as said, work is ongoing, and I have no answer before it is finished.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! The rules for international transport and transport with lighter vehicles will begin to apply on July 1, 2026. There is therefore a bit of a sense of urgency regarding getting this right.

When it comes to the fact that exemptions for certain vehicle transports would not be budget-impacting, Trafikverket says that it would still cost approximately 12 million to introduce that service from their side, if they were to take full responsibility for it. So it is clear that it still has some budget impact.

I would like to move on to another question. The member says that we have no reason to be ashamed when the emissions from traffic have increased as significantly as they have – so be it. But when it comes to heavy traffic, I feel that there is a concern. The member is very involved in the professional traffic, but we also have our two large truck suppliers. There is a concern that there is not enough speed in the work to move towards electrification, because it will hit the industry hard.

The member mentioned the threat from China in various ways themselves. Both Volvo and Scania highlight the lack of agility from the government's side and that the system for obtaining support to purchase heavier trucks is cumbersome. I wonder how the member views the continuation. Are there parts in the government's work that are now being looked at, or perhaps even prepared, to in different ways speed up the possibility of support for those who choose to purchase an electrified truck? What does the representative for the minister's party say about this? Does the member take Volvo's and Scania's concern seriously?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have a bit of difficulty understanding the question, if I am to be completely honest. When it comes to our two truck manufacturers, 90–95 percent of all vehicles go to export – I have seen that figure somewhere. It is not the Swedish market that determines their technological development.

What is a problem, however, is when every individual country has separate rules, in the same way as when individual municipalities step in and create separate rules. This is often done on both the housing and transport side. Each individual municipality then thinks they are more environmentally friendly than the neighbor, and individual countries think they are more environmentally friendly than other countries.

It is this that has caused Europe to fall behind economically. One can look at the entire European situation, compared to the situation in, for example, the USA – we have fallen behind economically. It is correct that we have taken more environmental measures than the Americans, even though they have actually also reduced some of their emissions and worked with them. But they are still one of the large emitters in the world.

If we are to favor our companies, we shall do so by being tough when it comes to having common rules of the game on the European market. Having separate rules in each individual country complicates things for the industry. Having different rules in different countries for what connections one has or what mixtures one has, etcetera, makes it difficult for the business community.

The answer to your question is that we shall hold fast to the European goals. We shall negotiate within the EU. Then we shall work based on the common objectives. In this way, we benefit Swedish business, and in this way, we will also ultimately improve the climate.

(Applause)

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating professional transport and taxi. I want to use my time in the speaker's chair today to talk about the taxi industry, because there is much to say and much that needs to be done.

That the Swedish taxi industry has major structural problems is confirmed unanimously by the industry's various actors. The transport companies, i.e., the employer side, describe the taxi industry as an industry that shows all the signs of becoming a serious social problem. Transportarbetareförbundet describes a crashed taxi industry. Taxiunionen, which organizes drivers who work for the platform companies, describes the working conditions as modern slavery. When Taxiunionen's chairman visited the transport committee earlier in the spring, in March, he said: I have never worked in an industry that is as broken as the taxi industry – I can hardly believe that this is Sweden.

The problem has therefore been clearly and distinctly described for a long time. What is missing is the political response. The taxi industry does not need another debate where we describe the problems; what is needed is a clear policy that addresses the problems and changes what does not work today.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish taxi industry was deregulated in 1990, and at that time, it moved in a short period from a strict regulation of the industry to a very extensive deregulation. Already in 1991, that is the year after the deregulation, we from Vänsterpartiet submitted a motion where we pointed out that measures were quickly needed to rectify the negative consequences of the deregulation. We then, in 1991, highlighted worsened working conditions as well as over-establishment in some places and under-establishment in others. We also highlighted a situation where serious actors risked being competed out.

It is therefore essentially the same problem as today, 35 years later, still waiting for a solution. It is also why we from Vänsterpartiet push that a larger review of the taxi industry needs to be carried out to address the structural problems that are linked to the deregulation.

Mr. Speaker! Deregulation fundamentally changed the taxi industry, but so has the establishment of platform companies in the Swedish labor market. The platform companies build their business model on a combination of high service fees and low prices, while simultaneously taking zero employer responsibility. It is a combination that creates a completely unsustainable working situation and what Taxiunionen describes as modern slavery.

We know what it looks like. We know that there are drivers who are forced to drive twelve hours a day, seven days a week, and still have difficulty making it work.

We know that it is not worthy, and we know that it is not traffic-safe. The platform setup in its current form also means that there is no counterparty that can be held accountable. There are only algorithms and a platform. This leads to exploitation, and it also erodes the Swedish model. It also leads to an unhealthy competitive situation where the platform companies dump conditions and prices for an entire industry.

Now it is very important what is done with the investigation on the platform directive and how it is to be implemented into Swedish legislation. The Government has previously, when it gave the investigation its mandate, clarified that persons who work for platform companies shall have good working conditions. That is what the Government has said. Here I completely agree with the Government, but we can all observe that we are very far from that target image today.

The new law on platform work must be put in place quickly. The law must also contain clear rules that force the platform companies to take employer responsibility when it is they who, in practice, control the work. This is what must happen now.

But also another thing was needed, Mr. Speaker, and it concerns the pricing of taxi journeys. After the deregulation of the taxi industry, free pricing of taxi journeys prevails in Sweden. Today, the same journey can vary very significantly in price. The price difference is so great that it cannot be described as anything other than either overpricing, i.e., extortionate pricing, or price dumping. To counter overpricing, the requirement for a transparent comparison price needs to be clarified, and to counter price dumping, a minimum price, i.e., a price floor, needs to be introduced. It is about a minimum price for what a taxi journey may cost. This is needed because very low prices always come with a cost. Someone always has to pay the price.

The price dumping affects the working conditions to the highest degree. But it also affects traffic safety and quality. Introducing a minimum price is therefore a way to protect healthy competition, restore confidence in the taxi industry, and strengthen traffic safety – all at once.

Minimum price is a very important tool that should have already been introduced. But it is also fully possible to make that decision here today by approving the Left Party's reservation number 9, which I hereby move to approve.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In a motion that Vänsterpartiet has raised in this report, one is back at this with a professional inspection. But one cannot discern how Vänsterpartiet intends for the whole thing to work, who is to do what, and what measures are to be taken if errors are discovered. That is all well and good.

I agree with the problem description regarding taxis. What is happening is modern slavery. I thought the member was a bit modest when she said they only drove 12 hours a day. 12 hours is what they drive before a break. It goes significantly further than that in some cases.

We need to take powerful measures to tackle this. It is pure and simple human trafficking. People are being exploited in the most extreme way.

I have raised this question, among other things with the police. I often speak with my former colleagues in the traffic police. Now we were supposed to have a taxi seminar here in the Riksdag, but it had to be cancelled because two parties chose not to come. But then the police could have been there and told what they are doing to address this problem.

I would like to assert that it is not the police who are the actual problem, but rather it is the continued prosecution by the prosecutor. Very high evidentiary requirements are set in order to be able to reach the shell companies. We need to go into depth on those issues and, above all, sharpen the legislation where the loopholes exist. It stands wide open, I want to assert. Something must be done about this.

But I am a bit curious and want answers to the question of how it has been thought regarding the Road Transport Agency.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Thomas Morell, for the remark!

The questions regarding the Professional Transport Inspection Authority were answered relatively well by a previous speaker, Kadir Kasirga, so the member has already received a good deal of answers. It is about tightening the inspection of a professional transport sector that is in great need of inspections. There, I believe that I and the member are in complete agreement. This is what it aims for. This is also, just as Kadir Kasirga explained, something that the industry also demands.

How it is to be done has also been described here earlier. I submitted my entire motion on the taxi industry. I also appreciate that the member addresses the motion and its content. I think that is the discussion we need to have.

We have a taxi industry that collectively describes major structural problems. Politically, we need to present a solution to the structural problems. Here, Member Morell, who represents the Tidö parties, also has a special responsibility. He represents a party that has a close dialogue with the governing parties.

We have for four years been up in the speaker's chair here in the chamber and described the problems over and over again. But what has happened is rather that the problems have increased instead of decreasing.

The chairman is in some way also answerable. He agrees with the description of the problem but cannot present any proposals or measures to address this serious problem, other than talking about the Swedish Transport Agency over and over again. I am not saying that it is an unimportant issue, but here we have serious, large problems that require a prompt solution.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, proposals have already been submitted to the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Infrastructure. I can provide the member with a copy of it, so she can read for herself how the reasoning proceeds regarding how the operations should be built up so that one truly addresses what is a concern.

It is truly a huge concern. It is slavery of the worst kind. Often it goes back to the criminal networks that profit and create the economic conditions to conduct other criminal activities. We see it daily. It is shootings, explosions, and everything else it is. They also trade in people. One can go and sit at the computer and order a woman if one feels a bit lonely on a Friday, and it is delivered just as it would be a transport of goods. It is an activity that is so dark that it is completely indescribable.

We must focus on this. We must tighten the legislation. And above all, we must wake up a number of tired police commissioners, I want to say, because they have not understood the seriousness of this.

Then I must ask about what the member said regarding the toilets at the police checkpoints. The police checkpoints are not premises that are accessible to the public. In those premises, an interrogation can actually be taking place, and then one cannot let additional people in there. The police checkpoints are therefore not possible to use for the public's toilet visits, for natural reasons.

Then I can agree that it is crazy to close the inspection points so that the public cannot stop there. But that is a different question. The important thing is actually to get Trafikverket to equip the rest areas we have and, above all, to expand and increase the safety at them.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Thomas Morell, for the input! Control points, functioning rest areas and also safe staging areas, we can talk about for a long time, because there we have much to say.

We can observe that we do not have enough rest areas along our roads today, especially not for heavy, large transports. And that is also why the control points serve a function in the current situation. The member surely knows this well. That is also why the question of toilets comes up in this context. Then, it is absolutely not ideal. But closing control points has exactly the effect that the member was also referring to. Therefore, it becomes a problem.

The distribution of responsibility must also be clarified here. There is a lot that needs to be done in this area.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to return to the taxi industry. Almost every time Member Morell is at the rostrum, I hear him say that we must get more uniformed police on the roads. That is the member's message in this chamber, to a very great extent.

What we propose in our motion is a range of different tools. I have in no way ever heard Member Morell describe anything other than more uniformed police on the roads. We have a clear proposal that is also being pushed very hard by the industry, especially from the drivers who work for the platform companies. Introduce a minimum price now! Ensure conditions for healthy and fair competition!

Here, the member and the member's party also need to answer.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating professional transport and taxis.

Mr. Speaker! The trucking industry in Sweden is of great importance for Sweden's growth and welfare. The trucking industry accounts for the vast majority – 80 percent – of all freight transport in Sweden. The trucking companies handle the goods of Swedish companies and strengthen the competitiveness of other companies. They simultaneously ensure that shops and grocery stores receive regular deliveries.

Road transport exists throughout Sweden, and it therefore provides many jobs all over Sweden. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of us having a functioning market for freight transport in Sweden – also with Swedish trucking companies – seen from a preparedness perspective. At the same time, I actually want to start by extending a thank you to all the drivers who are out on the roads and who sacrifice their family lives to deliver to companies and to retail all over the country. Thank you so very much!

The Liberals want to see a healthy farming industry in Sweden and therefore safeguard fair competition conditions and, above all, that the regulations are complied with.

Freight transport is cross-border, and there is fierce competition within the transport industry. Therefore, the EU's directives and regulations through the mobility packages are important so that we have a regulatory framework that also applies to foreign companies and that supports serious haulage companies. This concerns, for example, the requirement for smart tachographs in both heavy and light trucks. It means that one can see when a truck crosses a national border and that one thereby gets better opportunities to follow the trucks' routes. We must strengthen the work against foreign and Swedish haulage companies that conduct illegal activities. Regulatory frameworks without follow-up mean that many ignore the rules.

Mr. Speaker! The police have been given increased powers. We need to further tighten the controls to prevent cheating with cabotage, driving and rest times, and drunk driving. We also need to check the vehicles to ensure they are roadworthy and contain the correct equipment. In addition to the purely traffic-related requirements, it is also about the fact that trucks are used for criminal activities, such as the transport of narcotics and stolen goods into and out of the country.

In addition to more traffic police who can increase the number of checks, the country's checkpoints and the need for technical equipment must be reviewed to facilitate the traffic police's daily work. The investigation on more efficient checks of commercial traffic on the road to counter crime within the transport sector contains many good proposals. Trafikverket is now working, among other things, on identifying the need for new checkpoints and the need for equipment at the existing ones.

Safe rest areas are a prerequisite for increasing road safety on our roads. A driver must be able to rely on being able to take a rest according to the driving and rest times that apply without being subjected to theft. The rest areas must also not be able to be used as parking spaces over many days and thereby block the possibility for other professional drivers to find a space. Trafikverket is therefore tasked with successively reviewing our rest areas and increasing security.

Mr. Speaker! The trucking industry needs to transition to fossil-free road transport. At the same time, the trucking companies cannot do it on their own. The margins are small in the trucking industry, and the price difference between an electric truck and a fossil-fueled truck is still significant. To increase the demand for fossil-free transport, the government in the autumn budget has allocated 100 million so that the state authorities can order more fossil-free transports. At the same time, all actors within freight handling – from the cargo owners, through the carrier, and all the way to the customer – must come together and see how they can contribute to increase the pace of the transition. These companies can then also use the reduced emissions in their marketing.

The sale of new passenger cars has increased rapidly, and electric cars were approximately one-third of the cars sold in 2025. The number of electric trucks is increasing at a slower pace. Currently, a number of activities are being undertaken to stimulate the transition. The Government has continued a premium for the purchase of heavy and light electric trucks, paired with a support for charging infrastructure. In addition to depot charging, the charging infrastructure along our roads and at rest areas needs to be expanded. The network of biogas stations must also be gradually expanded to meet the increasing demand.

Mr. Speaker! The road network for longer and heavier trucks is increasing progressively. Today, we have 600 miles open for longer trucks, and approximately half of the state roads can handle 74-ton heavy trucks. This is important both from a climate perspective and for competitive reasons. Road maintenance has been sidelined for a long series of years, but now the Liberals, together with the government and the Sweden Democrats, are reclaiming the entire maintenance debt of twelve years through the government's proposition on the new infrastructure plan. It is important both for industrial transport and for military mobility.

Our winter road maintenance is finally starting to improve. In addition to the fact that Trafikverket, together with other state agencies, had greater preparations for bad weather during the last winter, Trafikverket has begun to cooperate with vehicle manufacturers to obtain data on the condition of the roads and receive information about icing more quickly, so that salt and plow trucks can be sent out in time.

Mr. Speaker! The driver shortage is a major problem for the industry. It concerns both trucks, buses, and taxis. A basic prerequisite is that more people take the standard B-license for passenger cars, as it is a gateway to truck and bus licenses. Unfortunately, we see problems with more and more people not being ready at the first attempt; they then do not pass the driving test. But pleasingly, we see an upward trend regarding the number of licenses among young people.

Now the government is presenting a proposal to remove the introductory training. The reason for this is that they want to make it easier for those who are going to take a driving license to practice driving with more adults in their vicinity.

Most trucks and transport buses become heavier when they are equipped with batteries. This has further exacerbated the problem with the driver shortage. With a standard B driving license, one has only been allowed to drive a truck weighing a maximum of 3,500 kilos. The government pushed in the EU so that one could be allowed to drive an electric truck weighing 4,250 kilos with a standard B driving license. This is now included in the adopted driving license directive.

Something else that is in that directive is a lowered age for being allowed to drive a bus – 21 years of age. It gives the bus industry access to more drivers.

The current government has pushed hard for this to become a reality.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, it concerns the taxi industry. It is burdened by competition from illegal taxi companies. So, it cannot continue this way. Compliance must increase. The Transport Agency has received more resources for supervision during the mandate period. A stronger cooperation between a long line of authorities has also been developed to identify companies that do not follow the rules. More roadside checks are being carried out, which unfortunately strengthens the image of an industry that does not follow the rules.

The controls on the road need to increase and the supervision must be intensified. It is necessary for us to be able to achieve a healthy taxi industry with a good working environment.

With those words, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Tonight we are debating professional transport and taxi.

The taxi industry plays a very large role in the Swedish transport system, not least when it comes to accessibility. It is about community travel and everyday mobility throughout the country. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the issue of fair conditions and fair competition within this sector.

Reports of poor working conditions, low compensation, and a growing driver shortage are recurring. At the same time, problems occur, not least in connection with public procurement of public transport where, in some cases, tax money risks falling to actors who compete through unreasonably low wages, unsustainable working conditions, or lack of regulatory compliance.

This situation creates a distorted competition in the market. Serious companies that follow laws and current legislation, pay Swedish wages and offer reasonable conditions, risk being wiped out by actors who do not. It is completely unreasonable that it is that way. Furthermore, the development has been heavily reinforced by the emergence of the so-called gig economy, where drivers sometimes lack the basic security and collective agreements that stable forms of employment have.

Insecure employment and economic pressure on drivers can also jeopardize road safety and the passengers' security. There is a risk that the quality of the operations will deteriorate when drivers are expected to work very long shifts in order to make the finances work out.

Against this background, Mr. Speaker, we see that a substantial review and overhaul of the taxi industry is needed in order to achieve better regulatory compliance, strengthened road safety, and fair competition with improved conditions for employees in the industry. Therefore, we also support reservation 7.

Even within the trucking industry, there is more to be done, not least regarding the working environment. Even here, there are problems with unfair competition from those who choose not to follow applicable laws and regulations. This could, among other things, be remedied with a so-called road wear tax, which could actually level the playing field between truckers.

Then we also have the vehicles themselves. I personally test-drove one of Scania's new heavy electric trucks on their test track in Södertälje. After that, I was allowed to test-drive the fossil-fueled equivalent. I experienced a much more pleasant working environment in the electric vehicle, which is an additional benefit of electrification – naturally, in addition to the fact that we de facto make ourselves independent of fossil fuels from rogue states, reduce our emissions, and benefit leading Swedish companies.

I would like to take the opportunity to address Sten Bergheden's latest statement in our exchange of remarks. I did not have any more remarks left and therefore did not have time to address it.

The government's failed electrification is absolutely not due to an electricity shortage. On the contrary, we have had a constantly increasing electricity surplus in Sweden, especially during the red-green government. High electricity and energy prices were due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the fact that Europe is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, not least from Russia.

The government's policy has, however, completely stalled the electrification. On the passenger car side, we have been overtaken by both Denmark and Finland, which have had an offensive policy, and that makes us more dependent on fossil fuels from rogue states than if we had had a functioning policy for electrification. Even worse it is for heavy vehicles, where we see a very low proportion of electric trucks in new car sales.

Sten Bergheden mentioned that it is about the total cost. One has, therefore, spent approximately 60 billion on subsidizing fossil fuels while simultaneously not having supported the purchase of heavy vehicles. There, one can tinker as one likes; the important thing is, as said, the total cost. It must pay off to buy an electric truck when one is standing and choosing a truck. Therefore, one could have responded by further increasing the investment support for an electric truck. In that case, we have lowered tax on one hand, and then we need to invest even more tax money in supporting the purchases, which leads to increased tax, something the Moderaterna do not usually like. Therefore, I have a bit of difficulty reconciling that logic.

Last but not least, a functioning infrastructure is incredibly important. We have set an offensive investment to reclaim the neglected maintenance on both roads and railways.

Mr. Speaker! Another important issue where several parties agree is that there should be good rest and parking areas that are well-maintained and with facilities for both male and female professional drivers. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 4.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have to stand up and have a discussion here. It feels a bit as if the Green Party is out on a swing bridge when it comes to the conditions for the manufacturing industry. It is not the case that the government's policy has pulled the rug out from under Scania and Volvo when it comes to selling cars. They are, after all, selling quite a lot of electric vehicles. But the majority of what they produce actually goes to export. It was also a bit nice that you actually took the time to go out to Scania and test drive trucks. That was good, because then you have gotten to feel a bit of what the working environment is like for the drivers out there.

What is the situation out there on the country's roads? What sets the conditions for the Swedish trucking industry is simply the open market that one operates in. Politicians do not tell a trucking company what they should do and not do, but rather the trucking company adapts its operations to what the customers are willing to pay. We have a situation in the country where illegal cabotage traffic undermines the conditions for both the serious trucking industry and for freight transport on the railway.

I have several times raised with representatives for the freight transport sector that they are being subjected to competition from illegal traffic. That the illegal traffic takes such market shares is not because they are very good at transporting goods, but it is about the fact that they do not pay anything for the transport. There is also another part to this, and that is that something else accompanies the transports which finances what is missing in the transport assignment itself.

Here you must look at the conditions and at what is the cause and what is the effect. Then we are back to the fact that we must ensure that we get controls on the road.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions, Thomas Morell. I did not perceive that many questions, to begin with, and we seem to be reasonably in agreement. But it is clear that business conditions are affected by the laws and regulations that the government and the Riksdag decide. There we definitely have an impact. It is perfectly clear that we must deal with unserious companies and illegal activities so that we get fair competition.

Then there was the question of electrification. It is certainly true that our truck manufacturers Volvo and Scania are on a global market, but explain to me how they are to market their products if they do not work on the home market? They will have credibility problems even on the global market if their products sell in Sweden. It becomes an important litmus test for someone in another country who wants to buy a truck. It is clear that it plays a major role, and it is clear that we help at least Volvo and Scania by having an offensive strategy for electrification in Sweden. In that way, we show that it works well to electrify.

To this, we also need to expand the charging infrastructure significantly faster than today. Many are concerned about this. I would like to know the Sweden Democrats' position regarding faster expansion of the charging infrastructure for heavy traffic.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me directly ask a straight question. Will you push to increase the reduction obligation if it should be so unfortunate that you enter the government in the autumn? We can sincerely hope that it does not happen.

But let us talk facts. An electric truck, a full-sized rig, costs approximately two to two and a half times more than a traditional truck does. But a haulage owner is not a scout leader, the business must be viable; one must be paid for the work one performs. If the customer is not willing to pay the extra cost, the business will be lost. It is a problem that the electric trucks are not getting out, that is to say, the market is not willing to pay. The customer would rather pay the Bulgarian who drives for peanuts than for the serious Swedish haulage company that has an electrically driven truck – or gas or whatever it may be.

The fundamental problem is that we have left the market free for those who actually circumvent the legislation. It eliminates all reasonable conditions for serious entrepreneurs to conduct their business. This is one of the basic problems. A trucking company owner cannot invest so much money in an electric vehicle if they do not get it back in the form of transport assignments. You must understand that connection.

Another large agricultural company went under the other day. That is the crux. Who is going to buy the electric cars if no one is willing to pay? Instead, criminal activity is being sponsored – that is what we are talking about in plain terms. Here, you must get on board and understand the connections.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is Thomas Morell who needs to sort out the connections. I understand it as him meaning that electric trucks lead to more criminal activity. It became very convoluted at the end. If there are any who need to understand that the calculation must add up, it is this government. Over 60 billion has been spent on subsidies for fossil fuels, but nothing has been done to make it cheaper to buy an electric truck. Then it is obvious that too few electric trucks are sold. It is rather Thomas Morell who needs to understand that equation.

If one lowers the tax on the fossil [fuel], one needs to significantly increase the investment support for an electric truck. We have, moreover, more proposals. The industry itself has proposed a green tax deduction as a way to change the calculation so that it becomes more profitable to invest in an electric truck. Public procurement could be used more offensively. The government did, in fact, move forward with that, but late in the day after four years, too late and too little.

One could further introduce an environmental zone 3 for heavy vehicles in larger areas in our major cities to promote electrification. But the government has done none of this.

I can take the opportunity to address some other absurdities that have been said. No, the diesel price would not have been 30–40 kronor. This is about the fact that we need to get a production of sustainable biofuels started in Sweden. It seems to be difficult for the government to understand that. Here, the legs have been cut out from those who want to make investments in Örnsköldsvik and Skellefteå to produce their own fuels.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is always just as interesting to listen to the Green Party's Linus Lakso. Specifically regarding taxes, Lakso argues that when one lowers taxes, one subsidizes fuel by a number of billions of kronor.

Mr. Speaker! According to the Green Party's view on the matter, the tax burden should be very high. In that case, everything that is done under that becomes a subsidization of the activity. How high a tax burden can one imagine having in the country? You have driven up the reduction obligation, the previous tax that we have lowered. Just as several others have said, we have not received an answer from the Social Democrats on where they stand. It seems that they now want to lower taxes. They are pushing that we need to adapt, go to the EU and lower the taxes on fuel.

Where does the Green Party stand? You have, after all, intended to govern together with the Social Democrats after the election, if it were that bad. Will you return to the norm that we established about having a diesel mix of 66 percent until 2030? Will you push on that part? How have you negotiated this with the Social Democrats? What will the fuel cost for the farming industry if the Green Party takes power in September? Will it be reverted?

Then there was the question of electricity shortages. I was there last winter when there were shock-high prices on electricity. That we start up Karlshamn plant and burn oil, or buy German coal power, is not much better for the environment. I cannot understand why Miljöpartiet is constantly against nuclear power, which is carbon-neutral in these situations. They push for a phasing out of clean fuel and want to buy coal power from Germany instead.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will start from the end. Once again, there is a long series of historical falsifications from Sten Bergheden. The fact is that when the alliance government ruled, we were dependent on imports. At that time, there was an electricity deficit, and we were dependent on imports from German and Polish coal power.

Then we got a red-green government that significantly increased the production of electricity in Sweden. We moved to a large surplus. In 2022, when we handed over government power, Sweden was Europe's largest exporter of fossil-free electricity. That is a fact.

Regarding Karlshamnsverket, the government itself has procured it for reserve power with fossil oil as fuel. It is Sten Berghedens party that has ensured that it is precisely oil that is burned in Karlshamnsverket. That attack becomes a pure own goal by Sten Bergheden.

So we come to the reduction obligation and fuel prices. It seems a bit difficult for Sten Bergheden and other members to understand that there is no self-serving purpose with higher fuel prices, at least not from Miljöpartiet. The goal is, of course, not to have to be dependent on fossil fuels for several different reasons. But that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is, of course, one of the heaviest reasons.

We also see how foolish it is for Sweden's security to be dependent on fossil fuels, not least indirectly from Russia. It undermines our own security when we, through the purchase of fossil fuels, send more money to Russia than we support Ukraine with.

Together with a strong electrification and a reduction obligation at a reasonable level – it looks like perhaps 20 percent is needed to reach the climate goals – we can get a transport sector that transitions and sustainable fuels at reasonable prices.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall ask a straight and simple question that should be simple to answer: What does Miljöpartiet have against nuclear power, given that they constantly want to shut it down? It would be good if we could get an answer to that question. They have been involved in shutting down six nuclear power plants in Sweden.

The second part that Linus Lakso takes up here is surplus. Yes, there is a surplus when the wind blows or when the sun shines. But in Sweden, we cannot run the industry or drive on the roads only when the wind blows or the sun shines. Both the industry and other things must function also on other days of the year. Therefore, we must have better regulating power to make up for that part. That regulating power we now have to buy or produce through oil power plants, because nuclear power plants were previously shut down. Then we end up buying from coal power plants, including from Germany, which has also shut down its nuclear power, encouraged by the green movement in Germany.

Are you really here to save the environment? Or is it more important that we shut down functioning nuclear power plants and get rid of cars in that way? What is the thinking of Miljöpartiet?

I believe it is important that the Green Party reports where they stand on the issue now. The Social Democrats want to take advantage of that issue and are trying to make it seem as if they want low fuel prices, while the Green Party considers it a subsidy when we lower the tax on fuel.

Where does Miljöpartiet stand? Would it not be reasonable for you to present some form of common position? What prices can the voters expect after the election when it comes to diesel and fuel? It is quite important for both the transport industry and companies, the countryside, agriculture, and others that they receive that presentation before the election, so that we do not wake up after the election and receive the shock news then.

(TALMANNEN: This debate is about professional transport and taxi.)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is completely incredible that there is almost no debate that cannot end up becoming a nuclear power debate. But I will nevertheless briefly address it. It was the market that decommissioned that nuclear power. We are not pushing politically to decommission nuclear power. Let the market handle that.

As I just mentioned, we were dependent on imports of German coal power when last Sten Bergheden's party was in power. Now we are not, thanks to the Green Party's policy. That is a fact. We have a power surplus approximately 96 percent of the time. It is the Green Party that has submitted proposals to get more power, what we call green base load. The Moderates have, with Kraftlyftet, copied the Green Party's policy. Congratulations on that!

I have, in many ways, answered regarding fuel prices. There is no self-serving purpose with high fuel prices. One must ask oneself what one thinks the Swedish people actually want if they are given a choice. Do they want to be dependent on fossil fuels from Putin, Trump, Iran, and Saudi Arabia? Or do they want us to ensure that everyone can transport themselves in a sustainable and cost-effective way with energy that we can produce ourselves?

That is precisely why an offensive electrification is needed. With the electric vehicle support for low-income earners in rural areas that we propose, the fuel cost will be equivalent to 5 kronor per liter. That is my answer to Sten Bergheden: It will then cost the equivalent of 5 kronor per liter to transport oneself.

We also want to see significantly cheaper public transport. Since we will, at the very least, address that in the next debate, I can conclude there.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation number 2.

We are debating professional transport and taxi. Sweden is a country built on movement and on innovations. We live on our exports, on the ingenuity that exists and on our ability to connect city and country. Sometimes only the problems are highlighted, but let me today also point out the opportunities.

At the center of all this stands professional transport. Early every morning, thousands of people get behind the wheel to transport goods to our grocery stores, to drive school children to school, and to ensure that our industries have components of various kinds. Professional transport is part of the bloodstream in Sweden, in the Swedish economy.

We must, however, be honest and say that the circulation is strained today. For a long time, the infrastructure has been neglected, and we see a staggering maintenance debt. True that the government has allocated funds to address the maintenance debt, but the professional transport suffers from the effects of it. It is not just about bumps in the road. It is about uncertainty, increased costs for broken vehicles, a deteriorated working environment, and much more.

Centerpartiet wants to see a "Sverigelyft" (Sweden lift), so that we seriously address these parts. It is not enough to patch and repair. Sweden's entire road network must maintain a minimum acceptable standard, regardless of whether the road is in central Stockholm or in inland Norrland.

Right now, when the thaw is occurring in Norrbotten, up to 400 miles of road are closed. No heavy traffic is allowed there, because the roads cannot withstand it. This affects professional transport, and it affects all the companies, not least within the forestry industry, which in different ways need to transport.

We cannot abolish the ice road maintenance. That is not what I mean. But much of the maintenance of our roads needs to be improved. Northern Sweden needs to be reviewed in a different way. Much of the maintenance has indeed gone to the roads that have more traffic. But northern Sweden is extremely important for the entire country's competitiveness when it comes to both our mining industry and our forest industry, but also when it comes to our security. We need to be able to transport heavy goods on those roads.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party wants to see a think-Swedish policy. It is part of the answer to the Tidö government's questions about what should happen with the reduction obligation. We need to ensure that there are Swedish-produced biofuels, so that we can transition in a better way.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to mention the taxi industry. It is an absolute lifeline, not least in our countryside. We have already talked a little bit about the transport service within this area, and we will talk more about it in the next debate. But the taxi issues are important. Taxi is an integrated part of Swedish public transport and of the public transport of the future, when we talk about shared mobility.

Mr. Speaker! From the Tidö parties, we hear words, words, and words, but we see far too little action. How can one be so satisfied when so much is undone? That is precisely what we see in the Swedish government's policy today.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 April.)

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