(cont. from § 9) Maritime issues (cont. TU15)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Jacobsson, for the speech! In his speech, the member stated that this government has a new attitude that is in demand. At the same time, however, we are receiving very worrying signals.

Today we are dealing with shipping. But we know that the new attitude is about removing things that have been agreed upon with municipalities and regions regarding the main lines. I therefore do not really know what is positive about the new attitude.

Last week, we had a seminar on inland shipping. There, representatives from Thunbolagen in Lidköping pointed out that there is a Väner Agreement from the beginning of the 2000s which concerns promoting inland shipping in a positive way. There, they point to fees for shipping in Vänern and for shipping up through the canal.

Since Magnus Jacobsson is from Western Sweden, he is probably well acquainted with the challenges associated with the locks, which we do not quite know when they will be finished. Does the new attitude mean that confidence will be regained for laid cards, i.e., that things that there are agreements on should be something that one follows up?

We also received the notification that the Transport Agency has now stated that passage fees need to be collected in Gothenburg for all boats heading up into Vänern. But then the Transport Administration says that it could be a zero fee. In what way will the Christian Democrats, who also hold the ministerial post, work to promote inland shipping?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The best example of the new attitude is probably aviation. There, the previous government, eagerly encouraged by Miljöpartiet, worked actively to ensure that everyone would feel flight shame. Now we have a government that is working actively to ensure that aviation is perceived as what it is, namely a part of the Swedish public transport that allows one to travel long distances. It is perhaps the best example.

Additionally, the member raises an important issue. I have personally worked within the Christian Democrats to develop a number of proposals on how we want to work ahead of the election. There is an exciting thing here. I can take Hjulstabron as an example. There, authorities and the government had an agreement with the municipalities. The municipalities around Mälaren took the measures they were supposed to, but the bridge is not being built. It is clear that such examples lead to municipalities not daring to make that type of investment. In my role as a Christian Democrat politician, I hope that Hjulstabron is included when we in our party submit the twelve-year planning.

In our home region of Trollhättan, it is no secret that one of the major delays has had to do with a discussion on how the main line should be drawn: Where in Trollhättan should new ground be broken? Unfortunately, we have seen similar discussions in more areas. We have seen it in the discussions about the railway's main lines.

I have been a municipal politician for 16 years. As a municipal politician, it is completely reasonable to ask the question of how the projects will proceed. But every such question delays the projects, and one gets a completely new cost discussion.

This government has been clear that if the costs spiral – this is part of the discussion regarding the main lines – it may happen that the matter comes back to Trafikverket. I believe that we all benefit in the long run from that attitude, i.e., that one has cost control.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is obviously wise to build trust. And when one makes efforts around Mälaren to promote the Hjulsta Bridge, one is naturally disappointed when things are dragged out. There are also many municipalities and regions that are extremely disappointed by the withdrawn main lines. When it comes to being able to trust the state, we perhaps still have a common uphill climb. Everyone must take it a bit when it concerns different parts that have not been completed from the state's side.

But let me clarify. The member mentioned the locks, which I also mentioned in my question. It is clear that it is important that Vänersjöfarten is not put in a sack for three years without simultaneously ensuring that the locks are built now, so that we get the opportunity to develop inland shipping.

One points to the work of the municipalities and companies around Vänern, but one also says that one appreciates the work with Trafikverket in these contexts. In what way can we ensure that one now follows the Väner Agreement and ensures that the cost development for shipping in Vänern does not become so burdensome that the consequence is that inland shipping cannot continue? When pilotage fees and other fees have increased by over 100 percent during a six- to seven-year period, it becomes extremely palpable for the companies. In what way can one trust the Kristdemokraterna when it comes to shipping and not just when it comes to aviation?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I may think that Member Heie is a bit careless in his historiography. When it comes to the main lines, it is no secret that during the previous parliamentary term there was a political shift where several parties in opposition concluded that the previous decision, which was essentially unanimous, is not economically viable. From the Kristdemokraterna, among others, we were clear that if we win the election, the work on the main line – I am primarily speaking of Göteborg–Jönköping – will be discontinued. That was information that we were transparent with towards the voters and which we subsequently also upheld. Furthermore, it was one of the first decisions the government took to free up resources for other things. It was a politically conscious stance. It is a political change that has been transparently reported to the voters.

This should not be compared with, for example, the Hjulsta Bridge or the locks in Trollhättan. There, we are politically in agreement that the projects should be carried out, yet they have still been delayed. It is not a case of any party having pivoted and, ahead of an election, come out and say that they have changed their minds. Instead, it is simply a matter of negligence, if I may say it brutally, and I would like to say that we all perhaps bear some responsibility.

The Chairman of the Committee brings up the Vänern Agreement. The really large investment in Vänern is, after all, the locks. There is no other opinion than that they shall be built. When it comes to the fees, there is a discussion. That is one we have, among others, with our Christian Democratic minister Andreas. But there is also a discussion with the Ministry of Finance, because it concerns how we are to finance the Swedish Maritime Administration and much more.

As long as the position is that Sjöfartsverket shall bear all its own costs – which I personally am skeptical about; one only has to compare with Finland, which we compete with – Sjöfartsverket must also collect revenues. There, I unfortunately have no other answer than that a discussion is ongoing. I hope that a decision will be reached that makes it easier even for inland shipping.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Mr. Speaker! After the group meetings, it is time to continue the debate on the maritime report.

Swedish shipping, or shipping to and from Sweden, is of very great importance, above all for Swedish foreign trade. The figures have appeared in the debate earlier. Almost 90 percent of what is exported and imported goes at some point by sea to and from Sweden.

When one hears that percentage, one also understands how important it is for Swedish industry that this works. It is important for the Swedish forest and pulp industry, for Swedish mines, for the Swedish steel and iron industry, and naturally for Swedish jobs throughout Sweden that the transport works. That is what creates growth. But it is not only the shipping lanes and the ports that must work, the entire chain needs to work. It is important that the ports are built together with railways and roads and with the rest of society. It is very rarely that the boats or the ships can go all the way to where they are supposed to go. The different modes of transport are connected.

I am talking about 80–90 percent. It is clear that it is also in peacetime or in times of crisis that it is extremely important that this works so that we can sustain ourselves. That is how we sustain ourselves. History has shown how important shipping is to be able to handle war situations or situations that arise when we are cut off. It is important that it works in a good way.

After the opening remarks, I shall touch upon four areas that I consider important when we deal with the maritime transport report.

One area naturally concerns the Swedish flag. One can ask: Why is it important? Why should it be a Swedish flag? A ship sails just as well if it is a British flag or if it is a German flag or if it is a Danish flag.

It has to do with security of supply. For the Swedish Armed Forces to be able to protect these ships and guarantee the cargo, it needs to be a Swedish flag. It also needs to be that many times so that Swedish seafarers have somewhere to work. That is where the best working conditions are. It is therefore also an effort so that there is a labor market for everyone who studies to become a ship's officer or a sailor or whatever it is one wants to do when one is going to work at sea.

Then there are some different economic incentives that we would need to have. Sometimes it sounds as if the tonnage tax does not exist. It does exist, but it would need to be upgraded to 2.0 or developed further so that we can compete with our Nordic neighbors – Denmark, Finland and Norway. I believe that is the most important thing.

We now welcome that the government has taken some steps regarding stamp duty and bareboat registers and such things, but it is the change or upgrade of the tonnage tax that I believe is most important. I hope that it will come in the near future.

I also want to highlight the net model, i.e., the compensation that the state provides to shipping companies in the maritime support. It is important that it is managed. It is something that is also managed by the parties in the labor market, where there is an agreement.

I may think it was a bit unfortunate that when one introduced the tonnage tax 1.0, or whatever it should be called, one made this specific adjustment of the net model.

But I believe it is important that we do this. As I said in some exchange earlier, it is also important for the traffic to Gotland to function. I believe the decision on a new tonnage tax or a developed tonnage tax needs to be made during the year. Otherwise, we will probably have a red flag on Gotlandsbolaget's ferries. It is extremely important that that traffic functions and can be protected by the Swedish Armed Forces so that we can supply Gotland and so that the people of Gotland can feel safe.

I am shifting focus slightly and moving on to inland shipping. Much of what traverses Mälaren and Vänern is also ocean-going traffic coming from other countries. Here, I believe one would need to do some kind of review of what the fees look like, because it is something that affects this traffic very much.

We talk very much about Mälaren and Vänern and so on, but it is also about coastal traffic. The stretch Oxelösund–Stockholm is an example. I believe it could work to relieve the road and rail networks in a good way. Another example is the barge traffic. I was down in Mannheim in Germany and looked at how they worked with barge traffic there. It is something that we could introduce into Sweden on a larger scale, I think. Historically, we have done it. That was how one transported the ore from the mines in Bergslagen in former times. It was via the barge traffic.

I will then speak a little about ports. I believe it is important that we establish a port strategy, where we draw up the guidelines for how we are to get shipping lanes but also railways and roads linked with the ports and that they should be able to offer the energy solutions that are needed in the future.

It is a bit unfortunate. Åsa Torstensson, who many years ago was Minister for Infrastructure, commissioned an inquiry that produced a proposal. Unfortunately, it ended up in the filing cabinet. I believe one must pull it out and start thinking about it a bit.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the financing issue regarding the ports is difficult. It is clear that the city of Gothenburg can take a large responsibility for the Port of Gothenburg. In Luleå, it is more difficult. And there are even smaller municipalities. The municipalities must be involved, because it is often the municipality that owns the port and the surrounding waters.

One example is Landskrona and the shipyard there. That shipping lane would need to be managed. It is clear that it is a huge effort for the city of Landskrona to be involved and co-finance this. But it is important for Swedish security that we can provide for ourselves and be able to manage our icebreakers and our ships in times of peace.

I will now say something about the Swedish Maritime Administration and the economic situation. It is quite obvious that there is a crisis there and that there are problems with the finances. The government allocated extra money during the year, primarily so that they could handle the sea rescue. That is good. I really hope that in future budget decisions, they handle it so that the sea rescue is stable. Now we are naturally talking about helicopters. There is much other sea rescue, but it is the sea rescue that the Swedish Maritime Administration is responsible for. If one is to be honest, it is well that one perhaps in northern Norrland would need to have a year-round presence. I believe that it is important, and then it is clear that there are increased costs.

In the savings package that the Swedish Maritime Administration (Sjöfartsverket) drew up, hydrographic surveying and fairway maintenance were also included. It is clear that these also need to function. We cannot just focus on maritime rescue. It is a matter of including hydrographic surveying and fairway maintenance when we look at the economic situation in the Swedish Maritime Administration (Sjöfartsverket).

Last but not least, it naturally concerns the icebreakers. We know that it does not work when there is a really severe ice winter. That means that the industry in Norrland comes to a standstill. It is clear that we must find a solution to that. The natural solution is that the operation of icebreakers is included in a national plan, just as is done regarding the maintenance of roads and railways during winter time, and that we begin to address the issue of investments in new icebreakers. They are as old as I am, so they need to be replaced, if one puts it that way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that of the reservations we have, I support reservation number 14. I also take the opportunity to wish the Speaker and the others a pleasant summer.

(Applause)

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can say nothing other than that I actually felt quite envious when Mattias Ottosson stood in the speaker's chair. It felt a little bit as if I could have stood there and expressed those fine words about shipping. That shipping has become a large part of the Transport Committee's area is absolutely wonderful.

Something that struck me, Mr. Speaker, was the discussions about inland shipping. Inland shipping is something that I have been passionate about ever since 2015, when the interest was awakened in me. I had been down in Holland and looked at how it functioned.

In 2014, the possibility of having internal waterways was introduced. At that time, the Social Democrats were in government. Unfortunately, they did not take advantage of the opportunity to introduce Swedish special rules for European waterways, which we can do because our waterways do not cross any other country's waterways. This means that we could have had special rules that mean we do not need pilots, which are costly. The pilots are, as Mattias Ottosson himself said, enormously expensive. It is due to the length of the canal they have to navigate up to Vänern.

Is it newly discovered love, Mattias Ottosson, specifically when it comes to inland shipping? If not, why did the Social Democrats do nothing during their eight years in power for inland shipping?

(Applause)

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It might be expressed as that inland shipping is a newly discovered love. But that is not actually the case. I have my absolute oldest roots up in Bergslagen, and there, in the past, inland shipping was great for the industry to function.

Now I am an Östgöte and live next to the Göta Canal. It is also a way to transport goods inland. I have visited the canal director at Göta kanal. There is serious talk about having freight transport on the canal. It seems that these issues are raised all the time.

It is about the fact that it is crowded on the roads, and it is crowded on the railway. There are different types of goods that can be transported in that way in an excellent manner. Grain is usually transported over short distances, and a barge can carry the equivalent of 200 trucks.

I have probably changed my mind. When I first looked at these issues, I was focused on the fact that it is about ocean-going vessels. It is things coming from far away that are to go via maritime transport. But there I have changed my mind. Today I believe that the regulatory framework needs to be reviewed. When I was new in the committee, the question was raised, but it went a bit too fast. You probably notice a change in the Social Democrats' attitude towards inland shipping, Jimmy Ståhl. We can review the regulatory frameworks so that maritime transport can function in a better way.

After a long answer, you get a yes to your question. That is how I can express myself.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can do nothing but thank you and bow. These are wonderful and joyful announcements.

I cannot hold back any longer: It is not ocean-going ships, Mattias Ottosson, but it is a question of inland navigation or coastal shipping that traffics the river. Ocean-going ships would not have had room in the river at all. They would have gotten stuck on the bank, and the ships are so long that they cannot turn in the first curve. But that is less important.

Mr. Speaker! Mattias Ottosson is talking about the net model. It is also a stain on the history of the tonnage tax. The tonnage tax was very rightly established by the Socialdemokraterna, but unfortunately, it has not been well received by the seafaring people. Few have chosen to join the tonnage tax. It is a voluntary tax, and we had hoped that more would join.

The government is currently working on the issue of the tonnage tax, and hopefully it will be finished soon – at least soon enough that I would say that Destination Gotland does not need to worry. Those are the indications we have received.

However, it was unfortunate when we discussed the net model. It was 100 percent. But when the tonnage tax was introduced, 1 percent of the net model was taken to fund the tonnage tax. We are talking about 15 million, so those are quite small sums.

Now I have some problems with how I should formulate a question, but instead we will move quickly on to the Swedish Maritime Administration. Have the Social Democrats considered converting it into a grant-funded agency instead of today's business agency?

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with the tonnage tax.

We have received somewhat different messages during the debate, everything from before Midsummer to the autumn, regarding when the proposal should be submitted. I will not complain or make fun of that matter, but I hope that a proposal will be submitted as soon as possible that benefits Swedish shipping so that it can compete on the same terms as the Nordic competitors. It is extremely important.

It becomes a bit strange when we discuss the tonnage tax. It is exactly as you say, namely that it was the Social Democrats who introduced the tax. But now 2.0 is to come. It becomes a bit strange in the discussion when I am held accountable for what this government is doing. It feels as if Jimmy Ståhl and the Sverigedemokraterna have closer contact with the government than I do. Given how well you speak about tonnage tax 2.0, I am a bit surprised that it is not already implemented. You should have educated the government and told them to do it.

The Swedish Maritime Administration is a bit of an odd bird in the Swedish administration. It is the Swedish Transport Administration and Svenska kraftnät that have that form, and it is said that it was Gunnar Sträng who once introduced it to save some money for the state.

This shows that it is not really working, and the report from the National Audit Office was clear. I think that one should review how this is financed. In the first step, the state must take a greater responsibility for its costs. The appropriations have not been increased in over 30 years, and there lies a problem. One must start by taking responsibility for its own costs.

This needs to be reviewed because it concerns financing the icebreaking of the future. In my speech, I stated that I think it should be included in the plan, and that means a different financing than through fees. I also answer yes to that question.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This debate tends to develop into a maritime debate. It is a bit funny! That is the dilemma when we debate a subject where we are in agreement on many points. It sometimes becomes difficult to find the clear area of conflict.

I went over the time when I gave my speech, but there is a major dilemma beyond those that have already been mentioned in the discussion regarding the cost picture, the bypasses, and that the Hjulsta Bridge is not finished. They are fairly important dilemmas, but we have already touched upon them.

I have tried to listen to different operators, and the message has been that inland shipping in Sweden is not so attractive for the transport buyer. When I have tried to dig a little into this, the answer is often that even if a ship takes more cargo – a number of trucks and railway wagons are freed up when a barge or some other form of inland shipping is used – it becomes a question of transshipments.

I do indeed come from Uddevalla, and there is a harbor there. We have at various times considered some form of coastal shipping from Gothenburg, as in former times. But even there, there are different concepts. It has actually not been criticism against the state, regardless of government, but it has been more about getting the buyer to think that the solution is interesting.

This is an honest and sincere question: Has the member seen the problem, and do you have any good things to send with us into the government talks?

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have seen the problem with the high costs. It is primarily about the type of goods that are volume-demanding. I previously raised the example of grain, which is mostly transported between Swedish ports already today. It is possible to find even cheaper solutions.

Something I can send along is the following. A ship comes from Europe to Karlshamn. There is a fairway fee and a port fee, but then it does not cost more to call at several Swedish ports. It could be a variant where it costs to come to Sweden but the costs are lowered if one visits more ports. Then one could also feed between those ports or enter at several locations. Many shipowners and transport buyers say that it is far too expensive today to enter at several locations, but if one could do it, one could also spread it in another way. That is one thing I send along.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the idea. I note it and will of course take it with me. I also believe there are more questions in the same district, for example regarding pilotage fees. One might have a pilot to one place and then want to proceed to the next. It is clear that everything that facilitates is worth carrying along.

I have picked up on a main criticism in the discussion regarding shipping. In my home region around Vänern, shipping has been practically halved over time, regardless of government. I sat in the regional development committee in Västra Götaland for eight years. All parties, from Vänstern to Sverigedemokraterna, agreed that they wanted to facilitate shipping on Vänern. All municipalities around Vänern also agreed that they wanted to facilitate shipping on Vänern. But it did not develop; rather, it went in the opposite direction.

In my role as a politician, I have made study visits to transport buyers to get their perspective on the matter. I have asked why they do not purchase this service. One of the answers is that it depends on the pricing, but the most common answer I have received is that the reason is transshipment time. It is much smoother to load on trains. If one succeeds with Fehmarn Bält and gets a railway system that allows one to load in Norrland and drive all the way down to Italy, it will probably lead to an even tougher discussion about the handling of inland shipping. I am therefore curious about how the member sees this issue with transshipment time.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start with the pilotage fee, because I find it interesting. The state can, of course, take greater responsibility for the pilotage fee, but I also believe that one can develop that technology in a good way. With the ships of the future, it will go even faster, because it is clear that digitalization and AI will become part of shipping just as they do in aviation and road traffic. There, I believe that one can lower costs.

The ledamoten is from the area near Vänern. There, new locks will be put in place, and they can provide the possibility for larger ships.

I also believe it is important how the city of Gothenburg behaves. I will not interfere in the internal planning in Gothenburg or how things work there, but it is clear that many bridges over the Göta älv are not good. Tolls are not good. If you are big, you should be kind! I think one should be a bit careful about charging such. It is a way to get better finances in the end.

I want to conclude by saying that I believe it is important to have equal competitive conditions. A considerable amount of fees are charged for maritime traffic. But it is clear that if it is to be able to compete with road traffic, it must occur on similar conditions. That is what most transport buyers I meet say.

I come from a paper mill town on the east coast. I believe we have four mills running at the moment. They use shipping because they think it is important and gives a good image of the operations. But they also say that it is always cheaper to send by truck out into Europe. That must be remembered when choosing the route.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating maritime issues. The government has had a great focus on that area during this mandate period.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has large raw material resources and world-leading companies that export the majority of their production to all continents. Shipping accounts for 90 percent of our exports abroad. It is therefore very important for Sweden's companies and for our welfare that it functions. The war in Ukraine has simultaneously shown that we must strengthen Swedish shipping, both with Swedish-registered ships and with Swedish seafarers, for the sake of preparedness.

Mr. Speaker! The importance of shipping for our Swedish companies and for our preparedness means that we Liberals want to remove obstacles for the registration of ships to Sweden. This applies in particular to the stamp duty for new ships. The stamp duty also has a negative impact on the development of climate-friendly shipping. Therefore, we in the Liberals, together with coalition partners, have ensured that the stamp duty is removed on July 1st this year.

In connection with the decision in the Riksdag, we received immediate feedback by Stena saying that they would flag in at least four companies. It is very positive. What the government does really makes a difference.

To further facilitate shipping, the government has investigated the tonnage tax. It shall become more attractive to register ships in Sweden. Sweden cannot have radically different rules than our closest neighboring countries. Denmark, for example, has rules that are more attractive than today's Swedish rules. The investigation has been referred and is currently being processed in the Government Offices, where proposals are being developed.

At the same time, there is a bill on the Riksdag's table regarding so-called bareboat charter. It concerns expanding and amending a regulatory framework for the hiring of foreign vessels and the chartering of Swedish ships. The purpose is to improve the opportunities for Swedish shipping companies to organize their operations in a rational manner and finance new ships. The proposal is that this shall come into effect on 1 February 2026. As you can see, the government, with its coalition partner, is taking the competitiveness and importance of shipping for Sweden's prosperity and preparedness seriously after it has been neglected for eight long years with a Social Democratic government.

The Swedish Maritime Administration has a central role when it comes to ensuring that shipping is developed. The agency is primarily financed by fairway and pilotage fees. At the same time, it is important that the fees charged take into account the impact on Swedish shipping's competitiveness and do not differ significantly from our neighboring countries. The impact of pilotage fees on the competitiveness of different ports needs to be reviewed. A developed digital pilotage service is central. However, the Swedish Maritime Administration has a very strained economy, which affects the fees. The Government is now looking at the agency's conditions.

Mr. Speaker! There is an acute need to replace the Swedish icebreakers. They have an important function in keeping Swedish ports ice-free so that companies can plan risk-free to export their products via Swedish ports next year. During a visit to Karlskrona with the Nordic Council this week, I also gained an understanding of the icebreakers' important function regarding our defense and in times of crisis.

The icebreakers are financed through a national plan. The Liberals want more icebreakers to be built to secure access to our ports and also to strengthen the Swedish preparedness. The Government has tasked Trafikverket with establishing a working group on icebreaking together with the Finnish Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency to investigate the conditions for conducting a joint procurement.

Our inland waterways, which have been raised several times in the debate, are an asset that is not sufficiently utilized. Only 3 percent of our domestic transport goes on inland waterways, despite good conditions. Therefore, the Committee on Transport organized a knowledge seminar just a few weeks ago on the possibilities for transport on our inland waterways. We received very many good inputs that the government will now look into more closely to see how the utilization of the inland waterways can be streamlined and increased.

There is also talk of shifting freight from road to maritime transport. But for that to succeed, an increased focus on the infrastructure to the ports is required. Roads, railways, and dry ports are a prerequisite for maritime transport to function. We know it can be done. There is a successful example, namely the Port of Gothenburg and the connection to the Västra stambanan. Over 60 percent of what arrives at the Port of Gothenburg is transported further on the Västra stambanan.

The Port of Gothenburg is Sweden's, Finland's, and Norway's most important port, a fact that many do not know. There, one sees an increase in freight of 80 percent by 2035 – already in ten years. The stretch Göteborg–Alingsås is already today Sweden's most heavily trafficked railway stretch with 100 percent occupancy. I ask myself: How is it going to work if we do not expand the stretch?

To prevent an infarction regarding freight transport to the whole of Scandinavia, the Liberals want the Göteborg–Alingsås section to be expanded to four tracks now for the sake of passenger traffic, for the companies, and for the sake of preparedness.

Mr. Speaker! A well-functioning ferry traffic to and from Gotland is vital both for the residents' and the business community's transport needs as well as for our preparedness. The new agreement, which applies from 2027–2035, reflects this. Destination Gotland will continue to carry out the transports. But it is also important that we from the government's side continue to monitor the price development for the transports so that they work for those who live and work on Gotland.

The availability of Swedish maritime personnel has decreased. With all the positive measures from the government for shipping, it is therefore pleasing to see that more are now seeking out the maritime training programs, not least the university-level programs for maritime officers at Chalmers and Linné University. Chalmers sees an increase in applications of 38 percent this year. It is fantastically positive.

The government has also adjusted the eligibility requirements regarding tire service so that more people can obtain authorization to drive medium-sized tonnage. A great deal is also happening in the area regarding educational opportunities.

Mr. Speaker! Shipping accounts for 3 percent of global climate emissions, and unfortunately, the trend is increasing. The EU is now taking the lead and has decided on the Fit for 55 climate package with four policy instruments that have a major impact on emissions from shipping. An emissions trading system for shipping is to be fully introduced by 2026. We have a revised energy tax directive, in which the tax exemption for shipping fuel was removed in 2023. An increasing reduction obligation has been introduced through RefuelEU Maritime and requirements for infrastructure for alternative fuels and electricity.

The Liberals welcome that we now receive competition-neutral rules in the entire EU. This also strengthens the competitiveness of the Swedish shipping industry, which is very far ahead in the climate transition.

The government has also addressed environmental issues within shipping, not least regarding washed exhaust gases that are discharged into the sea and pollute the marine ecosystems. From July 1 of this year, open ship scrubbers are prohibited, and from January 1, 2027, all scrubbers that have emissions to water in the Swedish sea territory are prohibited.

All these questions I have raised were on the Social Democratic government's table during the previous term without any results being achieved. It is this government, with the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna, that has taken a long series of measures to facilitate Swedish shipping, for the sake of the companies, the climate, and the country's preparedness and prosperity.

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

I would like to thank all parties in the Committee on Transport for a good cooperation during the parliamentary year. I would like to thank the Committee on Transport's secretariat and also the four spokespersons, who have led our various debates during the year.

(Applause)

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Here stands a happy Sweden Democrat who had the luck to be part of the debate on the disappearance of the stamp duty. It was a day of joy.

We Sweden Democrats have for a long time highlighted and illuminated the problems and injustices that Swedish shipping has had to endure. There have been rules that have not only given competitive disadvantages but also made it impossible for Swedish shipping to compete. How could it have become so bad, Mr. Speaker? From having been a major shipping nation with shipyards in almost every bay, we have moved to a situation with almost alarmingly few Swedish vessels and hardly any shipyards.

Our cooperation with the government has, however, made waves, and it is now happening. We are turning the ship around and beginning to see that more want to flag ships with a Swedish flag.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to apologize to the Swedish shipping companies. Previous governments' policies have forced shipping companies to switch to a flag other than the Swedish one. At the same time, I can take the opportunity to welcome those vessels that so wish to return.

The coalition government has worked and will continue to work to enable ships to fly the Swedish flag. We also hope that the ships stay. It is extremely important that we politicians are clear about what we say and keep what we promise.

Mr. Speaker! I read in the newspaper Sjöbefälen that Stena Bulk is flagging in up to six of its Suezmax-sized ships. To give those following the debate a sense of what one of Stena's Suezmax ships is, I can say that they are 274 meters long, have a width of about 48 meters and a draft of 17 meters, and have a cargo capacity of 81,000 tons. They are really large ships. They will be the largest ships sailing under the Swedish flag.

Why is Stena Bulk making this change? Well, they see that the coalition government is working for shipping. With the changes we are now making, including the removal of the stamp duty, upcoming changes to the tonnage tax, bareboat implementation, educational changes, and so on, it is making waves. Shipping companies believe in Sweden again.

Another great joy, Mr. Speaker, is that the demand for maritime training has begun to increase. Over the last two years, the number of applications where the ship captain and marine engineer programs were the first choice has increased by 45 percent. This is an absolutely positive sign that the policy, but also the shipping companies themselves, have done a great job of marketing shipping as a future profession with many exciting challenges.

Mr. Speaker! Do not think that we are satisfied with this. Unfortunately, there is still a lot to be done for shipping, not least for the inland waterways, coastal shipping, and coastal navigation. There are great opportunities to move cargo volumes to the waterways. The ports have capacity, and the will exists among the shipping companies. But regulations and costs stand in the way.

When it comes to archipelago traffic, there is also an opportunity to expand the fleet. But even here there are obstacles, Mr. Speaker. Converting the fleet to fossil-free power entails problems with the permits. There are also difficulties with charging the vessels out in the archipelago.

Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise something quite specific, namely the establishment of a maritime council. Ideally, I would have seen a maritime minister working on the maritime issue, but one cannot have everything – it would have been a dream, however. But a maritime council that, together with representatives from different departments, meets a few times a year could create opportunities to strengthen Swedish shipping. It concerns everything from tax issues, education, and infrastructure to the actions of authorities. Through such a council, one would increase the opportunities to untie knots and work forward to strengthen Swedish shipping. It can involve everything from industry to retail and everything in between, but also the shipping of the future, with new opportunities.

The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are not leaning back. We are pushing forward and working for a strengthened Swedish shipping. Some things take time – but it will come, and it will be good.

Mr. Speaker! We have many reservations. I love them all, but I do not move for approval of any of them.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rashid Farivar and Thomas Morell (both SD) concurred.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker and members! Many have described the importance of shipping here today. We completely agree from the Left Party's side. Without shipping, Sweden would come to a standstill. Swedish export and import are entirely dependent on the fact that shipping exists and functions.

Shipping is a broad area with many different parts. But today, instead of using the broad brush, I would like to focus on two specific areas: firstly, how we ensure stable funding for our icebreakers, and secondly, the Gotland traffic.

Mr. Speaker! In November last year, I had the opportunity to visit the icebreaker Frej when it was in port in Luleå, ready for the winter's icebreaking. Icebreaking is an important and advanced task performed by a skilled crew on impressive ships to keep our waterways open. It is a socially vital activity and a necessity for year-round shipping. The basic industry in Sweden is just as dependent on icebreaking as road traffic is on efficient winter road maintenance; without it, you cannot get through.

When I visited Frej in November 2024, the winter of 2023 was behind them. It was a tough winter with the most difficult ice conditions in several years. At that time, the Swedish icebreaker capacity was insufficient. Of a total of six icebreakers, three are over 50 years old. They are certainly well-maintained but outdated and worn out after all those years. Furthermore, the availability of spare parts is very limited, which makes the situation very pressured and vulnerable.

The icebreaker fleet needs to be renewed immediately. From Vänsterpartiet, we advocate for, and therefore move that, four new icebreakers be financed within the framework of the national plan, where a grant with full cost coverage for the operation and maintenance of icebreakers is also introduced.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is, as a previous speaker has also pointed out, the country in the world with the most islands – more than 250,000. The largest island in Sweden is Gotland, where approximately 61,000 people live. To live, exist, and operate on an island involves special conditions and challenges.

That is why several countries have developed and also adopted a specific island policy. But Sweden does not have one yet, and we need to change that. Geography – living on an island that lacks land connections – plays a role. If we are serious about the whole country having equal conditions to develop and function, geography, in Gotland's case the island status, must be reflected in decision-making and planning.

For Gotland, the ferry traffic is the most important means of transport for goods and people to and from the island, and its importance cannot be overstated. The ferry traffic is Gotland's highway to the mainland. In the same way as other counties need and also have a functioning road network to neighboring counties, Gotland needs its ferry lines.

But the ferry traffic is not counted as infrastructure, but it is classified as unprofitable public transport. Due to the classification as unprofitable public transport, the ferry traffic is sorted under the transport agreements and is procured by Trafikverket with ten-year intervals, through contract periods of eight plus two years. Every new procurement involves a risk of deterioration. This creates a jerkiness and an unpredictability. At regular intervals, the conditions for travel to and from the island, but also for the Gotlandic business community, for agriculture and for Gotland's extensive food production, risk being completely changed. It is not reasonable.

Several things need to be put in place at the same time here. The first is that Gotlandstrafiken is no longer classified as unprofitable public transport and is instead counted as infrastructure and managed within the framework of infrastructure planning and infrastructure financing. This is not a new thought. We in Vänsterpartiet have pushed for that demand for several years.

We are not alone in this; it has been raised by several other parties. For example, the Liberals, which is one of the governing parties, decided at their national convention in 2017 that Gotlandstrafiken should be counted as infrastructure. But now that a concrete proposal is before us, they move for its rejection.

Also, the government's expert agency Trafikanalys has reached the exact same conclusion and writes in a report from 2012 that the Gotland traffic should be seen as a replacement for a land connection and be handled as other infrastructure issues. Despite Trafikanalys' clear recommendation, we stand today, almost 15 years later, still in the same place, with the same problems. The question has not moved a millimeter. It is not sufficient.

Mr. Speaker! I would also like to touch upon the transition of ferry traffic and the climate requirements included in the new agreement that applies from 2027 – requirements that we consider to be set too low. The Government has to adhere to what the Riksdag has decided, and the Riksdag, as everyone knows, has decided on the 2030 goal for domestic transport with a 70 percent reduction in emissions by 2030. But the new agreement for the Gotland traffic which starts to apply in 2027, which I mentioned, contains no requirements for a 70 percent reduction in emissions; instead, the requirement applies to a 30 percent reduction. This requirement concerns a period that is time-critical if we are to meet our climate goals, not just the 2030 goal. Since the contract period is long, this also has implications and impact on the possibility of meeting the 2045 goal.

This level of requirement does not stimulate the technological leap that would have been needed during the coming eight years. We think that is unfortunate. But it also does not send the signals from the state that are needed that the climate goals are fixed and shall be reached. Here, there was an opportunity to show how state-funded shipping takes responsibility and leads the way. It would have been a very important signal. Reasonable prices at reasonable times without compromising on the climate requirements should have been the way forward.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, regarding reasonable prices: We saw a few years ago how the ticket price was shock-increased, and in December 2022, all parties on Gotland acted in unison and raised the issue to the government. In September 2023, the announcement finally came that Gotland would be compensated for high ferry prices, with 33 million kronor – money that lasted approximately half a year. Since then, there has been silence regarding state compensation while the prices continue to be too high. This must be handled here and now. The issue is not resolved. A compensation that guarantees reasonable prices until 2027 and beyond must be put in place.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 26. I would like to thank all members of the Committee on Transport and all others for the past year and wish everyone a pleasant summer.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Committee on Transport, which I have had the pleasure of listening to for over an hour here. It has been a rewarding time with many different perspectives.

I am not going to try to replace Linus Lakso, but I can take his place here just for today. I may speak about other things than what many of you have done, but even if I do not mention Gotland or Donsö specifically, it does not mean that we think it is uninteresting.

A figure that recurs all the time is 90. 90 percent of all trade occurs via maritime transport, both internationally and in Sweden. These are enormous export and import flows that go through our ports.

Shipping has a central role in our transition to create a fossil-free society, yet we talk very little about shipping's opportunities to contribute. Large volumes can be transported by sea with very little energy use per transported ton. There are therefore economic and climate-related reasons why we need to protect shipping. This applies to both export and import by ships, which travel long distances, and we must not forget coastal and inland shipping, which has been raised here on several occasions. If we can relieve roads and railways where we currently have a capacity shortage nationally, it is an advantage.

Madam Speaker! The transport sector shall reduce its emissions by 70 percent by 2030. We have also spoken about this on several occasions here. Seven of the eight parties in the Riksdag have agreed on this goal in this chamber, but in that match, we have still only come halfway. How we are to reach the goal is the government's responsibility, but despite the fact that we are approaching halftime, there are not many solutions in sight. The government needs to come forward with a policy for how the transition of shipping shall be accelerated, for in a world where we safeguard the environment and the climate, shipping can impossibly continue to move forward with fossil bunker diesel.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has proposals to accelerate the transition. One of the most important reforms that we want to put in place is some form of production support for electrofuels. This would facilitate and speed up the shipping industry's transition to sustainable fuels.

Over short distances, electrification is a good alternative, but for long-distance transport, we will need to produce sustainable fuels, for example different types of e-fuels such as hydrogen, methanol and others – hence Miljöpartiet's proposal for a production subsidy.

A state production support for electrofuels would also be extra favorable given that the EU has finally incorporated shipping into the EU's emissions trading system and the large reform package being rolled out: Fit for 55. From 2026 onwards, shipping shall be fully included in the emissions trading system, and the phase-in has already begun.

Ships traveling between the EU and third countries need to purchase emission allowances for 50 percent of the emissions caused by the journey. This will mean a lot for shipping and its work for the transition. Within the EU, 100 percent of the emissions apply. To begin with, carbon dioxide emissions are covered, but after 2026, methane and nitrogen oxides are also covered. What we need to do from the Riksdag and the government is to support shipping in this transition.

Madam Speaker! The EU has also taken decisions on the FuelEU Maritime system, which entails a reduction obligation system for shipping. It is incredibly pleasing that this is in place from 1 January 2025, with a couple of exceptions concerning the EEA countries Norway and Iceland. It concerns, as said, being able to produce sustainable fuels.

Shipping has, as mentioned, many advantages when it comes to the environment, primarily by being an efficient way to transport large quantities of goods. But there are great challenges in the environmental area. The National Audit Office has audited the government's policy in the area, which leaves some room for improvement. The National Audit Office notes that the environment in Swedish seas is heavily burdened, that good environmental status is not being reached, and that negative consequences for both the environment and society can be expected if we do not take extensive measures.

A problem that has come to be increasingly noticed is the so-called scrubbing, i.e., wash water that has been used on board and which is discharged untreated into the sea. Several countries have already prohibited this. Sweden has followed suit, but the state's efforts to reduce shipping's emissions can become more effective. Both sufficient regulation of emissions and sufficient reception capacity in the ports are needed for the emissions into the sea to decrease.

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that the development in our seas is extremely serious, while at the same time the condition of the ecosystems in both the Baltic Sea and the West Sea is in many ways acute. Thus, it is a critical situation to be able to reverse the development and rebuild the ecosystems.

I can state that shipping contributes to several pressures on the marine environment, including through emissions of harmful substances such as scrubber water, which I spoke about just now, i.e., wash water from the cleaning of flue gases as well as wash water from the cleaning of cargo tanks. I therefore mean that the government should introduce a ban on the discharge of all scrubber water in all of Sweden's territorial waters as soon as possible. This has, as we heard, already happened. The ban on emissions from all scrubbers begins to apply somewhat later, in 2029, but it should be introduced as soon as possible, preferably earlier than 2029.

Even though the government states that Sweden has coordinated the proposal with similar proposals in Denmark and Finland, I believe that the Swedish ban should be moved forward in accordance with the National Audit Office's recommendations so that we get a ban everywhere as soon as possible.

Maritime issues

I also want to point out the importance of advocating for bans even within large bodies of water such as the Baltic Sea and international waters. It is not only within our own borders that this is important. I mean that the government should advocate for stricter regulation of emissions from shipping in general and that the government must act actively within the EU and internationally so that emissions from marine activities are reduced both drastically and promptly, to eventually cease completely. It is also important that the government pushes for a tightening of Marpol so that it shall no longer be permitted to discharge cargo residues into the sea.

Madam Speaker! Between Denmark and Germany, the Fehmarn Belt tunnel will open for rail and road traffic in 2029. As has been the case before, this will significantly change the freight flows into and out of Sweden. The risk is imminent that we will get large amounts of freight on the roads, not least on the E6 north towards Gothenburg and Norway, if our railway system is not adapted to the changes. This should be investigated immediately.

To increase capacity to and from Sweden and the rest of the Nordics, several modes of transport must be involved, not least rail. For climate reasons, it is necessary that a significant part of the upcoming traffic can be shifted from road to rail or to coastal shipping. The ports in Gothenburg and along the Halland coast, and as far as I understand, also the port in Uddevalla, are working to improve the conditions for shipping over shorter distances. This can contribute quite a lot.

We mean that a Swedish green coastal shipping strategy is needed that combines the maritime issues and the national freight transport plan. In Norway, such a strategy has already been developed.

With this said, I naturally stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations, but to save time, I move for approval only of reservation 13, which concerns coastal shipping.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 June.)

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