(cont. from § 15) Road traffic and vehicle issues (cont. TU11)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I reacted to a sentence in the speech, and it was when the member tried to paint the picture that the current government has a negative distribution profile. Based on our combined budgets, it is obvious that we have spent and are spending more resources on those with low incomes than on those with high incomes. We thus have a very good distribution profile.

It is a number of measures that have produced this effect. Many forget that the lowered reduction obligation primarily reaches those with low incomes so that they can take their vehicle to work or drive children to sports activities. The electricity support helped those with the lowest incomes most because they were hit hardest by the high electricity prices, which we inherited. The job tax credit has, purely technically, the construction that it benefits those with low incomes more than those with high incomes, if one looks at the system level. But perhaps the most important thing is that the current government has fought inflation. This leads to lower interest costs, which primarily benefits those with low incomes.

Mr. Speaker! I know that it is a common rhetorical trick of the Social Democrats to, regardless of the debate, insert a sentence about how the awful, harsh right-wing government hits those who are worst off. But it is actually the opposite; our profile constantly reaches those who are worst off. We are trying to get the whole country to function, whether we are talking about transport policy or tax policy.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not call it a rhetorical trick but stark reality, because that is actually how it looks today.

Of course, the fuel cost for many in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas has been great. But different tools can be used to address that. We need to reach the climate goals by the set dates, and the Climate Policy Council says, among other things, that measures such as a stricter reduction obligation and higher taxes on fossil fuels contribute to the greatest emission reductions in the short term. It is not the Social Democrats who are saying this, but the Climate Policy Council, the government's own expert body. This must, of course, be met with measures and reforms that redistribute and alleviate the effects for those who have the smallest margins.

It is hardly those with the smallest margins who benefit most from the government's gigantic tax cuts, but rather the high-income earners. It is therefore not a rhetorical trick, Magnus Jacobsson, and the situation is serious. Inflation has gone down, but what it will be tomorrow we have no idea about. Unemployment in Sweden is one of the highest in Europe, and we have the worst growth. We also have a number of other problems that have caused Sweden to fall behind.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by agreeing with Member Ödebrink on one point. If we had listened to the Climate Policy Council regarding the reduction obligation, it would have had a positive effect on carbon emissions. That is entirely correct. The only party that has been reasonably honest on that issue is the Green Party (MP), which has said that they are prepared to go up to a fuel price of 30, 40, or 50 kronor. But that would have hit those who are in the worst position hard. What I criticized in the statement was precisely the claim that the government harms those who are in the worst position, because if we had listened to the Climate Policy Council's advice on fuel prices, we would have harmed those who are in the worst position.

During the previous parliamentary term, the bourgeois parties had their budget passed on several occasions, and every time we gave more money to municipalities and regions than the Social Democrats and their friends. Thanks to the policy we are now pursuing, including with lowered fuel prices, municipalities and regions save money every month. This has, among other things, resulted in that inflation has been pushed back, and those who know a little about municipal economy know that when inflation skyrockets, the pension debt also skyrockets. Now that we are pushing down inflation, we are also pushing down the pension debt, which means that several thousand employees who risked losing their jobs can continue to go to work. We pursue a policy that takes care of the whole country, whether it is about infrastructure, municipality and region or the individual human being.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! The report covers a number of different areas, but it includes neither pensions nor some of the other things that Magnus Jacobsson takes up.

What I want to focus on is that we need to join forces to reach the climate goals, and the transport sector's emissions are among the largest. The Climate Policy Council points to the reduction obligation. The level has been high, and the current government has lowered it. But now it is going up again. Is the reduction obligation tomorrow's solution? It is a matter of constantly keeping up with the times and finding solutions that allow us to reach the goals and at the same time have a policy that redistributes Sweden's common money.

I cannot claim or agree with Magnus Jacobsson that we have such a policy today. I do not believe that either municipalities or regions are walking around happy about saving a lot of money. That is not quite the picture I get when I am out visiting municipalities and regions.

A lot is going in the wrong direction. A different, more offensive policy is needed for Sweden to have the lead in climate work and in the expansion of charging infrastructure, and so that we can expand and develop services that mean that one might not always need to own a car to have access to a car at the moment one needs it. I do not quite see that current policy meets those needs.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on Road Traffic and Vehicle Issues.

The report concerns the development of road traffic and our vehicle fleet. Road transport accounts for the majority of Sweden's transport, and if it does not function, the everyday lives of everyone, both residents and companies, are affected.

Large parts of our road network were built over 60 years ago. Now, the Liberals, together with the coalition partners, are taking on the maintenance debt for our roads. In the infrastructure bill, it states that this maintenance debt shall be rectified by 2037. Transport must function all the way from start to destination.

It concerns, not least, the possibility of allowing longer and heavier trucks on a larger part of our road network. Longer trucks can be driven on 590 mil road, and heavier trucks of up to 74 tons can be driven on approximately half of our state roads. The roads' load-bearing capacity also has great significance for the mobile load cranes, which have an important function, not least within construction. There, Trafikverket should be able to offer support to the municipalities in the permit processes.

It is important that the state continues to provide significant support to owners of private roads so that the road standards can be maintained. If a public road is converted into a private road, it must not mean that the state's costs are shifted onto the owners of the roads.

Another area is snow removal, where Trafikverket should design the procurement processes towards contractors so that it is possible to perform snow removal for both the state and individual road associations. We have initiated a review of winter road maintenance, because even though it has improved, the coordination of authorities and the preparedness during severe weather needs to be strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! There is a question that dominates the area of roads and vehicles today, and that is the transition of our vehicle fleet and the expansion of the number of charging points. Road transport accounts for over 90 percent of emissions within the transport area, so the Liberals' greatest focus lies there.

In a short time, the entire vehicle fleet will be replaced. The replacement of the majority of the vehicle fleet should be complete in 10–15 years, max. The challenge for society consists of establishing a charging infrastructure that stays ahead of the increase in the number of chargeable cars. For the vehicle manufacturers, the challenge is to produce cars and trucks that can be sold at reasonable prices so that more people and companies can afford a chargeable vehicle.

Both challenges are complex and require cooperation. However, we are on the right track. We have barely 5 million passenger cars in Sweden, and in 2024, 672,000 of them were chargeable, i.e., over 13 ½ percent. It is important that the charging infrastructure keeps pace with the sales development, and there the biggest challenge is charging at multi-family dwellings.

For the cars, it is the price difference between fossil-fueled vehicles and electric vehicles that is the challenge. There, the competition between car manufacturers will press vehicle prices step by step together with the development of car batteries.

From a car buyer's perspective, there is a point in the climate action plan that easy-to-understand information shall be developed where the customer can easily compare different cars based on climate emissions from a life-cycle perspective as well as during operation. This also takes into account how, above all, the battery but also the steel for the body has been produced. This is an issue that I personally have championed for several years in the Riksdag, and now it is finally becoming a reality. The hope is that car customers in the future will choose cars without emissions with the support of a clear climate guide.

Mr. Speaker! The share of sold rechargeable vehicles needs to steadily increase, and the current economic crisis is breaking the positive trend. The forecasts do, however, say that an electric car will cost as much as a fossil-fueled car around 2026. In Norway, one can clearly see that at the same price, sales accelerate, not least because the second-hand value for fossil-fueled cars simultaneously falls since an electric car is cheaper to drive, which further improves the economics when purchasing an electric car. It becomes a positive spiral for the climate. But we are not there yet, so it is important to follow the market closely. In the government's budget for 2025, there is therefore a support for electric car purchases in the countryside.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding heavy vehicles, the number of electric vehicles is increasing steadily but too slowly. The truck premium therefore remains as the proportion of new electric trucks is still far too low. The government has also introduced a premium for light trucks. However, we need to increase the demand for electric trucks, and one way is through environmental requirements in public procurement. The Liberals have, among other things in the European Parliament, pushed to make it possible to set environmental requirements in procurement.

Charging infrastructure for road transport is the single most important measure for the transport sector to be able to transition and eliminate its climate emissions. Today, there are a number of supports and subsidies for the installation of charging boxes at the villa and charging infrastructure along our roads, as well as Klimatklivet with 50 percent support for charging points at multi-family buildings.

This question is also complex as it presupposes that a sufficient amount of electricity can be delivered in a short time for charging where we live, work and travel, but also to transport depots. Building power plants and power grids takes a long time and is a bottleneck in the transition. Here, the government is working focusedly to catch up after the previous government's wrong decisions regarding the decommissioning of nuclear power in southern Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals believe in the idea that the polluter should pay. Since the lifespan of a passenger car is on average 19 years in Sweden, fossil-free fuels are needed for a long time to come to reduce emissions from today's gasoline- and diesel-powered cars.

The war in Ukraine has simultaneously highlighted the issue of emergency stockpiles so that the need for transport can be ensured in the event of a major power outage.

Parallel to this, there is also the question of our cultural-historical heritage in the form of older cars and ensuring that there continue to be fuels for these vehicles on the market. It is important that the cultural-historical car heritage is exempted from the EU's upcoming legislation, which concerns the scrapping of end-of-life cars in Europe instead of exporting them outside of Europe.

Mr. Speaker! Everyone should be able to move in public places, regardless of functional variation. Measures need to be taken to ensure accessibility for persons with visual impairments during transport, not least at bus stops.

The day is coming soon when we will have self-driving vehicles on our roads. The technology has been introduced and is being rolled out progressively. Therefore, it is urgent to review and adapt all relevant legislation so that self-driving cars can be introduced on our roads in a traffic-safe manner. Based on the 2015 report on the introduction of self-driving vehicles in Sweden, a strategy and an action plan were needed for how self-driving cars should be introduced into society. This can also be a solution to a question we have raised here previously regarding vehicle sharing and car pools, not least in our countryside.

In conclusion, I want to say that the Liberals welcome the major investments in the research bill on vehicle strategic research and innovation. Collaborations between universities and the business sector are important pieces of the puzzle for the Swedish automotive industry to be able to continue to be at the forefront.

Within the automotive industry are the largest companies we have here in Sweden. They are, besides being large employers, a strong driver for innovation and development, and they create growth all around Sweden. Their new technology is also utilized in other companies in other industries.

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

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats support all our reservations in the report, but in order to gain time, I move for approval of only reservation 18.

Mr. Speaker! Our roads, similar to our railways, have a maintenance debt that we need to make up for. Exactly how large it is can be difficult to assess, but according to Transportföretagens annual analysis, the maintenance debt in our road network is estimated to amount to 19 billion. These figures are just over a year old. If nothing is done to pay off this debt, it is estimated to have risen to approximately 46 billion in eight years. Since approximately 82 percent of passenger transport work and 53 percent of freight transport work, according to Trafikanalys, is carried out on our roads, it is extremely foolish to let these deteriorate.

Mr. Speaker! It is therefore pleasing that within the Tidösamarbetet we have achieved an initiative on road maintenance which, within the twelve-year planning period, will literally not sweep away but rather asphalt away this maintenance debt. The increased appropriation shall be sufficient to erase the maintenance debt completely.

Swedish industry and retail are dependent on reliable and punctual transport, and the common man needs to be able to get to and from work without risking that potholes smash the rims or that one gets stuck in massive traffic jams. Public transport also benefits from good accessibility so that the timetables are kept and the passengers can feel that they can rely on the buses running.

As a curiosity in this context, I can take the opportunity to mention that the passenger transport work in 2023 was 148 billion passenger-kilometers and that the freight transport work was 98 billion ton-kilometers.

Of the national plan's 1 171 billion, 354 billion is allocated to maintain and reinvest in the state road network.

To get maximum out of maintenance, it is of the utmost importance that Trafikverket improves its work and works efficiently with better management, reduced administrative costs, and contracts where costs are not allowed to run unchecked. Here, the National Audit Office has repeatedly criticized Trafikverket's work, and a lesson must be learned.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to strengthening maintenance, we need to expand and reinvest in the road network. We have soon completed motorway standard on the entire stretch between Malmö and Stockholm, and we are currently building Förbifart Stockholm. But there are several stretches left to address, for example E22 along the east coast, E20 between Alingsås and Skara, Tvärförbindelse Södertörn, E6 between Malmö and Helsingborg which needs six lanes, and E65 which needs to be expanded to four lanes all the way to Ystad.

There are more examples than that, but now that the national plan will soon be on our table and is to apply from 2026 to 2037, it is important that routes that are important for our business sector and for commuting are prioritized. Sweden's population has grown, and transport work has increased drastically since these roads were built. We must ensure that our road network is adapted to today's and in particular tomorrow's conditions.

Mr. Speaker! Since I am already on the subject of the Transport Administration, I thought I would touch upon winter road maintenance.

Year after year, Trafikverket has been criticized from this rostrum for deficient winter road maintenance. Even this winter we have been faced with these problems, and yet it has been unusually snow-poor. These sometimes fatal deficiencies do not only cost time and money for companies and private individuals. They also cost lives. I do not intend to go into individual accidents. I only state that even this year there has been a deficiency in winter road maintenance and that lives have been lost. Better preventive anti-slip measures must be implemented, as well as faster and also more extensive measures when the snow does fall.

Mr. Speaker! Speed limits must have popular acceptance. We politicians sit here in this chamber on the people's mandate, and we must have great respect for that.

Measurements from VTI show that many, despite awareness of high fines, choose to exceed the speed limits. The worst speed compliance is at 40 kilometers per hour, where approximately half choose to disregard the prevailing speed limit.

I will return to the question of public acceptance. I personally have the privilege of living in a municipality that still has 50 kilometers per hour in built-up areas. Speed limits must be perceived as reasonable, and I experience broad support when I and my party advocate for a return to the old speed limits of 30, 50, 70, 90, and 110 kilometers per hour.

In Sweden, just as in other countries, motorways are the safest roads, and in many of the countries down on the continent, many have a speed limit of 130 kilometers per hour or higher on their motorways. We believe that the motorways that have a good standard in Sweden would be suitable for 130 kilometers per hour, an increase that Denmark introduced not so long ago with good results. Sweden is an elongated country and benefits from efficient transport.

Mr. Speaker! A plate police officer does not catch drunk drivers. They do not prosecute for illegal cabotage, and they do not stop traffic-hazardous vehicles. They do, however, help to prosecute the likely traffic-safe driver who drives at 86 kilometers per hour on a fine 80-road on a sunny summer day – a road that additionally previously had a speed limit of 90 kilometers per hour. We need to shift the focus. We need instead to strengthen the police's control activities on the road.

NTF assesses that approximately 1 driver out of 500 drives with a blood alcohol content over 0.2. More vehicles need to be checked, especially within professional traffic. More breath tests need to be performed and then at appropriate times and places – no needle hunting, so. Behavior monitoring needs to be strengthened. This is where the resources should be deployed.

We also oppose the distance measurement through the ATK system, where all drivers are registered. Sensitive data can end up in the hands of foreign powers when all drivers, including law-abiding ones, are registered – this at a very high implementation cost, and it is obvious that the measure does not correspond to the benefit in terms of either the cost or the security risk.

The police have questioned the project and argue that the benefit is not in proportion to the cost or the intrusion into personal privacy.

Also Imy, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, flags the problem with this mass surveillance and mass registration.

The trade union Seko – where I am a member, and I believe Kadir was also a member there – faces criticism, which I agree with entirely, regarding the fact that persons with important societal functions are mapped out when vehicle and driving license registers are cross-referenced.

On very strong grounds, we in the Tidö parties have therefore chosen to put the proposal on sträck-ATK in the bin. The money needs to be spent instead on strengthening the work to separate more roads – a task that is proceeding far too slowly –, improving protection in case of departure from the road, removing dangerous trees and stones or boulders, laying new surfacing on gravel roads to reduce the risk of aquaplaning, and so on.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to highlight that we have finally achieved reasonable fuel prices. One of the most important election promises from the Sverigedemokraterna was precisely to ensure that Sweden's population would be able to afford to fuel their cars. When the diesel price was at 28 kronor and we said we wanted to lower the price by at least 10 kronor per liter, we were mocked from all sides. But look now: We have a gasoline and diesel price that means people do not need to cry when they fuel their cars. With a gasoline and diesel price of 16–17 kronor per liter, it becomes easier for households to make their finances work. The total cost of using one's car becomes more reasonable.

With this said, we in the Tidö parties also strengthen the investment in the charging infrastructure in the country. For 2025, we have added 450 million to the budget to strengthen the charging infrastructure for both light and heavy vehicles. For 2026, the sum is 620 million, and together with previous investments, the support amounts to 2.5 billion for the years 2024 through 2026. With this, we prepare Sweden for the continued increase of the electrified vehicle fleet.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö, Rashid Farivar and Thomas Morell (all SD) concurred.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! When the Climate Policy Council presented its report this week, I was reminded of one of the Moderates' election posters from the latest election campaign. It was a poster featuring the Moderates' party leader, now Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, who was out for a walk in the woods. The message was: Now we can get the climate in order.

It was a rather bold but at the same time reasonable objective. For even though Sweden has long been seen as a pioneer in the climate policy area, the transition in Sweden has simultaneously gone too slowly in relation to what needs to be done. It is obvious that more must be done, and at a faster pace, if we are to meet the 1.5-degree goal. In that regard, Ulf Kristersson was right. We need to "get the climate in order."

But how has it actually gone? Have the Moderates gotten the climate in order? No. For the transport sector, which accounts for a third of Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions, emissions decreased at an insufficient rate during 2023, ten times less than what was needed to meet the 2030 goal. For 2024, a year in which the government's policy has taken effect and is visible in the figures, emissions from road traffic increased by 18 percent.

This is a dramatic trend break. Emissions from road traffic have decreased slowly but steadily in Sweden since 2007. That trend is now, therefore, broken, in plain terms. And this is happening at the same time as the electrification of the transport sector has also slowed down after the government removed the climate bonus for electric cars and lowered the tax on fossil fuels. During 2024, the sales of electric cars fell by 16 percent.

The question is what the Moderaterna and the rest of the Tidö parties want with their climate policy in the transport area. In the government's climate policy action plan, it states that "Sweden should take an active role within international climate cooperation in the transport area to push for a global transition of the transport sector." I think that sounds good. But there is a difference between what one says and what one actually does.

In an EU context, the government has not gone as far as to work for stronger climate regulation, but instead works for regulatory simplifications and exemptions. EPP, the party group where both Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna are included, is driving the line that the EU should take a "climate policy break" and also wants to see a ban that makes it impossible for individual member states to go ahead and adopt more ambitious rules than those decided at the EU level.

Is that how Sweden takes an active role and pushes for transition? Is that how the Moderaterna get the climate in order? In that case, we have big problems.

We know what is at stake. If we fail to transition in time, we risk a world where one-fifth of the land area is uninhabitable and where over 1 billion people may be forced into flight due to climate change. That is why the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping warming well below 2 degrees is so important. It is also why it is not an exaggeration to speak of the climate issue as our time's great fateful issue.

Mr. Speaker! An argument that the government has used frequently to explain its choices in the climate area, and which has also been heard in the debate here today, is that climate policy must have a popular anchoring. I also think that is important.

A recent Sifo survey shows that two out of three Swedes are worried about climate change and that three out of four Swedes think it is important that the government pursues a policy that leads to Sweden reaching the climate goals. That reasonably means that the deficient climate policy that the government pursues lacks popular support – doesn't it?

Furthermore, pushing measures ahead by skipping 2030 and pointing towards 2045, as the government also does, makes it more difficult to carry out an orderly transition. It risks leading to a situation where one is forced to implement rapid, panicked, drastic measures further ahead that risk hitting people hard in the form of sharply increased prices. I am completely convinced that there is a lack of popular support for such a policy.

I also just want to remind that the government itself, in its climate action plan, writes that an orderly transition is important.

Mr. Speaker! From the Left Party, we have submitted a large number of proposals in the transport area. These are described in detail in our accompanying motions, partly on the government's infrastructure bill and partly on the government's climate action plan. The Left Party's starting point is that infrastructure planning should be goal-oriented in a way that ensures the climate goals are achieved and where we clearly steer towards a sustainable, transport-efficient society.

Regarding transport efficiency, the Climate Policy Council notes in its latest report that the government's decisions during 2024 have to a large extent contributed to counteracting the development towards a more transport-efficient society. It is a serious criticism that I hope the Moderates and other Tidö members who still want to get the climate in order will take to heart.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 6.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a serious situation regarding the ongoing climate crisis. We already see today how people both in Sweden and around the world are affected by increasing extreme weather – everything from flooded basements, washed-away roads and railways and blown-down forests to tropical storms and dying coral reefs. All of this affects people today, here and now. Unfortunately, it looks like it will get worse if we do not reverse the development.

Regarding Sweden's emissions, emissions from transport account for approximately one-third of these. It is also an area where we can relatively quickly reduce emissions because there are sustainable technologies to switch to already today.

The government's answer to the climate issues has been precisely electrification. But in reality, it is failing completely. In last year's review conducted by the Climate Policy Council, the government's climate action plan received stinging criticism for not reaching the climate goals in either 2030 or 2045. It was called misleading and improper.

In this year's review, the council's experts conclude that the government's current policy is also insufficient to reach either Sweden's climate goals or our EU commitments by 2030 and 2045. In black and white, the government's policy hinders, delays, and makes the transition more expensive. The time window to make decisions that ensure we actually reach the climate goals by 2030 is shrinking rapidly.

A large majority of the Swedish people are concerned about ongoing climate change. Approximately 70 percent of Sweden's population want us to reach the climate goals. There is, therefore, a strong popular anchoring.

Ulf Kristersson went to the election on a platform of getting the climate in order, but we can observe that instead it is going completely pear-shaped. The failure is monumental for the government's climate policy. Emissions from the transport sector are increasing avalanche-like – closer to 20 percent last year. Sweden is now the EU country where emissions are increasing the most. Sweden as a pioneer, as Christian Democrats members have previously spoken about, is not on the map. Sweden is the worst in the class. Congratulations on that! It is naturally due to the fact that the government has significantly increased the proportion of fossil fuels in the fuel, made gigantic tax cuts on fossil fuels, removed the bonus that stimulated electric car sales, and stopped a travel deduction that created more equality between transport modes.

The result is that electric car sales in 2024 fell in Sweden for the first time, when they instead needed to increase. The reason for that is not so strange. Telling SVT, the motorist Kalle says that he had intended to switch to an electric car, but it is not an option when the price of gasoline goes down and the electricity is going to go up. In that case, he is likely thinking of the government's extremely expensive nuclear power.

We are thus in a completely absurd situation with a government that favors the fossil industry instead of helping Swedish companies and Swedish households to transition. The criticism has been massive from the business community, environmental organizations, experts, and researchers. Even the OECD has strongly criticized Sweden, together with the Climate Policy Council which has cut down the government's climate policy.

The Green Party's goal within the transport sector is to have both affordable and sustainable transport throughout the entire country. It is a bit dishonest of Magnus Jacobsson to lie about the Green Party's policy. The difference would have been a few kronor with the Green Party's policy, but it is about something that is to be phased out. The whole idea is to make us independent of fossil fuels and switch to better alternatives. Therefore, we want to roll out a national electric car offensive, that is to say, ensure that everyone has the opportunity to travel sustainably, including everyone who is dependent on the car, in order to be able to have free mobility in the entire country.

We need to reintroduce the electric car bonus, but in a more just form. We should focus on the cheapest electric cars that people with lower incomes would likely buy, not the most expensive ones. People who buy those types of cars likely have the means to buy a car without the help of a state subsidy.

We also want to give an extra bonus to people in rural areas. Above all, we want a generous and income-tested leasing support aimed at low-income earners and people in rural areas without access to public transport at 2,500 SEK, which we expect will make it cheaper to switch to an electric car tomorrow compared to keeping one's fossil fuel car. If one can afford to get an electric car via leasing or by purchasing it, it becomes cheap to drive because the fuel is relatively cheap. Transition is about offering alternatives that involve both cheap and sustainable transport. We also want it to be easy to convert one's fossil fuel car to both biogas operation – it is easy with a petrol car – and electric operation. There are conversion kits. For example, it has become popular in France to convert one's old car because such a support exists there.

It has been raised previously that it is significantly more complicated today to inspect a gas vehicle. When one has made an effort for the environment and for the local agriculture that produces biogas, one is then punished in connection with the inspection of the car. I know this very well because I myself drive a gas car. Transportstyrelsen should be tasked with making a reassessment in this matter.

The government invests too little in expanding the charging infrastructure. Above all, it must become more accessible for people living in multi-family buildings, so that even people living in condominiums or rental apartments get access to charging. The charging infrastructure needs to be expanded faster. Regarding heavy traffic, further support is needed to accelerate electrification. It must become easier to do more for car-sharing, and there are investigated proposals in the Bilpoolsutredningen, for example, to designate parking spaces. It is an SOU whose proposals should be implemented immediately. Together with these proposals, we want to strongly favor public transport for everyone who lives in cities and has a Sverigekort. It should cost a maximum of 499 kronor per month to travel with public transport. Naturally, cycling and other types of sustainable transport should be favored, but that is not the subject for today. But the overall package makes it cheap and sustainable to transport oneself in all of Sweden, and unlike this government's proposals, the package reaches our climate goals. It is possible.

Mr. Speaker! The craziest thing about this is that we need to spend less money on the reforms I have mentioned than the government has spent on subsidizing fossil fuels. The difference in consequence is that what we want to do regarding biogas and electrification also benefits Swedish farmers and Swedish companies that will invest in the new energy, which benefits Swedish business. The government's policy primarily benefits Putin and rogue states that live on selling fossil fuels. The main financing for Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine goes through the shadow fleet and the oil they export. The government's policy contributes to driving up the oil price, and that benefits Russia. 40 percent of what we import to Sweden in the form of oil is of unknown origin – perhaps from Russia.

Mr. Speaker! We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I choose to move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! From many sides, it is heard that the Swedish and European automotive industries are in crisis. The global situation is becoming increasingly uncertain with trade wars between the USA, China, and the EU. Many wonder what the future has to offer the European vehicle industry.

The fact is that a majority of the regulations governing vehicle issues are decided at the EU level. That is where we must start to handle these challenges. The European Union has become an increasingly centralized and bureaucratic project. At the same time, decisions that will shape our future for generations to come are often made without there being a realistic plan for how they are to be implemented.

The so-called green deal is a clear example of this. It is a strategy that initially sounded promising. One was to unite the EU's economy with the environment, reduce emissions and at the same time create jobs and innovation. But in reality, this policy has developed into one of the greatest economic and industrial risks for Europe.

The EU has decided to ban the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines by 2035. At the same time, gasoline and diesel cars are to be phased out completely by 2042. This means that conventional vehicles are practically banned and that all of Europe's transport sector shall be electrified, regardless of whether the infrastructure, the energy supply, or the industry can handle it.

Mr. Speaker! This is politics based on wishful thinking rather than on facts. Over 20 years ago, China decided to become a world leader in electric vehicle technology. They invested heavily in battery research, subsidized their companies, and secured control over raw materials such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and rare earth metals.

Today, China accounts for over 80 percent of the world's raw materials for electric cars and for 85 percent of global battery production. China's share of the global electric car supply is expected to increase to more than 60 percent this year. In January, Chinese car brands accounted for 76 percent of electric car sales in the world.

Northvolt, which was supposed to become Europe's flagship in battery manufacturing, has now gone bankrupt. Despite massive subsidies, the company could not deliver a single domestic battery cell. China dominates the entire supply chain for electric cars and batteries. Without access to Chinese raw materials, machines, and components, Europe's electric car industry is hopeless.

Since the EU is simultaneously strangling our own car industry through its climate laws, it means that in practice we are opening our markets to Chinese electric cars without having any domestic industry that can compete. In other words, electrification leads to Made in China. I do not criticize electrification in itself. I am only stating what it will mean for the future of Europe and Europe's industry.

Mr. Speaker! This is not sustainable policy. It is self-sabotage. If we analyze the consequences of this policy, we see that it is devastating. Jobs are disappearing in droves. Volkswagen is already threatening to close factories in Germany. Dagens industri's report from Wolfsburg on March 9 should be regarded as a wake-up call for our politicians. The energy supply is threatened, costs are skyrocketing, and competitiveness is being undermined.

After the Second World War, Europe was devastated. But the automotive industry recovered quickly and became a success story. Now we are on the way to destroying this success. We already see signs that the automotive industry is collapsing while China takes over the electric vehicle market. In just three years, China's share of Europe's electric vehicle market has increased from 3 percent to over 20 percent.

Mr. Speaker! The ban at the EU level on internal combustion engines must be reconsidered. We must invest in technologies where Europe actually has a competitive advantage. We must ensure that our industry survives and that our jobs are preserved. We must stop the policy that makes us dependent on China and that undermines our own future, independence, and security.

Mr. Speaker! The EU's new proposal for a regulation on end-of-life vehicles, the so-called ELV regulation, is yet another attack on the Swedish vehicle fleet and risks hitting our vehicle cultural heritage hard, including vintage cars and motorhomes. The proposal, which is now being processed in the EU Parliament, implies stricter requirements for the recycling and collection of old vehicles without taking into account the enthusiasts' commitment to classic cars and historical vehicles in Sweden.

Before the last EU parliamentary election, several Swedish parties promised to stand up for car enthusiasts. Despite this, there is now silence from many of them, and they do not seem to be acting in accordance with their election promises.

The Sweden Democrats, on the other hand, have a clear and consistent line on the issue, both at the national level and at the EU level. The EU shall not have the right to restrict our opportunities to own, preserve, and use vintage cars. To minimize the damage, we have submitted a number of proposed amendments at the EU level. We are also pushing a sharp counter-proposal to completely stop the regulation in its current form. The EU shall not micro-manage our leisure interests and our cultural heritage.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö and Thomas Morell (both SD) concurred.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 9 April.)

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