(cont. from § 9) Infrastructure issues (cont. TU5)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! For us here in the chamber, this is an order that we are well aware of. But there are also people who listen to us and who read our documents. I therefore only thought to say briefly that this matter of infrastructure is a large process. It has a twelve-year cycle. Every four years, this twelve-year cycle is reviewed. What is happening today is that we are establishing the frameworks for the coming twelve years. After that, we take an annual budget every year.

When it comes to the content itself, it is still the case that we today govern on the previous government's direction plan. The current government has, however, made some changes. When the government took office, for example, some resources were moved from railway to road, because Trafikverket themselves said that they could not manage to spend the money, and there was then a risk that it would be frozen instead of being used for infrastructure.

What happens purely technically after this has been hammered out tomorrow is that a process is initiated - it is certainly already underway - in municipalities, regions, companies and interest organizations that want to step in and influence the plan. Every four years a review is conducted, so it is entirely possible to bring in or remove a project, and that process begins now. The decision we are discussing today is therefore the framework for the process that will then get started.

I can state that I am incredibly happy to have been able to return to the Committee on Transport just before this debate. During the previous parliamentary term, I sat in the Committee on Transport, then in opposition, and spoke quite a lot with the government side at that time about precisely the fact that the plan they had laid out, especially on the roadside, would not result in a restoration. It is actually so bad that both the National Audit Office and the Transport Administration stated that with the plan that applies so far, the road standard will be worse at the end of the parliamentary term than at the beginning of it.

Many of us criticized it and said that it was not quite contemporary. As I pointed out in the previous debate, both I and Jens Holm from Vänsterpartiet started talking about how we need to find a new budget model to address this problem.

In my simple world, I naturally compared it with the municipality and the region, where one has an investment budget and an operating budget. And now a change has occurred that actually affects the plan we are now going to discuss, namely that a balance target has been reached. Did we get as far as we Christian Democrats desired? No. Did we get to a better situation than the previous mandate period? Yes.

That is how it is sometimes in politics. One must accept that a compromise is made.

This still frees up resources. In the plan that is now being submitted for the coming twelve years, there are 1,171 billion. That is a lot of money. It is a substantial change even in relation to the fact that we have had high inflation. A large and positive change is therefore occurring here.

Another very important thing is that money is now being moved to an appropriation for Trafikverket. I want to say from the rostrum here that I think the government has done this very well together with its officials, and it irritates me a little bit. What is it then that irritates me about this? Yes, it is that I did not discover it myself. It is just something to admit. One spends four years on an area and thinks that one has studied up on it, and then one misses that small detail.

Regardless of that, it is being corrected now, Madam Speaker. It means that it will become easier to govern the Transport Administration, and it will become easier to see what the money is being spent on.

Another important thing in the document that we are now debating is that the government is opening the door much more clearly for alternative operating models. One is not completely forward in detail regarding what it will look like, but even today there are examples of this. We have a number of bridges that have been financed by road tolls, for example in Motala, in Sundsvall and in my home region, where they built the bridge over Svinesund to Norway. We also have Arlanda Express, which is a collaborative route that has functioned, and we have the Öresund connection.

That the government points to this opens the door for new money alongside the funding that comes from tax revenue and other sources, but it also opens the door when it comes to the desire to produce more railway, which I think is the essential point and something that I have heard both in the debate before and in this debate.

The bill and the committee report that are now presented solve the road problem. Over twelve years, we will be able to rectify the maintenance deficit on roads. There will still be investments that need to be made.

But we are not restoring the maintenance deficiency on the railways. The main reasons for this, the government has attempted to explain on several occasions, and we, who belong to the government base, have also attempted to explain.

One thing is that Trafikverket itself says that they cannot swallow any more. One can have a discussion about whether it is due to the organization or something else. But the fact is that if an agency itself says that you are not solving this, it becomes a bit strange if you receive more money than what you say you can make use of.

But even here, the government is opening the door. When one says that there should be other forms of financing and other models, one de facto opens the door for, for example, new variants of Arlanda Express. Whether it is about Oslo-Stockholm or something else somewhere else becomes a later question. This is to be prepared over a year. In practice, the door is opened very clearly so that there could be other solutions when it comes to financing for the Öresund connection and infrastructure in the Skåne area. This also opens the door for the possibility that investments could be made alongside Trafikverket.

Madam Speaker! These were questions that we raised in opposition during the previous parliamentary term. At that time, we felt that the government at the time was not quite as responsive. My problem is that I like Tomas Eneroth. But just on this area, he was not so responsive. Now we see that we have nevertheless moved the policy one step further, which I think is positive.

Another important thing in this work is that there is a clarity regarding the fact that shipping is important, and the icebreakers are included. Even here, I believe we would all like it to go faster and that perhaps there will be more. But we have nevertheless concluded that parts of this process shall be completed.

I have spoken with many people from the maritime sector. And of course, the best thing that could have happened in the best of all worlds would have been for Sweden and Finland to have been able to find a common process. It is much smarter to order more than one ship and so on. But the government is proceeding anyway, which I think is good.

The government points out aviation in a completely new way. During the previous parliamentary term, aviation was something that was to be kept in the corner of shame. Now the government is clear that aviation is actually something that is important for all of us.

I myself have used the term public transport for aviation. Why do I use the term public transport when I talk about aviation? Well, it is due to the technical development that has previously occurred in Gothenburg. We have to see where Heart Aerospace lands, so to speak.

Electric aviation opens a very exciting door. One might fly a shorter distance, roughly like a bus, and pick up a few more. Then one flies the next stretch. With electric aviation and those types of facilities, aviation would actually in some parts be more environmentally friendly than the railway. That is, resources are consumed to build tracks and to build the concrete area itself so that the railway can roll forward. Electric aviation for shorter distances opens up for a very exciting future vision that I believe we sometimes have a bit of difficulty grasping.

Madam Speaker! This is still a report where one can point out some future visions. A question that I have tried to highlight within the Christian Democrats and want to mention here is that if we get more electrification, we will ultimately end up in the Norwegian situation, namely that electric cars do not pay any tax. Today, diesel and gasoline cars pay tax. And we have even received exemptions in the EU for environmentally friendly fuels. It is very positive during the transition. But in the long run, it becomes a problem if no one pays tax for the infrastructure.

During the previous parliamentary term, I highlighted on several occasions the issue that, among others, Green Drivers have raised, namely that we should probably start looking at another form of fuel and vehicle taxation. Then one could have a completely different steering in terms of times of day when one drives and environmental classification of vehicles. We see, for example, on the truck side that Germany already has this type of technology.

If one works with a digital vehicle and fuel taxation, what is sometimes called a kilometer tax, one could achieve a different environmental management.

We Christian Democrats are sometimes asked if we care about the environment. The answer is yes. But we do not always believe in the solutions that others highlight.

Even more exciting with just this type of technology is that the technology for this is manufactured in Jönköping, which we Christian Democrats usually think is good.

Another big thing that I think we need to catch up on and that we will have to talk about is self-driving vehicles and AI within the infrastructure and what effects that will have.

We have the question of mobility. A few years ago, some in the Committee on Transport visited one of the taxi companies that competes with Swedish taxi. Their vision is that in an app you should be able to order a bicycle that you take to the car, which takes you to the train, which takes you to the plane. And you should be able to make an order that you want to travel from Arlanda to New York. You get the entire chain and pay in one place.

I do not think we ourselves are fully aware of what this type of mobility has for consequences. But what consequences does it have for privacy?

We live in a very exciting time. And we can certainly bark at each other sometimes, but we also have things that change reality.

Flight is simple in the airspace. Even there, we will see how AI affects it. But what do we do with drones? In what range should one be allowed to fly with future technology? It could be about moving a heart from hospital A to hospital B. There is a technological development underway that I believe we will catch together.

We also have major global changes. The Chinese are building a new Silk Road. When Nato withdrew from Afghanistan, the Chinese moved in. Regarding what is now happening in Syria and in Iraq, one should not be surprised if the Chinese will also enter there with investments. They will build the new Silk Road. What consequences will that have for international shipping?

When we now look out twelve years, we sometimes have a tendency to look very much at our infrastructure. I believe that we together – government, opposition and parties – need to also look at the future situation. A new Silk Road will, for example, result in that which was formerly called Central Europe getting a completely new industrial focus. They will be there earlier when the material arrives.

Madam Speaker! I think this is a very good committee report. Purely selfishly, I am very happy to see that one as a politician can be involved and have an influence in the grinding.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Magnus Jacobsson for an inspiring speech, and I was eager to reason further together with the member. I will take up a couple of points that the member chose to highlight in his speech. Among other things, it was about mobility. Sometimes we talk about micromobility and different parts. The member is also touching on different forms of behavioral changes, new patterns and so on as they arise. Here I believe we can find consensus in many different ways. But how shall we drive this work forward? Here there are some kinds of living labs, i.e., exciting research initiatives. I wonder if the member sees anything such in terms of future initiatives.

Another question that I would like to reason further about is the railway issue. The Member of Parliament says himself that that question is not resolved during the current planning period.

On the other hand, the member opened the door when it comes to the fact that there can be investments alongside Trafikverket also when it comes to railway investments. Sometimes one hears that it might be more road investments. In Norway, Skanska is involved and builds roads to a somewhat greater extent than what is done in terms of railway investments.

I would like to ask a question to the member: Is it likely that a project such as Oslo-Stockholm, which we see a need for, can be included already in the plan that will be released in a year?

I would also like to ask about the exciting stretch from Hamburg all the way up to Oslo, what is called the megaregion and the String cooperation, where we also see a need for railways along this route.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I shall take the last question first. It is clear that I cannot comment on behalf of the government. But I can still state that the government itself points out, for example, the Malmbanan. The government also points out that the Öresund connection could be a place where resources can be used to build infrastructure in the Skåne area.

Then there is a problem that was touched upon in a statement in the previous debate. If some are to be involved and co-finance, they want to be paid. The track access charges are very low in relation to the railway's costs. They are not low if we think that we want to move freight to the railway. This is a problem that we have together.

It is probably a bit more difficult with co-financing when it comes to railways. The motorists seem to be more willing to pay. One pays to drive on the Motala bridge instead of driving around, and one pays when traveling to Svinesund instead of driving on the old bridge. Then we have to consider what they have considered in Norway: Can we take payment from motorists to refurbish the railway? That was when a toll party was formed and there were very many popular reactions. So I am not so sure about that.

I believe that we will all together engage in conversations about what railway lines there are that could open this door. I believe that there is a mutual interest.

Regarding the second question, about mobility, I think we sometimes limit ourselves; we are so damn modern. My wife comes from Estonia. There, they have rolling vehicles that run digitally today. After the terrible civil war in Rwanda - we have others ongoing and that have been ongoing - a system was built to send medicine, schoolbooks, and food with drones.

I believe that we do not quite know ourselves where we are headed. Therefore, I believe more in the rhetoric I use, namely the conversation as a model. I am not looking for confrontation but for how we seek our way toward a better Sweden. It will certainly affect legislation in the long run.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, the member, for the answers to my questions! I do not wish to submit any new questions but continue to reason around this.

Regarding the last point the member was touching upon, behavioral changes and new ways of doing things, it is clear that this needs to be led in some way. We can of course wish for all flowers to bloom, but in what way does the member see research, development, and innovations could become an important part linked to this work? There were a few of us who visited NTF a few days ago. It concerned road safety, which also involves behavioral patterns and so on.

The research bill, which is to come from the government, has not arrived yet, but what type of investments or projects does the member see that initiatives could be taken on from a national perspective? It is clear that local initiatives can be taken in different ways, but with changed behaviors perhaps we can reach the climate goals faster, for example. What would one then need to do linked to research on behavioral science and so on?

I am also thinking back to the other question I had in connection with the previous report, regarding the railway. I still perceived it as the member mentioning Oslo-Stockholm while he also mentioned other investment opportunities. I am also aware that, just as the member says, it seems that it can be solved in an easier way by having road traffic participate in co-financing. The Malmbanan seems to be such an example. Does the member believe that this would be a solution so that there are more railway investments - that one can still manage to have other financing for some part of the railway investments?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to start with the last part again. I took that example because, as far as I have been able to read, it seems that it might be possible to find funding when it comes to Oslo-Stockholm. But I cannot promise anything here and now because this is what is to take place over a period of one year. That is why I began my speech by stating that we have this twelve-year cycle and now the frameworks are being adopted. What pleases me about the frameworks is that the government is opening exciting doors.

Here, different operators, regions, and sub-regions must probably come up with the clever ideas themselves: Here we have a proposal, and we believe that this can work. I hope and assume that we on the government side take the time to listen to them. I was therefore honest and humbly open here. I see writings in the government's text that I find very exciting, in addition to the fact that this is the largest investment we have made so far.

Regarding the second question, we both come from Western Sweden. We have good incubators, and we are used to a culture at home where there is a rather exciting technological development taking place.

I do not dare to answer the question regarding the research bill. I have not worked with that area at all in the Riksdag or when I was a school politician back home, so I will pass on that question.

I have been away from the committee for two years, so I do not really know how far we have come. But I see that we need to find legislation or some form of regulation that is not on the "no" side but on an encouraging side. It is about the range, for example. In which part of the airspace should a drone be allowed to fly? What happens in the future if a drone comes out with the morning newspaper? Is it a huge problem? What happens if Ica can send food to an elderly person? Then legislation is needed.

I believe, therefore, that we have a number of things where we can sketch out something together. I naturally hope that Andreas Carlson will be as curious about this as I am. The modern technology, such as in Rwanda, for example, which I mentioned, opens very exciting doors, especially for people who are elderly or have disabilities.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It is exciting to listen to your members, I think. I am pleased that Magnus Jacobsson is open to dialogue - I hope that the rest of the Tidögänget are as well.

I would like to begin by saying that I think it is very pleasant that the Minister is here today. It is appreciated by the committee, especially when we have to deal with the infrastructure bill. It is great!

We have chosen to call our follow-up motion on this area Infrastructure for cohesion, growth and climate. I intended at first to talk a little bit about the three different parts. But first, I want to move for approval of reservation 1 so that I do not forget it.

Infrastructure is, just as I said earlier in the rostrum, the bloodstream through all of Sweden - that which ties together, enables the movement of both people and goods, and ensures that both children and adults can travel across all of Sweden with different modes of transport. We can take the boat or the plane to other countries and so on. But this presupposes that there are different modes of transport. Infrastructure is, therefore, truly what makes it possible for us to hold together an entire country, and that is why it is so important.

It is also, not least, just as important when it comes to growth - to enable materials that are to become products to enter our country, that goods can come both into and out of our country, that people can travel from their homes to work and leisure activities and so on. There is almost not a single person, I believe, who does not in some way use the infrastructure every day.

Infrastructure is the key to increasing our country's growth. We hear this now, when some companies reach out and say that it might happen that they do not establish themselves, that they have to move or that they cannot expand because it is not possible to get the goods out. This is a very great concern for us, and I would believe it looks the same for everyone: If infrastructure problems occur, establishments are left out, which then go to other countries. That cannot be our goal with infrastructure. It is particularly important that we have an infrastructure that works for our industry, which employs so many people in our country.

The third part of our follow-up motion is the climate. I intended to dwell a bit longer on this, because I truly believe that the climate issue is so important that it should be discussed in every debate.

We have a climate policy framework with different parts. We have a climate act, which seven of the eight parties in the Riksdag stand behind by having entered into an environmental goals preparation that agreed that this is what shall apply. This was in 2017. The act entered into force in 2018 and still applies.

We then adopted certain climate goals, such as those concerning that by 2045 at the latest, we shall have no net emissions of greenhouse gases. We also have interim targets. For example, in 2030, just five years away, emissions shall be 63 percent lower than they were in 1990. In 2040, they shall be 75 percent lower.

When one reads about these goals, one realizes that it is quite urgent. One cannot then say that we should wait until 2045, but one must constantly have interim goals along the way.

In the climate policy framework, there is also a climate policy council that shall evaluate and see what the government is doing. The government shall submit a climate report every year and produce a climate policy action plan every four years. Both of these have received devastating criticism, I would like to say. That should make the Tidö parties reflect a bit more on how we are to fulfill what we have nevertheless said that we stand behind.

When it comes to transport policy, it is extra important. I said it earlier from the rostrum, and I can repeat it. We have a specific interim target for domestic transport. We are to reduce it by 70 percent by 2030, but it is going in the wrong direction. How are we going to succeed with this? It should be a question that both this committee and the government have on the table significantly more often than what one at least reads and believes is the case. It is extremely important that we constantly work with climate issues and that they are constantly included.

Those who read our follow-up motion can see what direction we want to see. Hopefully, those who read the follow-up motion can also find some hope and see that we want to achieve something.

We also, of course, raise some of the challenges that exist. One of them is that Sweden has the world's most deregulated railway, with a lot of actors fighting for space on the tracks. One can talk about raising track fees, but the one who receives a raised fee must also receive something—namely, more space on the tracks, which does not exist.

There are many questions that one needs to consider. Freight traffic's dwell time, that is, the time freight traffic stands still and waits to get space on the tracks, increases every year. Just this is a sign that something is wrong.

That is why we believe the distribution of money in this infrastructure bill is wrong. It is not possible to just allocate 5 percent to the maintenance of the railway, and therefore we have chosen a different distribution. We distribute a bit more equally between railway and road.

There is also a vision of building up the whole of Sweden. In that case, one needs to continue the work that we began last mandate period, or several mandate periods ago, with new main lines. It is very important.

Another very important issue is shipping, which several have raised here. We have 50 ports, and they are largely owned by municipalities and regions. One or another is privately owned. We know that it is climate-smart to move freight to shipping. It should also be more cost-effective. One example I received the other day was that a barge takes freight from 200 trucks.

We really should have a strategy. The Government and the Council of State talk a lot about shipping and its opportunities, but one must also probably put the strategy forward on paper. What is it that one wants?

A completely new security policy situation exists in the vicinity of Sweden due to the war in Ukraine and membership in Nato. It feels as if the questions of how this will affect the Swedish infrastructure are being discussed somewhere other than with us. We are not participating in that discussion, and we really need to consider whether we should not be. It is, after all, we in our committee who are experts on infrastructure. Other committees are experts on other things, but right now it feels as if it is someone else who is discussing which infrastructure is important for Sweden from a security policy perspective.

The infrastructure we have today will not be sufficient. It is inadequate when it comes to both roads and railways. We know that every soldier carries 1 ton of goods. We also realize that it is not just one soldier who is coming, but that there will be a few more who are to be moved between different countries according to the agreement with Nato.

The report contains the framework for twelve years. We mean that things must be able to happen in twelve years – one must be able to develop during this time. Then today's statement cannot apply for twelve years. Trafikverket says that it is not possible to do more on the railway. It might not be possible right now, but one cannot say that the matter applies for twelve years. Just as several others said in the previous debate, one must also look at what other countries are doing and at how the new technology can lead to improvements.

I hope that we in the opposition will be able to take a significantly larger part in the conversations that Magnus Jacobsson spoke so commendably about. He said that conversation is important, and I truly agree with him – conversation is very important. Right now, however, it feels like everyone is part of the conversation except for us. We stand completely outside. Afterwards, we will have to meet the industries and hear what was discussed.

I think it is very foolish that we cannot sit around the same table and that the opposition cannot be invited to various discussions, because I believe it would lead very much further. If there is something that the industry is demanding, it is long-term rules of the game, and you don't get that if half the group in this chamber stands outside the discussions. Then it becomes like it became after the election. Then ongoing work is stopped.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Under the Social Democratic-led government, Trafikverket was allowed to freely move money from what is called the "sakanslag," that is, the resources that are to go to road and rail. Trafikverket was allowed to merge these funds with the administrative grants, i.e., the resources that are to be used for the agency's operations. This meant that money that was actually supposed to go to maintenance of road or rail or to new road or rail was moved to finance Trafikverket's growing organization. The agency has grown by approximately 4,000 employees in a very short time.

Now our government has tightened the requirements on Trafikverket and once again divided these appropriations. The requirements for delivery and efficiency were needed. I can call the way this was handled with mission appropriations and administrative appropriations nothing other than extremely deficient governance of an agency that is incredibly important for our infrastructure.

In what way has the expansion of Trafikverket's organization been to the benefit of the development of Swedish infrastructure? And why did the previous government completely relinquish this governance possibility? It has led to serious consequences for Swedish infrastructure.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Stockhaus for the question, which concerned what happened during the previous parliamentary term. The Member knows very well that I was not involved in this at all. I sat in a different committee then and can therefore not answer the question.

However, I can speak about what I want moving forward. I can also ask questions to Member Stockhaus about the management of Trafikverket. People are constantly criticizing Trafikverket. I agree that we need to review Trafikverket's organization. I agree, however, with what previous speakers have said that there is nothing wrong with those who work there, but it is about the system.

We also have this issue with the fact that one has actually become a pure procurement authority and at all does not have its own competence. I think that would be a given question for the Tidö parties to look at, especially considering that the Sverigedemokraterna actually consider it to be an important issue. We have heard that several times, not only today but also previously. One has also had the same opinions as we regarding the fact that it needs to be reviewed how the interconnection of Banverket and Vägverket actually became. Did it turn out so great?

The marketization of the entire system is something that I and my party believe we need to look at. We need an evaluation. How did it actually go 15 years ago? Has it become good?

What the National Audit Office has looked at is more about economy. It is not about the system. It would be interesting to hear what Member Stockhaus has to say about the system that Trafikverket operates under.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! A government has an enormous responsibility to ensure that the authorities are directed to use money in an efficient way. It is sad that Gunilla Svantorp does not have the opportunity to answer that question, because what happened during the last parliamentary term under the Social Democratic government was catastrophic for Swedish infrastructure. They let Trafikverket grow completely unchecked and used money that should have gone to roads and rails to hire more staff.

An evaluation has been made of the deregulation of railway maintenance, which Gunilla Svantorp often takes up as an example, and it shows that we have received more maintenance for the money thanks to that we have the procurement activity. We can see that if one conducts procurements in the right way, one can achieve greater innovation. One gets to take part in what the market develops in other contexts.

It is about the need to have better procurement competence at Trafikverket, and that does not automatically mean that one needs to perform the tasks oneself to understand what it is that one is to procure. There is a pressure there, and it states explicitly in the infrastructure bill that one must improve its procurement competence to achieve efficient procurements and work together with the market to develop new methods.

I do not believe, at least not I and my party, that Trafikverket should develop innovations when it comes to the maintenance of both road and railway, or new construction for that part. We believe in free companies, we believe in the market, and we believe that it is there we can find good solutions.

Then we need to have a transport authority that is a professional procurer of both maintenance and new investments, and that is where it fails today. We do not have an authority that can handle those issues in a reasonable way. But that does not mean that they have to do it here themselves.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the member for the answer!

I believe the member is well aware that assignments were given during the last parliamentary term. For example, Trafikanalys was assigned to review the cost development at Trafikverket as one part. If I remember correctly, it is a five-year project that is ongoing right now, so things are happening. It sounds from the member that one has not steered at all, but that is not quite the case.

I believe that the big sticking point here is precisely the control over society-critical infrastructure. There we are perhaps a little more worried, or significantly more worried, about crisis situations and perhaps even war situations. What is going to happen if everything then is outsourced in small portions? Who is it really that is in control? I believe it would be significantly better if we looked at that question.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I shall return to the question that I have, to some extent, raised earlier. It concerns the fact that the Social Democrats highlight that investments are being made in both roads and railways.

In the documents that exist for this committee report, it is clearly evident that money is being moved from road maintenance to railway maintenance. This is being done regardless of the fact that with the current organization and the current situation – we obviously do not know what it will look like in twelve years, but we must still plan for some form of fixed reality – Trafikverket simply would not be able to eat up those funds. It is not the case that 45 billion just lies there, but they are to be distributed over the twelve years. That would mean that already in 2026, 2027, 2028, more resources are received for the railway than can be spent.

There I wonder how the Social Democrats actually think, because what was left behind as a legacy was indeed a plan that actually resulted in the maintenance of roads becoming worse during the recent years. We are trying to recover that.

The second question I would like to ask concerns something that surprises me a bit more. It is this comment that we have too many actors on the track.

That deregulation has resulted in, according to Trafikverket's figures, that from 1990 until 2023, rail traffic increased from 14 million people to 23 million people. It is therefore an increase of 71 percent, and it is simply due to the fact that there are more operators. There are more who use the track.

On the other hand, this has meant that the railway is subjected to greater pressure. That is why we, in the plan that is presented here, want to allocate money to refurbish the railway but also to build new tracks.

How do we view the environmental benefit that has actually arisen when more people travel by train?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Magnus Jacobsson, for the questions!

When it comes to the road issue, it sounds like we are moving all the money from roads to railways in our proposal. That is not the case, we are just leveling the playing field a bit more. We will still invest significantly more in roads in our follow-up motion than it was previously. But we will distribute the money so that we also invest primarily in the railway, because we think the distribution is very skewed. Then it is about twelve years forward.

It is very good that more people travel with the climate-smart alternative. That is because the railway has been expanded and that has been made possible. The idea with the current plan, which we are getting a lot of flak for here, is actually to increase the capacity on the railway and ensure that even more people can travel by rail. Magnus Jacobsson's party and the other Tidö parties should think that is great, but that is not the case. It is only negative things we hear about the plan that was before.

I would like to ask Magnus Jacobsson if he, just like we others, receives phone calls from and meets with companies, large companies, that are very concerned—perhaps not so much about how they will get employees for their companies but about how they will get the goods out when there is no space on the railway. At least we get quite a few inquiries about it. They say that something must happen now, otherwise they will have to move and establish any expansions elsewhere. It is definitely not good for the Swedish GDP, so what are Magnus Jacobsson's thoughts on that?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The government is therefore allocating 354 billion to roads over these twelve years. The Social Democrats intend to allocate 309 billion. That is a substantial difference in a road system that everyone points out has major problems. But I will let it go. I can only state that there is a big difference between our investment and the Social Democrats' investment when it comes to roads.

When it comes to the railway, it is a very good question. I believe I tried to touch upon in my speech that the budget system in this house was changed in 1980. Since then, a total maintenance debt has built up. Now, with the settlement where both Kristdemokrater and Socialdemokrater are involved and agree on a balance goal, we actually begin to tackle the economic part of it all. I think it is positive that a broad settlement can be made, even though I maintain and still believe that it would have been better to return to an investment budget.

The catch is just that it is not a lack of money this time. Even if we had had an investment budget, it would not have helped that we had topped up with a few more billions if there is no one who can swallow the billions and so to speak get bang for the buck.

I tried to answer that question a bit in my speech. What I think is positive about the government's writings is that it also opens the door for others, because it seems to be difficult for Trafikverket to get enough moving. I am not talking about individual people or individual staff, but if we just look at it as an agency, it seems difficult to solve the needs that exist. It is therefore not a lack of money, but it seems to be a lack of craftsmanship.

One opens up so that someone else can act alongside Trafikverket, for example on the Malmbanan and the Öresund connection, which the government points out. I believe that is very wise. I hope that during the year one works on this, some such examples will emerge, because we need to gain more momentum also on railway investments.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! There is a substantial difference between our proposals regarding the railway. It is not just about the road. There is a huge difference regarding the railway. What is most serious is probably a matter of degree. The most important thing is that we allocate more money to both sides.

Regarding opening the door for others, we have been open to loan financing ever since the last party congress. It is the state that borrows the cheapest. We are still open to it when it comes to large projects that lead to sustainability.

I must repeat that there is a danger that is not mentioned at all in the infrastructure bill in the paragraph on alternative financing, and that is that one gives up control. We see in the discussions currently taking place regarding Arlandabanan that control has been given up, and we do not want to be part of doing that once again. We will be cautious about that, I can say calmly, if we are even allowed to be part of that process. It does not seem to be the case in all processes, but rather one receives a proposal to comment on. But I can say here that control over socially important infrastructure is very important and nothing that will be written away in any agreement.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I intend first to address what the member raised in his speech regarding the climate. It is important to note that even though only seven parties were involved in the Environmental Goals Commission, all four Tidö parties now stand behind the climate action plan. The Climate Council stated that that plan is closest to reaching the goals for 2045 compared to all previous governments' plans.

There are a number of different challenges. The government is working very hard for competition neutrality for companies by pushing the EU ahead of us. We are to have good climate laws at the EU level.

Managing the decommissioning of nuclear power is one of the challenges in the near future and up until 2030. We may need, for example, gas turbines to ensure secure electricity supply. But I leave that discussion now.

I also want to address what the member raised regarding the Social Democrats' proposal to transfer money from roads to railways. The member wants the whole of Sweden to live. If you look around the country, you see that the largest traffic work is being done on roads. How does the member justify that the whole of Sweden should be able to live when, at the same time, you cut so much from the budget and instead put it on railways? How is the road supposed to manage in Sweden?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Helena Gellerman, for the question!

I live out in the forest in Värmland and know how important the road is. I also know how important the individual roads are, not least for our future food production given that nine out of ten farmers live on an individual road. I also know how important the railway is, not least for growth and Sweden's GDP. For AB Sverige, the railway is immensely important.

The Chairman began by speaking about the climate. In that case, it is about moving, above all, freight to more climate-friendly transports. So far, the truck transports are not fully electrified. The trucks that drive inside a city can be electrified, but not those that drive longer distances. One must therefore use what is most climate-smart, which can be rail or shipping. That is one of the reasons why we think it was disproportionately distributed in the infrastructure bill that arrived now, and therefore we moved funds.

One must consider that those funds mean that one is to manage 10-15 percent over twelve years. It is not reasonable that such a small part of the maintenance debt should be cleared. Is the member satisfied that such a small part of the maintenance debt is cleared over a period as long as twelve years, or would one have wanted to see a different distribution than the one we actually received?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I maintain my position on the discussion regarding how the different modes of transport affect the climate. This regarding the railway is interesting.

I had the privilege, during the years of the railway, to meet the person responsible for land transport in the EU. He gave a very clear message to all train operators and the entire industry that the infrastructure that is not completed before 2035 will not be able to account for the climate effects because road transport will be converted. It was, therefore, the person who is most responsible in the entire EU who said it. The government has taken this to heart. That is why we are spending an enormous amount of money on maintenance. On the railway, one can quickly increase capacity and achieve a shift while road transport is converted. The climate argument thus does not quite hold for new infrastructure, but maintenance must be done here and now.

The member speaks a lot about NATO and the military's needs. They will be driving very much on roads, and that is precisely what we in the government are looking at and spending a lot of money on. I would like to hear how the member views that.

Finally, it is no use putting more money into Trafikverket if they say they will not be able to use them for maintenance without closing and thereby reducing the capacity on the railway. During the next parliamentary term, we can certainly put in more money, but one must develop better production methods first.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! The member spoke again about relocation, but there is nothing to relocate to. There is no capacity. That is what is important and what one must consider. There are ten years until 2035. One must also consider how long it should be allowed to take to build new capacity. It is unreasonable that it should take 20, 30, or 40 years to build new railway in our country.

Regarding defense, I have heard the exact opposite. Everything that happens in the defense is very secret, but one of the things that has leaked out is that the Inlandsbanan is important for defense because it is neither digitized nor electrified and therefore cannot be knocked out. It is a railway. It is thus not only roads that are important for defense. People also talk about east-west corridors that no longer exist, and in that case, it is both road and railway that are being discussed. I think there is probably both parts in this.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate TU5 Infrastructure Issues.

First, I would like to welcome Minister Andreas Carlson here to the Riksdag. It is very positive that the Minister is here to demonstrate the importance of the infrastructure bill.

Madam Speaker! We are now in perhaps the most important period for the country's infrastructure. The scope and direction of the national infrastructure plan are to be decided. It is the single most important decision for the country's infrastructure as it determines what type of infrastructure Sweden shall invest in over the next twelve years, until 2037. The Riksdag shall make a decision on the record-breaking total framework of 1,171 billion kronor, an increase of 27 percent.

Transport capacity needs to be both developed and climate-adapted. Transport is important for people to be able to get to work and be able to travel in their free time, while companies also depend on reliable freight transport. Sweden's competitiveness and the possibility of running businesses throughout the country depend on functioning transport.

In the government's infrastructure bill, it is proposed how the budget shall be distributed for the maintenance of roads and railways as well as how much new infrastructure shall be built. To this is added a document with the government's direction for where the money shall go. This is usually not addressed to any great extent in the debate, but it is this direction that subsequently guides Trafikverket when they are to prepare a proposal for an infrastructure plan, where the measures shall be formulated in detail. The content is therefore very important.

Madam Speaker! The government's priorities are that the investments shall contribute to ensuring that people on their way to work and the companies can as soon as possible begin to rely on the trains arriving on time and that the roads can withstand the ever heavier vehicles.

All modes of transport shall be prioritized and cooperate. The whole country shall live, and the transport system must be developed in corridors so that we can quickly derive the benefits of, for example, railways. We must also develop the digitalization of the infrastructure to extract higher capacity from existing roads and railways.

The transport system shall also facilitate the climate transition and Sweden's capability in crisis and war, also with a connection to the developments in our global environment and our membership in Nato.

Madam Speaker! We must maintain our current infrastructure. It is the measure that affects people's daily transport most and fastest. It is about, for example, giving the trains the conditions to arrive on time. Maintenance simultaneously provides the highest socio-economic benefit and the highest climate benefit. At the same time, we must invest in new capacity where it is needed and build away bottlenecks. Social benefit must constantly be in focus.

The infrastructure bill covers 1,171 billion for the period 2026-2037. With my previous reasoning that maintenance is the measure that provides the fastest capacity increase on railways and that it increases traffic safety on our roads, the proposed bill gives 354 billion to roads, so that all deferred maintenance can be addressed during the period.

At the same time, Trafikverket receives 210 billion for railway maintenance, which means that Trafikverket can reduce the maintenance debt as far as possible without the capacity on the railway suffering to an excessively high degree. It is a balancing act.

My hope is that, with the assignments the government has given to Trafikverket to find more efficient maintenance methods, we can ensure in the next infrastructure bill that the entire railway maintenance debt can be worked off. We do not have that information today because we do not know if such a large amount will be invested in railway maintenance that these funds can actually be utilized.

Madam Speaker! The transport system also needs to be developed and expanded so that people can commute to work and companies can transport their goods. The Government proposes 607 billion to develop the infrastructure. We are also investigating the possibilities for alternative financing in order to be able to build even more infrastructure.

We have great needs - from the Malmbanan in the north, new infrastructure to Arlanda and new sections in the west to a new cross-border connection to Denmark in the south. Not least, we have the section that has the greatest capacity shortage in the entire railway network: Göteborg-Alingsås. Göteborgs Hamn, Green Cargo and SJ all point to this section as one of the sections that has absolutely the highest priority in Sweden. Two new tracks are needed there. The section has a large impact on all of Sweden, both on the important section between Sweden's two largest cities and on the freight routes, for example from the Norrland coast and down and out through Göteborgs hamn.

Madam Speaker! There are many acute infrastructure needs, and the money must suffice for a great deal. Therefore, the lack of cost control within Trafikverket is very concerning. The National Audit Office has highlighted the problem in nine reports since 2017, but now today's government is finally tackling the problems.

Trafikverket has conducted an internal audit for better cost control and is now introducing efficiencies of 600 million. The Government has lifted 59 billion from the infrastructure bill to appropriations directly to Trafikverket in the budget so that Trafikverket's size can be adjusted through budget decisions on a running basis every year, just as for other state agencies.

We are also introducing a reserve fund to handle projects that exceed the budget. This means we want to move away from "budget kings" who push aside a lot of other projects. One example is new main lines, which went from 120 billion to 400 billion. That is the purpose of the reserve fund.

To this, we add the mission of more efficient production methods. The Government proposes a long series of measures to address Trafikverket's cost control so that, when we now make a record-breaking investment in infrastructure, we will also get more infrastructure for the money.

Madam Speaker! We need to cooperate better across borders, not least in the Nordic region. We Liberals want to see a joint Nordic transport council and a significantly expanded cooperation to more quickly establish cross-border roads and railways.

Madam Speaker! Now to our time's most important issue: the climate. The transport sector accounts for a third of Sweden's carbon dioxide emissions, and the largest part comes from road traffic. The Swedish vehicle fleet must be electrified.

Politics' most important task is to ensure that the charging infrastructure does not become a bottleneck in the transition and that we invest in domestic fossil-free fuels to reduce the climate impact during the transition from today's vehicles. We need charging stations for passenger cars where people live and work and along our roads.

That is why the Liberals and the coalition parties in the budget for 2024 had a whole battery of initiatives over a three-year period, 2024-2026, where we provided support for the purchase of electric trucks, electric construction machinery, and light trucks. We also allocated just over 5 billion to Klimatklivet to, among other things, expand the charging infrastructure. In total, we have allocated almost 12 billion over a three-year period, and we are in the middle of this initiative.

At the same time, the Liberals' and the coalition parties' focus on maintenance is an effective way to increase capacity on the railway and simultaneously reduce climate emissions.

The freight transports need to be shifted from trucks to shipping and rail, but I want to emphasize at the same time that this is not an end in itself. When the emissions from cars and trucks are resolved, the most socially efficient solution must, of course, be used.

Aviation and shipping also need to transition away from fossil fuels. It is positive that shipping is now proposed to become part of the EU emissions trading system. At the same time, the decisions at the EU level regarding FuelEU Maritime and ReFuelEU Aviation have set requirements for the blending of biofuels and e-fuels in aviation and shipping fuels. In this way, our companies receive competition-neutral conditions within the entire EU. The infrastructure bill now opens up for better roads and railways to our airports and ports, so that we can realize an efficient synergy between the modes of transport.

If we are to meet our climate goals and streamline our transports, research, innovation and technological development are required, not least within road transport. We need to develop self-driving cars that are connected and serve a sharing economy in society. We need legislation that enables us to utilize the rapid technological development as long as it meets the safety requirements and the requirements for personal privacy.

In conclusion: We Liberals believe that infrastructure should be prioritized on social utility, demand increased cost control, and believe that Sweden needs to increase the pace of the climate transition.

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

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Gellerman for the speech. As always, it was very informative in connection with the various proposals.

I would still like to ask a question about something that I didn't quite get clear. The member mentioned the Gothenburg-Alingsås stretch on a couple of occasions. As far as I know, it is not included in the plan. Can the member repeat in what way she sees that it can get started in the near future? Will there be such announcements that Trafikverket can start planning and so on?

I also have a question about what the member said regarding the transition for the climate. The member mentioned both in the previous debate and in this one the three-year project and the 4 billion per year that was support for light trucks and so on. At the same time, support has been removed. Does the member understand the reactions coming from different industries where it is perceived that there is a jerkiness and they would wish for somewhat greater long-term perspective?

It is incredibly large investment decisions that need to be made. The heavier the vehicles are, the larger the investment often is. Can the member guarantee that these supports will remain available for as long as they are needed?

As I understand it, regarding the removal of the support for electric cars, it has been expressed that it may have been done a bit too early. The point had not been reached where the market itself would take over. This has been mentioned by the Tidö parties with some hindsight.

But above all, I am curious to hear what the member said about Göteborg-Alingsås.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ulrika Heie for the questions.

When it comes to the section Göteborg-Alingsås, my party Liberalerna and also the member's party were involved in discussing the content of the January agreement. I then made repeated attempts to include this section in the previous plan, because it is actually Sweden's largest capacity shortage and is acute for the entire Nordic region. I had, however, no success with that.

Now we have made a decision on a large infrastructure bill with a 27 percent higher budget. Much goes to maintenance, but the larger part still goes to new infrastructure. As the member knows, Trafikverket will now prepare a proposal on what the money should be spent on. It is also guided by the orientation document for the bill.

There are many parts that this stretch actually corresponds to - infrastructure to the port, removing bottlenecks and so on. So there are many things that indicate that the stretch can be included. A decision will be made during the spring of 2026. One must have the money before one can start building.

Then I agree that the long-term perspective of various support measures is very important. At the same time, so much is happening now that one perhaps cannot have support that lasts longer than, for example, three years. Then one has to evaluate them and see how to proceed.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Since the member mentioned that this had not succeeded in the previous planning, I may well wish for success in this. I believe that virtually the entire Swedish business community sees the need for investments when it comes to Göteborg-Alingsås. At a seminar where both member Gellerman and I participated, we received a request from Norrbotten Chamber of Commerce regarding the importance of this stretch being included in the next plan.

At the same time, it sounds a bit worrying if it is going to have to delay for more than a year - a year and a quarter or whatever it may be until the next plan arrives. Are we to live in uncertainty for that long and not be able to use the time until then to do planning work, if we are still experiencing that it ticks in all the boxes needed for this to become a reality? But I look forward to following this.

Regarding the three-year investments to make the entire transport sector more climate-smart, I wonder: What evaluations were made when the support for electric cars was removed? Did the member experience that a worthy evaluation was made when that part was changed, or are there things to learn from that process so that they are not repeated before future evaluations?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the follow-up questions.

To just briefly dwell on Göteborg-Alingsås, that was the case in the previous plan, and the member behind it also stated that we were going to put even more money into new main lines. There wasn't much room, and there was also a large overhang that would have gone into this plan if we hadn't stopped it. It is one of the root causes - I am convinced of that - why this section did not get included. Now, based on the premises of this cooperation, I harbor significantly greater hopes that the section can be included in the plan.

The committee members also asked about the removal of the electric car bonus. We Liberals felt that it should be removed, though perhaps not as abruptly as just over a weekend. It could perhaps have been done over at least two months. I have been a car salesman myself and know that one needs a little time to close deals. But when we made that decision, more than 50 percent of cars sold were actually electric cars. Then I believe that the market has taken over the responsibility for sales. In that case, we should not have that type of general support.

Now we have introduced support for people out in the countryside who do not have the financial muscles to be able to buy an electric car. We have, therefore, changed that support a little bit.

One must follow the development here. I have a relative who has just bought an electric hybrid, that is, a gasoline car, and got it at a very low price because the market no longer wants gasoline cars. I thought that was very positive. Now the transition is underway. We see that the interest in gasoline cars is decreasing drastically.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! As a curiosity, I can say that I am indeed the only one who has requested ten minutes of speaking time in this debate.

We Sweden Democrats want to approve the economic framework that is presented as a proposal for a decision from the Committee on Transport.

We are now debating the extensive bill regarding Sweden's infrastructure and the economic frameworks that shall apply for the coming twelve years. This bill spans almost 10,000 miles of state road and approximately 1,420 miles of state railway, shipping, and aviation.

As everyone surely knows, the government and the Sweden Democrats chose to cancel the costly investment in high-speed trains and have now chosen a different direction for the railway but also a different direction for the road network.

Sweden is struggling with major problems with a neglected maintenance of our infrastructure. We Tidö parties have therefore focused on reclaiming as large a part of the maintenance debt as possible. We are adding 27 percent more financial resources to the frameworks that regulate the infrastructure proposition. This means that the total appropriation, which you have heard earlier here today, will amount to 1,171 billion kronor. I welcome that we have reached a consensus with the government and the minister on a substantial addition to our infrastructure and the national plan.

Furthermore, we address Trafikverket's problem with constantly increasing costs for its internal operations. To clarify this, we separate out the costs that Trafikverket has for its internal operations and the appropriations to the agency itself, and place them as a separate item. This item, which we separate out, will amount to 59 billion during the upcoming twelve-year period. This provides us with transparency regarding Trafikverket's own costs and staff increases, or for that part, whether they succeed in streamlining their own operations.

In addition to this, we see initiatives to renew the fleet of icebreakers, co-financing of subway projects, and so on.

As I mentioned, we propose that a new direction should be adopted. What does that mean? Well, our focus is to reclaim the entire maintenance debt on the roadside. Letting infrastructure decay involves significantly higher costs than if it is maintained continuously in an adequate manner. If a road has been worn down sufficiently, it requires completely different, more extensive measures to restore its condition. The appropriations for road maintenance, operation, and reinvestment are therefore increased significantly by 157 billion and land at a total of 354 billion kronor for the planning period.

Regarding state railways, the appropriations are also increased, but because Trafikverket has stated that they lack the capacity to recover the entire maintenance debt, this appropriation lands at a lower level, specifically 210 billion kronor. It is still an increase of 45 billion kronor. A smaller portion, 10-15 percent, of the maintenance debt is estimated to be recoverable with this appropriation.

It would obviously have been desirable to amortize the entire maintenance debt here as well, but since Trafikverket assesses that, for various reasons, they do not have the capacity to recover more of the maintenance debt, it is hardly wise to allocate more funds. But, as I said earlier, if it were to look different in four years, it would obviously open up for a new position.

More than half of the space in the infrastructure bill is directed towards investments in the infrastructure, specifically 607 billion. In which projects these will land will then be determined in the national plan, which we expect to adopt in about one and a half years. It may not be so easy to understand for someone coming from the outside and listening to the debate. But that is how it works.

Madam Speaker! We assess that we can significantly strengthen maintenance and maintain the pace of investments. But this is on the condition that we do not see a continued unreasonable price increase on the construction side. We must remember that the previous government allocated 25 percent more in its budget for 2022-2033. But the cost increases on the road and railway side have not only eaten up that increase, but we have seen that the maintenance debt on the road and railway side, despite the 25 percent increase in appropriations, increased during the previous parliamentary term. This worries me very much.

We have also seen that the costs for larger construction projects such as the Varberg Tunnel, Förbifart Stockholm, Västlänken, or the tunnel renovation on the Bohusbanan have spiraled. For the Bohusbanan alone, the cost spiraled from 495 million to almost three times that amount – 1.3 billion. If we do not get a handle on unreasonable cost increases, we cannot simply continue to pour money over Trafikverket without getting anything for it.

For the Varberg Tunnel, the forecast was 2.9 billion in 2009, and it looks like it will land at 8.9 billion. For Västlänken, we are talking about 16 billion more than initially, and for Förbifart Stockholm, which in 2009 was estimated to cost 25 billion, it is now up to over 51 billion.

Building underground is risky and has repeatedly proven to be difficult to cost-estimate. This worries me regarding Ostlänken, which, as I can see, is to have 27 tunnels.

Madam Speaker! Authorities also have a tendency to become expensive. Not only has the authority Trafikverket become more expensive in itself. This also applies to its outsourced activities. Trafikverket is today, and has all the time been, a procuring organization.

The Sweden Democrats have been very clear throughout that the 2010 merger of Vägverket and Banverket into Trafikverket was a huge failure. The former Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt launched this project during his first term. His intention was to reduce costs - read the staff - by 15 percent. That sounds, I can even admit, like a good idea. But the result we can see now. From having been 6,806 employees at the merger in 2010, they are today over 11,000 employees. And not a single one of them has the task of maintaining a meter of road or railway.

As time passes, more and more of the competence is also disappearing, as everyone who has experience working in the field on roads or railways gradually disappears. They quit or retire. In fact, it was not only Vägverket and Banverket that were merged into the giant colossus Trafikverket. The natural career paths were also removed by removing the maintenance in-house. That is one of the pressing points.

Banverket Produktion became Infranord, and Vägverket Produktion became Svevia. They are two state-owned companies now. But it did not end there. The independent consultancy operations were also removed in 2009. Banverket Projektering and Vägverket Konsult became Vectura Consulting. It was first a state-owned company but was sold to Sweco in 2013.

Instead of having 1,200-1,300 own consultants in-house with competence, one was forced from the Trafikverket side to purchase extremely expensive external consultants, and that is, of course, still the case today. When I myself worked at Trafikverket - I have not been there since 2013-2014 - the electrical consultants cost approximately four times as much as we did per hour. I guess it is the same ratio today. It is at least not likely that it is cheaper.

Madam Speaker! I want to say with this that it is easy, with a single blow here in the Riksdag, to confirm a decommissioning decision that destroys a well-functioning operation. But it takes several years to recreate such a functioning operation again. As regards the consultancy work, I do not even think it would be enough for a decade to recreate it – unfortunately.

Madam Speaker! Over the next twelve years, 1,171 billion shall be allocated for maintenance and investments. The Sweden Democrats' starting point is that taxpayers shall receive as much maintenance and investment as possible for their money. This is not possible without a proper overhaul regarding Trafikverket's organization. It has been proven time and again that it has become far too large to manage.

Organize the operations according to the transport laws for road and rail, and have Svevia and Infranord integrated into the new organization, so that the competence is back in-house. I actually also think that the own consultancy business should be recreated. It can take as long as it takes. It is so much cheaper to have it in-house. It is not just cheaper; it is also worth much more for the internal competence.

Trafikverket, as long as it exists, also needs to work with a more long-term strategy for preventive maintenance of the infrastructure. There is, for example, an enormous accumulated need to replace rails and switches. In recent years, we have had major problems with rail cracks, which can be traced back to poor rails from Domnarvet between 1976 and 1982, but there is a lack of a program to promptly replace these rails.

Trafikverket informed the committee a couple of years ago that approximately 300 miles of the rails on our approximately 1,400 miles long railway network are worn and in need of replacement, but the pace for this is far too low. For example, DN wrote that over 40 percent of the Malmbanan has worn rails that are more than 30 years old. When it comes to track switches, one would need to replace more than a couple hundred per year to catch up with the maintenance, but the pace varies between 20 and 80 per year. This uneven pace and the fact that Sweden often has switches that are not standardized makes it tough for the only manufacturer of track switches in Sweden. A more long-term and intensified way of working is necessary here.

It is not as sensitive on the roadside since it is not as niche or as technology-heavy as the railway, but Trafikverket has sounded the alarm that the road network on the smaller and medium-sized roads is gradually breaking down. There are only means to maintain the standard on the larger roads. With the significantly increased budget that is now going to road maintenance, our hope is that the standard of the road network will gradually improve and that all maintenance debt can be worked away, provided that the curve for cost development flattens out.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude with the winter road maintenance. Despite Trafikverket's words of improvement or even sometimes slightly bizarre claims where they mean that roads with several hours of closure are well plowed and salted or sanded, we stand here again. It is the same thing year after year. They cannot even manage to keep the absolutely largest and most important European roads passable. Preventive salting is not performed as it should be. Snow and ice control measures arrive too late and in too small a scale.

We also see that fewer and fewer are submitting tenders for winter road maintenance since they are not being paid to have expensive equipment and personnel on standby. The procurement model simply must be redesigned so that accessibility on the roads is de facto ensured and so that the contractors receive reasonable payment for their equipment and standby.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to comment on the Sweden Democrats' position on the issue of railway maintenance. It is obvious that the Sweden Democrats are contradicting themselves. One can do that if one wants to. But the Sweden Democrats have also stood behind the infrastructure bill, and there the solution to the railway crisis is that we should task Trafikverket with sharpening its procurement competence and strengthening its cost control. I perceive that as deeply inadequate. The systemic error, which I also hear the Sweden Democrats describe in good speeches, is left unaddressed.

Madam Speaker! This infrastructure bill is presented at a critical time. The pressure and the demand for the upgrading and expansion of the transport infrastructure is greater than ever.

The government has given its infrastructure bill the name The Way to a Reliable Transport Infrastructure - so that all of Sweden can function. "The Way to" means that we are not there today. Sweden does not have a reliable infrastructure, and that is truly the case. The situation is serious - more serious than it has been in a long time.

On the roadside, 11 percent of the road network is classified as very poor and 23 percent as poor. This means that more than every third state road is seen as poor or very poor. The further north in the country one goes, the worse the condition becomes, which means that we also have major problems with equality across the country.

On the railway, the problems are even more acute. The maintenance debt on the railway is three times larger than on the road network, and the debt is also increasing by an unimaginable 400,000 kronor per hour.

In addition to the maintenance debt, there is also a major capacity shortage. Rail travel has more than doubled in recent decades, but the railway has not been expanded. The risk is imminent that the whole of Sweden will be transformed into a bottleneck.

That Swedish infrastructure looks the way it does is a national failure. It affects train travelers negatively every day, but it is also one of the more serious threats to Swedish industry, Swedish business, and a sustainable and robust societal development.

Regarding the maintenance debt specifically, it is positive that the government in its proposition highlights the importance of maintenance and of addressing a very neglected maintenance. I truly think so. But the difference in ambition between modes of transport is truly striking. Despite the Infrastructure Minister describing the railway as the backbone of the Swedish economy, the railway's maintenance debt is handled to a significantly lower extent than the road's. 100 percent of the maintenance debt for roads shall be handled, compared to only 10-14 percent of the maintenance debt for railways.

This is insufficient. It is not enough to only address one-tenth of the railway's maintenance debt over twelve years. Vänsterpartiet therefore allocates more resources to railway maintenance than the government does. We also emphasize the important role of the regional lines and propose a loan-financed funding of new main lines in order to be able to expand the capacity.

Madam Speaker! I want to return to something that several of the members of the Committee on Transport have already touched upon. The question of railway maintenance is not just about more or fewer resources, but it is also about how we organize railway maintenance.

At the end of last week, I had the pleasure of having an interpellation debate with the Minister on how cost-effective maintenance of the railway should be achieved. Here, we are clearly not in agreement. But I hope that we will reach an agreement soon because time is passing and the figures speak their clear language. The maintenance debt on the railway is skyrocketing today in a deregulated, market-exposed railway system that no one manages to take the collective responsibility for that is needed.

In Trafikverket's previous orientation document - for the years 2018-2029 - the estimated maintenance debt on the railway was estimated to amount to 36 billion. Now, not so many years later, the debt is up to 91 billion. This curve must be broken. This increase, which is particularly remarkable, we should be talking about significantly more. To seriously handle this, we from Vänsterpartiet propose that railway maintenance be returned to public management.

The problem with the Swedish railway is a systemic error. As long as that systemic error is not corrected, the problems will persist. At the current pace and tempo, it will take 350 years to address the maintenance debt on the railway. We cannot wait for 350 years to get a railway that works. This time aspect leaves the government and Sverigedemokraterna without a clear answer, which is a huge deficiency.

Madam Speaker! The infrastructure bill is presented at a critical time linked to the great needs and the fact that such a large part of Swedish infrastructure will reach its technical lifespan during the planning period. But it is also a critical time in more ways.

The proposition, as mentioned, has a planning period of twelve years, which means that 2030, the year by which we are to have reduced the transport sector's emissions by 70 percent, lies within the planning period. But it also naturally means that what is or is not done in the coming years will affect the next target point, the year 2045, when Sweden is to have achieved net-zero emissions.

That means that this bill should have a full focus on the transition of the transport sector and describe in detail how we are to achieve a transport-efficient society. It does not. The clear description is missing.

I mentioned Trafikanalys' evaluation of the transport policy goals in my speech in the previous debate and spoke then about the functional goal. But Trafikanalys also addresses the consideration goal and concludes that the 2030 goal will not be reached.

Emissions from the transport sector decreased by 1 percent last year. That is ten times less than what was needed. It is also likely that emissions in the future, instead of decreasing at an insufficient rate, will increase as a consequence of the government's policy. That is not sufficient. Agreed environmental and climate goals must be met.

That is also why Vänsterpartiet says that one must move from forecast-based management to target-based management in infrastructure planning, so that one ensures a planning process where the climate goals have an actual impact. As long as one has forecast-based management, the climate goals will not be reached. This is a criticism that we have put forward for many years. It is also a criticism that today is shared by virtually all of Myndighetssverige.

I want to interject that it will not be enough for each individual mode of transport to become more sustainable. That is very important in itself, but it also requires transport efficiency, that is to say, shifting between modes of transport – from car to public transport, cycling and walking, and from road to shipping and rail. It is that shift that I lack descriptions for.

Madam Speaker! There is much more to say, but I will stop there and move, in conclusion, for approval of reservation number 2.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Green Party's vision is affordable and sustainable transport throughout the country. Sweden shall have a long-term sustainable transport infrastructure that works, where the roads are intact, where the railway is expanded, and where the trains run on time. It is important to create conditions for the business sector and people's everyday lives with sustainable travel, jobs, education, service and leisure, as well as an efficient freight transport that has low environmental impact and promotes jobs and development throughout the country. The transport sector shall also contribute to both regional development and rural development as well as safeguard people's health, the environment, biodiversity and the climate.

A well-functioning and sustainable transport infrastructure as well as good conditions for digital meetings strengthen both Sweden's collective competitiveness and regional development. The state transport infrastructure must be developed and managed throughout the country, so that the overall transport policy goals are met, the environmental quality objectives are achieved and the climate goals, which have been decided by Sweden's Riksdag and the EU, are met. Unfortunately, the government's policy does not lead to this.

The transport sector accounts for approximately 30 percent of climate emissions today. We have a climate act and a climate policy framework in place. The government is required to produce a climate action plan, which it has done. The Climate Policy Council, which consists of some of Sweden's leading experts, judges the government's climate policy based on notes. The government lacks a plan for the climate. The plan does not show how we reach the goals, neither in the short nor in the long term, says the council's vice chairman. The council's conclusion is that the government's plan is not a plan to reach either Sweden's goals or the EU commitments, and the responsibility for reaching the goals is pushed over to the next mandate period, says the council's chairman.

Sweden shall reach net zero by 2045, is the government's ambition. What measures are there that will make us reach there? When we look at that, it unfortunately turns out that those measures are not in the plan. We therefore believe that the government's action plan is misleading and lacks objectivity, says Professor Björn Sandén.

This is a failure that recurs in the government's infrastructure policy, which we are debating here today. But not only that – I can also state that the government's infrastructure policy will lead to very many people having to stand and wait for delayed and cancelled trains in the future as well.

The government parties are raising the railway maintenance by only 5 percent. That only a small part of the railway maintenance is judged to be restored is a total failure by the government. Especially considering the very large words that one has used to describe this problem, I am utterly astonished by the incredibly low ambitions in the government's infrastructure proposition.

Train delays and cancelled trains affect more and more people and occur more and more often. It affects both passenger and freight transport, and ultimately it affects confidence in the railway itself. A significant increase in ambition is needed, and the ambition must be to reclaim all maintenance within a reasonable timeframe. In that case, one needs to review how the entire system functions.

The maintenance of the railway has for a long time been outsourced to private contractors. It was thought that market forces would make it cheaper and better. But, similar to other countries that have done the same, it has instead become more expensive and worse. We know that several other countries that have taken this path have hit the emergency brakes and backed out. For example, the United Kingdom, Estonia, and New Zealand have backed out of this type of reform and retaken railway maintenance under state control. As a former member was pointed out, there is actually a big difference between other infrastructure and specifically the railway, which is an integrated system. There, one needs an authority that takes a holistic approach to the maintenance.

We can observe that neither the merger of Banverket and Vägverket into Trafikverket has created the advantages that were intended. 15 years is sufficient to conclude that it has not turned out as it was intended. Sweden needs a state agency that takes a holistic approach and devotes its full focus to the railway.

Miljöpartiet considers it urgent to have major investments in coherent main lines for the railway throughout Sweden. The government has halted important investments in new railways in southern Sweden, and in northern Sweden, decisions on urgent investments are lacking. This has created great uncertainty regarding how Sweden's future railway infrastructure should be developed. The government completely lacks a vision for the Swedish railway. The existing main lines were built during the latter part of the 1800s, and their importance for the Swedish economy can hardly be overestimated.

The railway that has built Sweden strong faces great challenges. The infrastructure has deficiencies in capacity and neglected maintenance. When parts of the railway have reached the capacity ceiling, it is not possible to either increase rail travel to a sufficient extent or transport more freight on the railway. Sweden therefore needs to immediately resume the planning for the construction of new main lines but also expand the railway all around throughout Sweden. Not least, double tracks are needed on the new Ostkustbanan, and the expansion of Norrbotniabanan needs to start immediately. The Stockholm-Oslo stretch is another example, and even Göteborg-Alingsås has been mentioned. This is absolutely not an exhaustive list. This is incredibly urgent.

We can manage that if we present an investment budget, which we have discussed all afternoon here in the chamber and which I know several parties think is a good idea. But that is not the case now, and therefore we will not manage the challenges we face with the current policy.

Another important upcoming link is the Fehmarn Belt connection between Germany and Denmark, which is expected to open in 2029. The entire committee was recently on a study visit in Copenhagen, so everyone should be very well aware of this. It implies significant travel time gains between southern Sweden and Germany.

The traffic flows to Sweden and also to Norway are expected to increase quite significantly. But here, the government has not given the new conditions sufficient attention. We will lack capacity in Sweden to accommodate the increased traffic flows.

Overall, I see the government's infrastructure bill as a lost opportunity to transform the transport sector, ensure that we have a functioning infrastructure throughout the country, and above all, that we manage to reach our environmental and climate goals.

Then one can mention, as someone pointed out, that even future transport will mainly take place with the infrastructure we have today. Therefore, we need to reclaim the maintenance of both railway and road.

We also need a policy for rapid and substantial electrification, and we need to phase in sustainable fuels in everything that cannot be electrified in the short term. We need to utilize the infrastructure we have much more efficiently with longer trains and better signaling systems.

We need to get the urban environment agreements back so that we can promote cycling, public transport, and walking in our cities. We also want a rural environment agreement so that we can promote sustainable transport throughout the country. It would give the municipalities, both in larger cities and in the countryside, good conditions to invest in sustainable infrastructure.

Then we also think it is a good idea, as Ulrike Heie among others pointed out, to look at an infrastructure preparation. It is devastating with the jerkiness we have seen when it comes to such large, important and heavy investments. We have investments in the hundreds of billions where, on short notice, the handbrake is simply pulled. They waste an incredible amount of resources and taxpayers' money that has gone towards planning to solve the problems that we see need to be solved.

Madam Speaker! Once again: The dismal result of the government's policy is that we miss the climate goals while Sweden's train passengers are left in the lurch, with continued delayed and cancelled trains.

Miljöpartiet obviously stands behind all the reservations we have in the report. But for the sake of time, I only move for approval of reservation 4.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Member Linus Lakso asked a question. It became a bit crazy in the last debate we had. The question was about whether I was satisfied that Trafikverket considered that one could recover at most 10-15 percent of the maintenance. Member Linus Lakso is very welcome to rephrase that question to me, but it is up to the member to do so.

I also have a question for the member. Does the member share my and, for that matter, the Transport Administration's opinion that around 1,500-2,000 switches are worn and need to be replaced?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Patrik Jönsson, for the question!

I can absolutely rephrase the question. I actually didn't quite understand the answer. I perceived it as that Patrik Jönsson was not satisfied with just reclaiming 10-15 percent of the maintenance. If it is the case that Patrik Jönsson is very satisfied with it, then a clarification would be good. I think it is a major failure.

It is true that Trafikverket says that with the current structure and current way of working, one cannot manage to recover more. But given that I know that Patrik Jönsson is very critical of the current structure and current way of working, it is very surprising to be satisfied with it and not see that here it is the role of politics - the government's and the Riksdag's - to ensure that we have agencies that work efficiently and that we have maintenance that is managed in an efficient way.

It is clear that one cannot be 100 percent sure that one would succeed in making it more efficient. But I am 99 percent sure that it would be possible to make it more efficient than it is today. I actually find it quite astonishing from the side of the Tidö parties to not even try and just accept Trafikverket's "No, unfortunately, it is not possible to make it more efficient." There, one would really need to review the structures that we know perhaps are not optimal in order to be able to reclaim the maintenance. But please clarify the answer to the question.

It is certainly 1,500 worn-out gears. I can neither say yes or no to that, as I have not heard that specific figure. But it could certainly be correct.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We begin with the first question. I thank you for having the question rephrased. My answer is exactly as before. No, I am absolutely not satisfied that Trafikverket is incapable of succeeding in maintaining more than just 10-15 percent. But I would have been more satisfied, or less dissatisfied, if the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet had not left behind a gigantic maintenance debt with these problems.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the switches, it costs on average about 5 million kronor to replace a track switch. It has become very expensive. It previously cost less than a million, if we go back not so far in time.

Regardless, the gears have deteriorated under the Social Democrats' and the Green Party's rule for a period of eight years. At the same time, you increased the staff at Trafikverket during your time in government. It was not only during your time in government. But the staff increased significantly during the eight years by approximately 3,000 people. Whether it was 3,200 or 2,900, we do not need to go into detail.

It is a cost of just over 2 billion per year for this. The 2 billion per year would have been enough to replace 400 gears. It sounds nice when Member Linus Lakso speaks here. But in reality, you have not been capable of doing anything other than letting the maintenance debts for roads and railways swell. Had there been a maintenance debt in the air for airplanes, it would have been gigantic.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! The maintenance debt has, as mentioned, increased ever since we removed the possibility of an investment budget in 1980. I mean that it is a systemic error. It is only to be regretted that we have not rectified it earlier.

But with that insight, Patrik Jönsson is throwing quite a lot of stones in a glass house here. We can state that with the infrastructure proposal that is now being presented, the maintenance debt will only grow and grow. Only a fraction of the maintenance debt is being recovered. I can only send that criticism back as a "tillbakakaka" [rebound], because here one fails just as capitally.

I shall mention that we have actually increased the appropriations for maintenance quite significantly. But it must be stated that it is a systemic failure on several levels. We need an authority that is more focused. We need to retake the maintenance under state control, similar to many other countries that first outsourced it to the market and then realized that it was not a good idea, in any case not specifically for the railway.

We also need an investment budget where one separates running expenses, such as maintenance, and large investments that are made less frequently. That is not being done with this government's policy either. It is only to be regretted that despite this knowledge, and despite the fact that there actually is a majority in Sweden's Riksdag to rectify at least some of these problems, it is not being done.

The consequence is that people - despite Patrik Jönsson's good intentions - will have to continue to stand and wait for delayed and cancelled trains.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I intended to address the discussion about having an investment plan for the infrastructure in Sweden. In a previous debate, we heard that as a motive, it was pointed out how in the 1800s there was an investment plan when one began building the main lines. They built with borrowed money then.

Now, the thing is that I took a course in economic history in the early 2000s. There I learned a very interesting fact, namely that in the 1910s we were the most indebted country in the world per capita when we had built these main railway lines.

When we were going to borrow this money, we stood and chose whether we should borrow money in England or in Germany. The choice landed on Germany. Due to what happened in Germany in the 20s with their hyperinflation, however, our loans disappeared. We had thus, in principle, received our infrastructure for free.

One can only imagine what would have happened if we had taken the loans in England instead. If Sweden had been the most indebted country in the entire world, what would our growth and development have looked like then?

The reason we lost the loans was therefore unfortunate, but to use that as an argument for why we should have an infrastructure plan today is perhaps not the best.

Then I also wanted to ask a question. You want to spend much more money on maintenance, but how do you intend for the capacity on the railway to be maintained if you want so much more maintenance and Trafikverket says that they cannot manage it?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Helena Gellerman, for the questions!

Firstly, I can state that it is fortunate that one can actually calculate economics quite easily. We have, of course, also done this when we have presented this investment budget. We have set a framework of up to 100 billion per year for ten years just to manage the climate transition and to be able to make the investments that are needed. It is an investment we are making for several hundred years into the future, because if we do not meet the climate challenge, we will suffer from it for a long time.

Sweden now has one of the world's lowest public debts, but we have neglected investments. It would be quite foolish to let the railway decay and not have the infrastructure needed both to reach the climate goals and to actually have the capacity for sustainable travel for a long time to come.

With the investment budget we lay out, we will meet the climate goals, and we will meet them in a way that ensures we invest in Sweden's business sector so that it will generate more jobs and development across the entire country than if we did not do so. Despite the investment budget, we are moving from 30 to 45 percent of GDP in public debt. This means that even after such a substantial investment, where we receive very many benefits, we will continue to have one of the world's lowest public debts.

We reason as follows - unlike the Liberals, obviously - that we think it is worth actually reaching the climate goals. It is not a big problem to pass on a sustainable world and still have one of the world's lowest national debts.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I can state that I did not receive an answer to my question. The question concerned how Miljöpartiet intends to act if one wants to spend a huge amount more on the maintenance of railways.

Trafikverket says that they cannot manage this without drastically reducing the capacity on the railway. They have made a trade-off, and in the current situation, this is the level they can manage.

The point is that if you invest so much money and reduce capacity, you will experience a great deal of frustration that is significantly greater than the frustration we see today. People will not choose trains or public transport at all. We know that if passengers have stopped trusting the railway and public transport, it is very difficult to get them back.

My question remains, then: How has Miljöpartiet intended to manage the capacity if they intend to carry out all this maintenance?

Then I also wanted to bring up that the Tidö parties, according to the member, say that maintenance of railways cannot be made more efficient. None of us have said that. Instead, we have assigned a mandate to Trafikverket to develop new production methods so that they, just like in racing, can go in and perform a pit stop and carry out a great deal of maintenance in a short time. They are also to develop how more efficient production methods can be created. What the member says about development is therefore incorrect.

I would therefore like to have answers on how you intend to proceed regarding capacity and on how the member views other types of transport. A large part of the presentation concerned only railways, but we actually have roads, aviation, and shipping in this country as well.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! That was a rather large question in two minutes, Helena Gellerman!

Firstly, one becomes quite confused by the representatives of the Tidö parties. It is said that it is actually possible to become more efficient - now Helena Gellerman says that it is indeed possible. Several are also suggesting that we can and need to reform Trafikverket so that maintenance can become more efficient. But at the same time, it is impossible according to Trafikverket, and in that case, it is not possible to increase the maintenance. I hear an incredible contradiction in the argumentation.

If Helena Gellerman now means that it is possible to do it more efficiently, one can therefore reclaim more of the maintenance than what the government has proposed. That is exactly what Miljöpartiet wants to do, and we believe that it can be done with innovation procurement with an agency that is actually dedicated and has a better overview of the entire railway system. We believe that we need to both maintain and expand capacity so that traffic can be rerouted to a greater extent than it is today.

It is practically impossible to answer the broad question in one minute, I unfortunately have to state, so we will have to return to that in upcoming debates. We can, however, state that we are restoring the maintenance of both road and railway. We also have an offensive to electrify the entire transport sector and a policy to produce sustainable biofuels for both road traffic, aviation, and shipping. In our proposal, we have investments in intermodal solutions where we utilize shipping more.

We therefore have a policy for all modes of transport and for them to be able to become sustainable. It is a policy that actually reaches the climate goals, in contrast to the Liberals, who - at least in cooperation with the other Tidö parties - increase emissions significantly and miss the climate goals.

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for a good debate so far! It is interesting to hear that there is a relatively large consensus in the Swedish Riksdag that we need to upgrade Swedish infrastructure. It is what the government is now laying the foundation for in a historically large investment encompassing 1,171 billion kronor on maintenance and new investments in road and railway.

The government is also making investments in aviation and maritime transport, which I intended to return to, because we are not pitting modes of transport against each other but are now addressing the entire transport system to achieve a robust, efficient and sustainable transport system that people can rely on.

One does not need to travel many miles in our elongated country, Madam Speaker, to realize what many have pointed out in the debate: The needs are very great. The lacking infrastructure creates growth barriers and negatively affects jobs, companies, and Swedish competitiveness. The lacking infrastructure creates vulnerabilities for our preparedness. And perhaps above all: It complicates life for people who depend on being able to take the train and knowing that the roads hold when they are going to drop the kids off at floorball practice or getting to and from work.

That is why I am very pleased to be able to present an infrastructure bill with a historically large framework, with more money for infrastructure but also with more infrastructure for the money. The investments shall contribute to a transport system that is as efficient, accessible, and reliable as possible. A national perspective in infrastructure policy was needed, which contributes to the development of coherent corridors and a clear systems view to increase the social benefit of the transport infrastructure.

The investments in new infrastructure shall focus on commuting and on freight traffic. There has been a lot of focus on that in the debate. I am pleased to be able to inform the members of the Riksdag about the freight transport forum that I have established, the government's freight transport forum, where we repeatedly have discussions on how we can strengthen the freight and the robustness for the business community's needs of a reliable infrastructure for this part.

Speaking of resilience, the transport sector needs to develop and strengthen its ability to maintain critical societal functions both during various types of peacetime crises and during high alert, and ultimately in war. This perspective is already included. The needs of total defense weigh much more heavily in this infrastructure bill than in previous ones.

I understand that there is a discussion about which committee should be involved. But I can inform that the cooperation with the Ministry of Defence is very close in these important and pressing matters. I have already informed the Committee on Transport and Communications that I intend to invite a representative from each party in the Committee on Transport and Communications to continue the dialogue at the ministry in the Government Offices some time in the spring next year.

All of Sweden shall function. Therefore, it is important to have a transport-wide perspective. The different modes of transport should not be pitted against each other; on the contrary, they complement each other. The development shall contribute to strengthening the business sector's conditions for regional development and rural development. The transport policy goals and principles are fixed, and the different steps now being taken to transition the transport sector are being taken in every mode of transport.

Here, the government strengthens maritime transport by removing the stamp duty, introducing a bareboat register, and taking competence supply measures. Regarding aviation, the aviation tax is removed. Regional airports are supported. We have provided support for costs resulting from the pandemic, and we have other measures that strengthen aviation's competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! It is about more money for infrastructure and more infrastructure for the money. I might start with more infrastructure for the money, because cost control is a very important part of the work that lies ahead of us. This is the direction the government points out in the bill, and we have already taken many measures regarding this during the two years that have passed since we took over.

We are tightening the cost control over Trafikverket based on the review that has been conducted of the financial management of Trafikverket.

We are also making a very important adjustment in the infrastructure bill, which some members have touched upon and which I want to emphasize once more. The increase that the government is making on infrastructure is in fact larger than the 203 billion kronor reported in the bill. For increased transparency, cost control, and budget discipline, 59 billion kronor that in previous infrastructure bills have burdened maintenance and new investments and affected the economic framework of the general appropriations are being redistributed. The money remains in the general appropriations, but we will now ensure that administrative appropriations finance administrative costs. That this does not burden the general appropriations going forward frees up the entire 59 billion kronor.

I think this is important information, Madam Speaker. What the government is doing in the infrastructure bill is to propose frameworks for maintenance and new investments in road and railway. The previous frameworks, where the Riksdag has locked sums to be used for exactly maintenance and new investments, have been in the many-billion-kronor range. It is many billions of kronor that have actually gone to something other than what they were decided to go to here in this chamber. The government is now changing that as an important part of our cleanup mission to get more money for infrastructure and more infrastructure for the money.

This means that the increase in the total new funds amounts to 262 billion kronor or the equivalent plus 27 percent if compared in the same way as in the currently applicable plan, which means that this is the largest investment and largest increase since this planning model was introduced.

The Government's firm view is that better cost control needs to be achieved. Much is in motion, but the cost calculations need to become even better and good budget discipline must be maintained so that the cost calculations are not exceeded.

As part of that work, the government sees that decided measures with large cost increases or otherwise worsened conditions for implementation need to be analyzed specifically and may potentially be reconsidered. We are putting strong pressure on keeping costs down. Likewise, the government intends to continue to use the process with construction start decisions more actively to counteract large cost increases in projects.

This is important because we see that the needs are greater than the resources we have, even though we are now investing over 27 percent more than in the previous or current plan.

What are we investing in then? What is the main focus when we are now putting so much more money into infrastructure? It is primarily maintenance. It is socio-economically profitable to invest in maintenance. The cost of patching and repairing decreases, and the government sees that a well-maintained and robust transport infrastructure reduces the vulnerability in the transport system.

Questions have been raised in the debate regarding the size of railway maintenance. I want to clarify that with the change we are now making regarding administrative grants and project grants, i.e., that administrative costs at Trafikverket will no longer burden the maintenance budget for railway maintenance, the new funds being released amount to a full 36 billion kronor. It is an increase of 18 percent if one compares in the same way as in the currently applicable plan.

Is this enough? Would the government have wanted to do more? It is clear that we would have wanted to do more, but we are in a situation where the space is limited for how much one manages to implement in the coming years.

Someone wondered if we are satisfied. No, we are not. We would have liked to do more. But the reason that there is limited space on the railway side specifically has to do with long lead times and a contractor market that has been adapted to the low maintenance of recent years. The criticism directed at the government in this case therefore hits very hard against those who have sat in power during the last mandate periods and also the decades. This is something that I believe everyone needs to engage in self-criticism regarding, not least those who have sat in power most recently.

It is also about access to slots in the tracks in combination with a lack of competence and deficiencies in the machinery that is available. There are also long procurement times for the machines that are needed in order to be able to perform maintenance.

That is why the government has given Trafikverket a very clear mandate to strengthen the work with railway maintenance. It is in line with what many are demanding: to get a holistic approach, to get strengthened procurement competence, to get increased operational capacity, to get greater cooperation in the sector and to release more of the innovation and technical knowledge that can make it possible to maintain more and at the same time take less time in tracks in use.

It is, of course, very simple to maintain a great deal. One just has to shut down the traffic on the railway, and then one can maintain a lot. But it will have very large consequences for railway transport, which is, after all, a completely fundamental part of the transport for the business sector, both for commuting and for freight traffic.

When it comes to the road side, we are reclaiming the entire maintenance debt over the twelve-year period. And on the railway side, we are therefore reclaiming as much as is judged to be possible. We hope, of course, that the other measures we take will mean that we can achieve even higher progress in the work with railway maintenance moving forward.

The great risk is that very much money is allocated that will not be able to be spent. Say that we end up in the same situation as I encountered when I entered the department, namely that there were 750 million kronor that could not be used and risked being wasted. And many of the billions that we hear being swung around in the debate today will not be able to be spent in practice. That is why it is extremely important to work with high momentum also in sharpening the work with maintenance.

With the risk of exceeding my allotted speaking time, I also want to delve into a statement that Linus Lakso made in his post regarding the Fehmarn Bält connection and that it has not received sufficient attention from the government's side.

The previous government overlooked proposals that Trafikverket had submitted to the national plan to increase capacity over the Öresund Bridge to account for the Fehmarn Bält connection. The previous government chose not to include this in the national plan. But when the current government cancelled the plans for main lines for high-speed trains, we saw that we can save a lot of money on the Lund-Hässleholm stretch if we lower the standard from 320 kilometers per hour to 250 kilometers per hour. What did we do with the money that was freed up? Well, we have already included various measures in the current plan. It concerns a new grade-separated track crossing at Malmö rail yard, construction of more platform tracks in the station hall at Malmö central, expansion to double track between Östervärn station and Malmö central, passing tracks at Slätthult on the Södra stambanan, meeting tracks on the freight route through Skåne, passing tracks at Rättelöv and track 21 in Hässleholm on the Södra stambanan. These are measures which, together with the measures that the government in Denmark made decisions on the same day, increase the capacity on the Öresund Bridge by over 30 percent. This is already in the plans now thanks to the government's reallocation of infrastructure policy, where we see that more money needs to go to measures that can be completed faster, actually as a result of the previous government not including the opening of the Fehmarn Bält connection in the plans that they had to make decisions on at that time.

Other things we are doing are cleaning up after what the previous government did when it halved the funding for the new signaling system ERTMS. That was done at the end of the planning period. This received very strong criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office. But despite using such system-critical infrastructure as a budget regulator, they still failed to balance the entire plan's finances, and the headline of the Swedish National Audit Office's report was that the plan promised more than it could deliver.

That is why we need to take a new approach and strengthen the work on cost control. It is also why we are now giving a very clear message that new forms of financing shall be tested. It is about achieving a faster and more cost-effective implementation and ensuring that more projects can be carried out. It is also important to say that socio-economic profitability shall continue to be guiding.

During the upcoming planning period, the government intends to actively test investment objects that are designed and built by an actor other than Trafikverket. This can occur through procurement, through OPS, or by being carried out in corporate form, this in order to obtain comparison objects for Trafikverket's production arrangements and operational forms. These OPS projects are often organized in project companies but can also be contracted out by an agency.

As a first step in the work, as appears in the infrastructure bill, Trafikverket will be tasked with preparing proposals for investment objects that can be seen as relevant for OPS arrangements. The Government will also appoint an investigator who shall propose a model for the organization of such projects. Some of these have been highlighted in today's debate, for example the Eastern Connection, the Malmbanan, and that money which will be collected via fees on the Öresund Bridge shall remain in Skåne and be reinvested in infrastructure.

These are many important parts of the reorganization of the infrastructure policy that we are now carrying out, which is about getting as much benefit as possible as quickly as possible and addressing the problems that have previously been sidelined regarding maintenance when we get more infrastructure for the money and much more money for infrastructure.

(Applause)

In this speech, Lili André and Magnus Jacobsson (both KD) and Maria Stockhaus (M) concurred.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the contribution.

Correct me if I am wrong. It sounds from the Minister that this with cost control is something that has occurred after the election. But wasn't it still Tomas Eneroth who, in late 2022 before the election, gave Trafikanalys the assignment to support, review, follow up and analyze Trafikverket's activities with a focus on cost-reducing measures? And isn't it the case that one is currently looking at the three national projects that have been reassessed and that a report is to be released in January? Wasn't it still the case that the old government also looked a bit at cost reduction, even if it didn't sound that way from the rostrum just now? It wasn't actually this that I requested the floor for, but I had to ask these questions.

How does the Minister view the fact that Ikea is providing buses just so the staff can get to work at all? Is it not a major failure, and how does one plan to move forward regarding that?

When we were with the committee in Malmö and Copenhagen, there was a very great concern that if one resolves a bottleneck, it arises in another place when there are no coherent corridors. Can the Minister say anything about that? How can we avoid bottlenecks being moved forward?

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It was a very good assignment that the previous government gave to Trafikanalys. It spanned over five years, and it is important to have a long horizon. But it is also very important to take measures significantly faster and to strengthen the work with cost control. That is where the question of the 59 billion comes in, money that the previous government let Trafikverket withhold. It was money that was supposed to go to maintenance and new investments. That the previous government did not ensure that this was properly organized is still a question that remains in the air. It would therefore be interesting to hear Gunilla Svantorp elaborate on how one arrived at that conclusion and why one let all these billions that were on the balance sheet go towards administrative costs.

As I said in my speech, it is important to have a systems view, to see the strands and to move from individual stages to more of the strands. That is the answer to the member's third question.

The question of deploying buses because there is no trust in the railway is a consequence of the delayed infrastructure that we have in Sweden. It is there that we are now shifting gears and taking measures here and now, reinforcing here and now and sharpening the work here and now, instead of presenting very far-reaching plans that risk consuming the entire space. To cancel the plans for new main lines for high-speed trains saves, according to the Swedish National Audit Office, 162 billion kronor. These are funds that need to be used to achieve significantly better functionality much faster.

I want to return to a question that has been raised in the debate. The reduction of 45 billion kronor that the Social Democrats are making on road maintenance in relation to the government's proposal will have dramatic consequences. I heard the member say that she is well aware of the conditions in Värmland and on individual roads. But these 45 billion will also be felt on the member's own roads. Please explain why you are making this substantial reduction.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It can also be seen as an investment in the railway. It is still an investment forward on roads, even if it is not as much as in the government's investment.

I would like to ask a question that we often receive. It concerns the strategy regarding our inland waterways and what is to happen. We have something that is quite unique, and that is our inland waterways which are not used to the extent they could be. This includes all the ports that exist around them. Many are wondering what the strategy actually looks like moving forward. I know that the ports are not partially national, but that they are mostly owned municipally and regionally. But the nation still indicates that it wants to go in this direction. Will there be some kind of port strategy or strategy for the inland waterways, and what does the Minister believe it will contain if so?

An absolutely burning issue ahead is the icebreakers and what is going to happen there. We know that almost all of them will become too old within just a few years. For people in the north, above all, it is this that makes it possible to get out with goods and so on, so it is extremely important.

In conclusion, I would like to ask if the Minister believes that it is possible to achieve the interim target in the climate area, that we are to reduce emissions by 63 percent by 2030, which is soon only five years away?

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! There will be a lot of questions - a tactic when one does not quite have the answers oneself to the question I asked about the road pothole, which is significantly reduced in relation to the government's proposal in the bill. I will return to that question.

Regarding shipping, the government has appointed a shipping coordinator to strengthen the work with inland shipping specifically. This is an important part of the government's broad work to strengthen the competitiveness of shipping. This also includes, of course, the issue of icebreakers, which will become an issue for the national plan. We have not yet received a decision from the Riksdag to lock the frameworks that the government has proposed, so I look forward to returning to that issue as well in the future.

When it comes to the road investments, the road maintenance debt is 35 billion kronor, Madam Speaker. Now, the Social Democrats, in their proposal, make a reduction that is larger than the entire combined road maintenance debt and pretend that it is a small balancing on the margin. This will be noticed in a dramatic way, just as it is already noticed today that when they had the chance during the previous plan and the plan before that, they did not prioritize this so that ordinary people in Värmland or any other part of the country can rely on being able to get around in a traffic-safe way, with good accessibility, without driving the car to pieces in potholes. This is highlighted by the business community as direct growth barriers. Still, the Social Democrats in their motion come back and reduce the road investment by an amount that is larger than the entire combined road maintenance debt.

I think this is strange and irresponsible. It will put Sweden, Swedish preparedness, Swedish competitiveness, and the everyday puzzle and lives of the Swedish people in a worse situation. The residents in Värmland and other parts of the country can therefore be happy that we have a different government that is now prioritizing fixing the road potholes.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I also want to express my appreciation that the Minister is here; I am afraid I may have missed it in my speech earlier. I really appreciate this and not least that which the Minister also mentioned: the opportunity to discuss the transport system's impact on the total defense policy situation. We will, as I have mentioned to the Minister, have a public seminar on these issues, and I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss them.

I would like to ask a couple of questions. There is a huge amount to discuss, as it concerns a proposition that covers all modes of transport and so on. It is clear that there is much to delve into.

I would like to raise what I began with, the needs of the total defense. The Minister says himself that it weighs heavily in this bill, but it is not its own heading – it is treated on a few pages under a subheading. I would like to hear a bit more about how the Minister views that part.

When it comes to more money, this is very important, as in getting more for the money. But it is, after all, "only" 1 percent of GDP. We are not increasing the share of the budget. How does the Minister view the possibility of additional funding? If I heard correctly, the Minister said that an investigator should be appointed in this area, but it feels like there is a bit of a rush or a lack of time. I know the Minister feels a sense of urgency regarding these areas, so would the Minister like to tell a bit more about when this will happen and a bit more about the assignment that this investigator will receive? I believe it is incredibly important.

When it comes to cross-border traffic, we were in Denmark and had talks with the Danish parliamentarians. They hear the Swedish requests regarding connections across the Öresund. How does the Minister view these issues moving forward?

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe I will start with the last point, namely the cross-border transports. These are also to a considerable extent linked to the first question regarding the needs of the total defense, as this is a very important part of the Nordic cooperation and also of the requirements placed on us as a result of our NATO membership. The allies need to be able to use Sweden as a country where host nation support is provided. This will, of course, be an important issue in the continued work.

Regarding cross-border transport, we have strengthened the Nordic cooperation. We have work underway to deepen the analysis and, as far as possible, synchronize our planning processes more closely. It doesn't matter much if we make reinforcements on, for example, the Malmbanan if they are not followed by reinforcements on the Ofotenbanan to Narvik, on the Norwegian side.

In the same way, when it comes to the Öresund, it is important to strengthen the redundancy to the Öresund Bridge. This is one of the factors that the Swedish Defence Preparedness Board points out. It also points out other parts: redundancy to the Port of Gothenburg and connections in an east-west direction, from Oslo, Trondheim and Narvik eastward.

These are the parts we are now working on, also regarding the needs of the total defense. It appears in the total defense bill, Madam Speaker, that the transport infrastructure is central to other important capabilities in our readiness with a connection to the total defense.

Regarding the second question, what happens moving forward, the idea is that the investigator to be appointed shall review and produce proposals on different models for OPSs and alternative operating forms, and that this shall occur at a high tempo so that we can land on various decisions in tandem with the national plan being presented. This is not something that is being put on the back burner; it will be worked on at high speed. It is also important that it is done correctly.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the good answers to my questions.

I would like to ask one further question linked to the bill. When it comes to the railway maintenance that the Minister has spoken about, it is well known what we think. But I would still like to ask about the possibility of increasing capacity in the future. It is clear that the railway system is important, and the Minister himself mentioned bottlenecks, which it is urgent to remove to the greatest extent possible. Now an investigation is being appointed where funds may be proposed even for further investments, perhaps also on the railway side. We can leave the old main lines and that decision there and not discuss it today, but what does the Minister's vision look like for increasing capacity on the railway? Is it about these sections connected to the large cities or also about other parts and bottlenecks, as the Minister sees it? I would very much like to deepen the discussion somewhat further when it comes to this.

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can illustrate part of the answer to the question the member poses with the example I just gave from the rostrum regarding measures we can put in place concerning land connections to the Öresund Bridge, within the same framework and for the same amount as was previously planned for, with trains running at 320 kilometers between Lund and Hässleholm. By lowering the speed to 250 kilometers, we made room for additional land connections that increase the capacity of the existing connection by over 30 percent, given the investments that are also being made on the Danish side. The decisions were made on the same day by the Swedish and the Danish government. These are calculations that come from the Öresundsbrokonsortiet, which means that the capacity requirement is secured until 2050, according to the assessments that Öresundsbrokonsortiet has made.

This is an example of the very practical vision I have. We need to strengthen the capacity by taking accurate measures as quickly as possible.

There is sometimes talk of visions. I believe that there may have been a few too many far-reaching visions with rather little effect on what we have here and now. Now we have a situation where we cannot fully rely on the railway or the infrastructure. In that case, it will be important to look at what we can do within the existing structure to increase the capacity.

I do not know the exact number of speed reductions on the Western Main Line in the current situation, but I believe it is approximately 100. By building them away, one can increase the capacity on, for example, the Western Main Line. By introducing the digital signaling system ERTMS, one can also increase the traffic. I do not have time to go into all the disadvantages of the ATC system from the 70s, but one can traffic in a different way with a significantly better and more adapted digital signaling system. These are also important parts as we now renovate and increase the capacity. Maintenance and increased capacity are linked, Madam Speaker.

I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Transport for the debate and for the constructive contributions.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for his presence in the debate. Very pleasant!

We have been into this quite a bit during the course of the debate. Despite very much talk, very many big words and an almost total one-eyed focus earlier in the debate, not least from Andreas Carlson, only 10-15 percent of the maintenance is being addressed again. It is still honest of Andreas Carlson to state that he is not satisfied with this.

It is always sad when one fails in a negotiation. I know that the Christian Democrats have wanted to see an investment budget and investments in new main lines, but in politics, it is such that one does not always get their way.

My question is still why one has not tried a bit more. We know, among other things, that there has been quite extensive criticism regarding the maintenance of the Västra stambanan, which we have discussed in the Transport Committee several times. There, a procurement has been carried out. One has actually not set requirements for it to go fast but has simply gone for the lowest price, with the result that it takes a very long time to carry out the maintenance.

This is an obvious low-hanging fruit to be able to carry out more maintenance in a shorter time. Trafikverket could set stricter requirements that the maintenance must actually be fast to carry out, and we know that there are machines that can do it much faster than it is done today. Why has Andreas Carlson not investigated these possibilities more thoroughly when he is nevertheless dissatisfied with only being able to recover 10-15 percent of the maintenance of the railway?

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate this debate. I also appreciate objectivity in a debate, and here I think there is some room for improvement for the member.

What I referred to was not a failure in a negotiation. As can be seen in the minutes afterwards, Madam Speaker, I referred to the fact that it is not possible to deploy more funds given that the level has been too low. The contractor market is adapted to the low maintenance of recent years. There are long lead times. It is about times in tracks, machine fleets that need to be procured and competence that needs to be reinforced.

Regarding the negotiation that has been made, I am very pleased that we have been able to give Trafikverket the maximum of what they themselves assess they can implement.

It was also strange to hear that it was a one-sided focus. I thought I went into quite a bit of detail on parts where we have actually cleaned up after the previous government's failure. Now, Miljöpartiet perhaps was not in the government when the previous national plan was presented, but regarding the land connections needed to increase capacity over the Öresund Bridge, it would be interesting to hear why one did not make a bigger deal out of increasing the capacity as a result of the opening of the Fehmarn Bält connection.

It has definitely not been a one-sided focus - on the contrary. I encourage the member to, in his next post, state how he himself sees that this could be implemented. Gunnar Alexandersson had proposals in that investigation which the Alliance government commissioned already over ten years ago. He pointed out that one could change the procurement instrument. The Green Party did nothing about that in government when they themselves had the chance.

It is now that we are taking measures to get time in the tracks, which is an important factor in achieving better maintenance. What we see today is largely the fruit of previous failures.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Andreas Carlson for the answer.

Then I must ask a more open question: Is Andreas Carlson satisfied with only reclaiming 10-15 percent of the railway maintenance? One can have different views, but my view is that this government has had a very high tone when it comes to there having been too little focus on reclaiming the maintenance. That is why my surprise that one succeeds in reclaiming the neglected maintenance to such a low degree is quite great.

I have been looking into how we could do this better. It is something we have to investigate over time - we have twelve years during this planning period to improve the efficiency of the maintenance.

We believe that maintenance needs to be taken back into state hands and that an agency is needed that focuses on the railway. We believe that innovation procurement is needed. We also believe that more work needs to be done in consortia with a long-term responsibility for maintenance instead of it being, as it is now, divided between different actors. These were some examples.

I have a few additional questions. As we have touched upon a bit during the debate, and as I mentioned in my previous speech, the transport sector accounts for approximately 30 percent of the emissions. Here we see significantly increased emissions due to the government's policy, not least due to a failed electrification. This is combined with the fact that the infrastructure bill primarily focuses on increased road traffic, especially if one counts in absolute numbers and person-kilometers. Is Andreas Carlson satisfied that the government is significantly increasing emissions and missing the climate goals, and is he satisfied that the increased emissions primarily occur within the transport sector?

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We see a fantastic development for several modes of transport. All sectors and industries are working to transition their part of the transport system. It is important to have a high momentum in this. The Government is taking measures and is, for example, making it easier to have last mile deliveries with electric vehicles, with pilot projects within the weight class of 3 ½ tons to be able to drive a heavier truck with a B-license, which is an important part of the transition. There are many examples of the Government doing very much right now. We will continue to do so.

We are also making major investments in road maintenance. I must admit that I am happy—it is being highlighted here as a distortion, but Miljöpartiet is investing just as much in road maintenance as the government does. The question is how to get this through with the Socialdemokraterna, who want to cut road maintenance by 45 billion. This will be an important part of the transition, because electric cars weigh significantly more and wear down the road surfaces more than cars powered by fossil fuels.

Linus Laksos' first question was whether I am satisfied with our money for the railway. It is 18 percent more than in the current plan. I would have liked to see more if it had been possible, but now we allocate as much as Trafikverket assesses that can be utilized. It is therefore a maximum outcome.

Infrastructure issues

This plan shall be revised in four years. We believe that the measures we are now taking to increase punctuality and reliability in railway maintenance and to strengthen Trafikverket's procurement competence, operational capacity, and cooperation with maintenance contractors, as well as the agency's ability to incorporate more innovation and take more account of the impact on traffic in the procurements, will yield results - hopefully quickly. At that point, we will be able to revise the plan. Now, however, we see that we have maximized railway maintenance, and I am satisfied with that.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 12 December.)

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