Infrastructure issues

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! The report we are to debate now deals with the communication on national planning for the transport infrastructure 2022-2033 as well as motions from the general motion period. There are 329 motions in the motions. It is therefore not in doubt that infrastructure engages. What one can wonder about sometimes is why infrastructure does not appear on the list of issues that the voters prioritize. A functioning infrastructure is necessary in order to be able to get to and from work and for goods to be able to be transported within Sweden and also exported. It is no exaggeration to say that the infrastructure is the bloodstream in Swedish society.

In Sweden, there are a total of 610,500 kilometers of road, 22,800 kilometers of cycle path, 15,600 kilometers of track and about forty ferry routes. To that are added ports, shipping lanes and airports. Taken together, they form a transport system.

Madam Speaker! I wanted to make a comparison. Imagine that Sweden's transport system is a house – a house that today has a leaking roof, peeling paint, and broken windows. It is the consequence of us not prioritizing the maintenance of our house for a long time. When people talk about the new projects in the infrastructure plan, and that is often where the debate lands, I would like to liken it to discussing building a glassed-in sunroom on our dilapidated house. It is quite absurd given the status of our transport systems.

We Moderates want to prioritize ensuring that the rails, the roads, the ports, and the airports that already exist actually function. That was why, in the follow-up motion we wrote to the previous government's infrastructure bill, we made a redistribution from new projects to maintenance.

Maintaining does not involve as many ribbon-cuttings in an election campaign, but better maintenance could quickly make a difference for all those people who depend on the infrastructure to make everyday life function and for all those companies that depend on transport for the company to survive. It is a socio-economically efficient way to use tax money and also measures that yield results faster than building new.

Madam Speaker! We have discussed high-speed railways many times in this chamber. I suspect that today's debate will not be the last either. All four coalition parties were very clear before the election that we do not want to build high-speed railways where the focus is on reducing travel time between the terminal stations. It is not profitable. In Sweden, we are too few people for it to be profitable from a socio-economic point of view. There are many important investments and much maintenance that have higher priority and which risk not being completed if one focuses on the high-speed project.

The National Audit Office has reviewed the cost increases in infrastructure projects and criticized the fact that there are no control points during the planning and design phase. Control points are needed where one stops, looks at the calculation, and makes the assessment of whether it is still worth investing in the project. That is what we in the government have now done with the high-speed project: We have established that the price tag has multiplied, and we have pulled the handbrake.

It does not mean, as some debaters say, that we do not want to build tracks at all. We believe in the railway, especially when it comes to commuting and large labor market regions. We want to focus on building away the bottlenecks that we see in the system that already exists. Göteborg-Alingsås and Uppsala-Stockholm are the two worst sections in the entire system, and regarding the national plan, it actually offers no solution at all for these sections.

Madam Speaker! The transport sector is exciting in many ways, not least when it comes to technological development. Next week, when the House is in recess, we Moderates in the Transport Committee will visit both Einride, which develops self-driving electric trucks, and Walleniusrederierna, which are currently designing an ocean-going vessel powered by wind energy.

It is sometimes almost difficult to keep up with the changes; technological development is moving so fast. When I started working with transport issues about three years ago, no one believed that heavy trucks would be drivable on electricity, but already now, electric trucks are rolling out from our large manufacturers. It doesn't stop there: New fuels are on the way, and what is common for them is that all are fossil-free.

A little over a decade ago, the first iPhone arrived, and shortly thereafter came the first Tesla. The electric car was met with great skepticism, as it challenged the entire traditional automotive industry. It was, therefore, about ten years ago. In today's situation, electric and hybrid cars account for 50 percent of new car sales in Sweden.

Today, many are skeptical about electric aviation. The former Minister for Infrastructure even said that electric aviation will not affect Swedish aviation. Why would electric aviation not develop rapidly when the world is increasingly focusing on transitioning?

In a not too distant future, all types of transport will be fossil-free. It is a political challenge. We must take technology development into account and create the transport systems of the future based on the development that we see is underway.

Madam Speaker! There is reason to feel hopeful. We Moderates embrace and want to see initiatives to support development. We want to develop an efficient transport system - not dismantle transport.

I look forward to the work on a new national plan, developed by parties that realize that we need all types of transport and do not pit the types of transport against each other, and that embrace travel and the opportunities this provides for different meetings.

This should also be a plan that is developed with a focus on ensuring that tax money is used as efficiently as possible. Politics is about will, but politics also requires that one prioritizes. For us Moderates, it is obvious to focus on what provides the greatest benefit for the money we invest - anything else is irresponsible.

With this, Madam Speaker, I wish to move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Stockhaus for the speech.

Just as the member mentioned in his introduction, this is a very large report. There are very many questions that I would like to drill down further into. Therefore, I have a number of questions for the member.

Maria Stockhaus spoke about a glazed outdoor room. It was also about maintenance and about us working with commuting; in that case, it concerned Stockholm-Uppsala and Alingsås-Göteborg. Towards the end, the member also said that we shall use tax money in an efficient way, and that is probably something everyone who handles tax money agrees on in different ways. I have a couple of questions about this.

Finding other financing solutions is an important part of using tax money effectively. Maria Stockhaus belongs to the Prime Minister's party and has, I believe, great influence over upcoming infrastructure planning. How do the Moderaterna and Maria Stockhaus view alternative financing solutions in order to be able to free up additional resources? Both Maria Stockhaus and I are frustrated that it takes a very long time to build different forms of infrastructure in our country. We also have to maintain.

I must also ask the same question that one asks in Skåne: Why was a pause not granted? Why was a different treatment given than to Västra Götalandsregionen? Why was the development in Skåne stopped? The chambers of commerce wonder. The business community wonders.

What was it that made one feel that they had to pull the emergency brake, or whatever kind of brake it was, so incredibly hard? It created an immense frustration, because we know that it takes a very long time with all forms of planning of this.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the Centre Party could reach an agreement with the government parties on starting to look at an alternative financing solution. I do not believe we differ on that.

Those who look at the motions we introduced when we sat in opposition, and also somewhat at the points we made during the election campaign, see that we have actually been clear that we want a number of projects to be identified that could be suitable for other types of financing solutions. The Öresund Bridge is a very successful example.

We also know that there is a lot of private capital that would like to invest in infrastructure. The question is only how we find good models for that, so that it works and does not become too expensive for those who are to use the infrastructure.

This is something we absolutely want to look at. Maintenance is something that it is more difficult to get private capital and other financing for. If we can ensure that some large projects are financed in other ways, resources are released for maintenance. I devoted a large part of my speech to talking about that we need to ensure that what is already in place actually functions.

When it comes to Skåne, it was the case that the Lund-Hässleholm section was still planned for 320 kilometers per hour. This was not the case with Borås-Göteborg or with Ostlänken. One had not come as far, and therefore there was an opportunity to make a larger adjustment.

Now the focus will lie on what we need to do to strengthen commuting in Skåne. The focus on being able to travel quickly between Malmö and Stockholm will be released.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Maria Stockhaus for the answers. I would still like the member to elaborate a bit more.

The Fehmarn Belt link opens in 2029, and we know that there is a hurry. When we debated these very issues in the budget debate just before Christmas, the member pointed out that Denmark is not finished with its railway, but I have understood that they will be by 2029 in such a way that freight actually gets the opportunity to reach Sweden. How does the member view the speed that is needed to solve a large part of the traffic situation in Skåne ahead of the challenge that stands just a few years away?

I thank Maria Stockhaus for the positive approach regarding alternative financing. I want to ask if the Moderates are prepared to push for Trafikverket to be given the assignment to identify a number of larger infrastructure investments that could be used for so-called PPP solutions and to work with this instrument. In that case, it would still be quite good if this assignment does not have to wait until a new infrastructure plan arrives towards the end of this parliamentary term. It would be good to show that there is a tempo. I have understood from several representatives of the government side that people think various issues have gained momentum, not least in the infrastructure area. This would be a way to show that tempo for real.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! We are pushing forward absolutely to get this done. We need to identify these projects and agree on them in order to see what financing solutions are available.

Regarding Lund-Hässleholm, they planned for 320 kilometers per hour and had laid the new tracks straight, in the middle of nature. I have personally been down there and met various interest groups. There have been enormous protests against the planned sections, and it would have led to a lot of appeals if the plans that existed had been followed through.

Region Skåne has looked into building tracks for 250 kilometers per hour in connection with existing tracks or in connection with an existing road, where virgin land would not be claimed. If I have understood the whole thing correctly, there is, among other things, a bat that is on the way to becoming extinct, not least in Skåne, and which would risk disappearing completely if the previous tracks were followed.

The possibility of proposing a different layout for the tracks means that there would be no delays. I believe, however, that 2029 is optimistic regardless of which variant is chosen, given how long our projects take. It is a matter of having a different preparedness for how we are to handle the freight when the Fehmarn Bält connection opens.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! The National Plan was originally an S product, which the Left Party did not think had particularly high climate ambitions. We were critical when the document was tabled in the Riksdag, because more was needed to achieve the climate goals.

This was, however, before the Moderate-led government took hold of the national plan and truly cemented that not a single climate goal is being achieved. The Moderates are effectively putting a stop to daily commuting in large parts of Sweden. We could have increased daily commuting and larger labor market regions through the construction of new main lines and also reduce the climate impact in a very effective way through better and faster transport.

The government has removed bonus-malus, which has caused electric car sales to drop drastically. They have also removed the travel deduction for travel-distance neutral transport.

The government's level of ambition regarding the fact that we should not achieve the climate goals is high. My question to Maria Stockhaus is therefore: How is the government going to ensure that the transport sector can reduce its emissions by 70 percent by 2030 when they do not want to build new main lines or do anything at all to facilitate the transition?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not know what world Linda Snecker lives in, but could we not have new main lines in place by 2030? By 2050, it is perhaps said that they might be finished. Furthermore, when one builds main lines, one creates an enormous climate debt, because there are enormous emissions during construction. That this should be a quick fix to reach the climate goals is a pipe dream from Vänsterpartiet.

It is about all types of transport having to transition and about using electricity, biofuels and other types of fuels in all types of transport to meet the goal. The electrification of the vehicle fleet is therefore a major issue, and therefore we are investing money in a charging infrastructure across the entire country.

A high-speed railway that is finished 2045-2050 does not solve people's commuting, but we need to ensure that what we already have functions. On the Uppsala-Stockholm stretch, another track was needed, because it affects traffic from all of Norrland. When it comes to the Oslo-Stockholm stretch, one can increase work commuting with fairly small means.

Spending 400 billion on high-speed rail that is at best finished in 2050 does not affect our opportunity to reach the climate goals by 2030; rather, it is, as said, pure wishful thinking.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! It is remarkable that a government party does not have a better grasp of when climate goals and main lines are to be implemented. No, the climate goals are not reached with the main lines, but it is a step on the way so that we can be able to transport ourselves in Sweden at all.

It is as if large parts of the governing parties live in Stockholm's inner city and have never stepped outside the toll gates. One thinks that Sweden consists of small subway stations where everyone can easily travel. But, Maria Stockhaus, everyone in the rest of Sweden has difficulty transporting themselves and has labor markets that are too small and that do not align at all with the work principle and that one should support oneself and pay tax.

It is not I and the Vänsterpartiet who think that this is most important, but the Swedish business community. The companies want to be able to transport goods in a fast and efficient way. It is part of their climate work to be able to transport in a climate-smart way. Furthermore, ordinary people want to be able to travel to work. But the government puts a stop to this when it does not build railways.

It is not a question of either upgrading existing tracks so that they function or building new ones. We need to do both for Sweden to be able to continue to live and be an industrial nation at the forefront that can produce, among other things, the electric aircraft that Maria Stockhaus is passionate about. But how are those who work at the companies supposed to get to work and how will the companies be able to import and export their goods if the railway does not function? There is no logic in the policy the government is putting forward.

I hope that you get Oslo-Stockholm and four tracks between Uppsala and Stockholm through. The question is only how you are going to manage to do that.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Discrimination against Stockholmers is quite common in the speaker's chair. But during my more than two terms, I have traveled around the entire country, and if there is one thing I know about the countryside, it is that people there are dependent on their cars. And there is probably no party in the Riksdag, except for Miljöpartiet, that hates the car as much as Vänsterpartiet does. You do not want to invest in roads and road maintenance, which is what is needed to be able to drive one's electric car. One needs to have charging stations to be able to charge one's car and have the possibility to charge at home.

There must also be enough power in the grid so that one can charge their car. But you have chosen to be part of shutting down nuclear power, which means that we actually do not have enough power for people to be able to connect to the grid and charge their electric cars.

High-speed rail is highlighted as the solution to all climate challenges in Sweden. But when one builds railways, an enormous carbon debt is created, because during construction, massive amounts are emitted into the atmosphere. When this is then completed in 2045-2050, all types of transport will likely be fossil-free, and then one cannot recover this debt. It is better to invest in an efficient, fossil-free transport system now, when a fantastic technological development is occurring, rather than staring blindly at rails as the only solution.

There is also much more capacity on the sea. That is heard both when visiting ports and when meeting the Swedish Maritime Administration. There are enormous opportunities to transport goods on the sea. You forget that, because it is only the railway that is the solution to all problems. But that is simply not true.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I thought about what Maria Stockhaus said about pushing forward. Everyone knows that the goal is for us to have net-zero emissions in transport by 2045 and that we are to reduce emissions by 70 percent by 2030 compared to 2010.

The other day I read the partial report from Trafikanalys, which is a product on its way to an upcoming climate policy action plan. It is stated there that it is important that we maintain decided steering measures and complement them with new ones, that we do not reduce the reduction obligation and thereby lower the ambitions, and that we investigate whether fuels for more types of transport should be included. It is something of what is said to be important to do in order to reach at least the partial goal.

What happened during the past parliamentary term? Well, we had quite a few steering measures, a program for vehicle strategic research and innovation, the National Agency for Public Procurement's criteria for procurement to reduce emissions, Klimatklivet, the reduction obligation, bonus malus, and so on.

I am a bit curious about how the Moderaterna and the new government intend to move forward in these issues. How do the Minister for Climate and the Minister for Infrastructure intend to drive these issues? How is Sweden going to reduce emissions?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! It is important to ensure that we have a functioning electricity production in Sweden that can deliver electricity so that we can electrify the Swedish vehicle fleet. One must be able to charge one's car across all of Sweden, and therefore it is important to remove the obstacles that exist for installing charging stations in public environments but also in housing cooperatives. The Government is now looking at how one can speed up these processes.

Hydrogen is an interesting fuel, and here we need to look further into how we can produce better solutions for hydrogen so that people dare to invest in it. Several different fuels are emerging, and it is important that we stimulate that development.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It is very important. But something that one hears being requested when out meeting the industries, almost regardless of the type of transport, is long-term rules of the game. They wonder what we in politics actually want them to do. They must dare to invest in, for example, electric trucks.

I visited a truck center in Karlstad this week. They had just received their fully electric heavy truck of 74 tons. Their message to me was this: If we are to dare, we must know where we are going and what steering mechanisms shall apply.

I think the Moderates and Minister Carlson are unclear. What is it actually that is going to apply moving forward? I think it is very important. Not least when one is so categorically dismissive of building a new railway, it is important that we know and, above all, that the industry knows what is going to apply moving forward.

My question remains: Which steering measures are it that will become important? The industry needs to know.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! As I pointed out in my previous exchange with Linda W Snecker, it is actually the case that building new trunk lines does not solve the problems of reaching the climate goals by 2030. It will have no impact at all, because they will not be finished. The only thing it would contribute to if we continued that construction is more emissions, as the construction itself leads to large emissions.

The government has been very clear. We want to ensure that we have functioning electricity.

Gunilla Svantorp's party has been involved in shutting down nuclear power plants. We would have had lower electricity prices, more electricity and greater capacity in our grids if we had kept those nuclear power plants.

We cannot rely on wind, which does not always blow, as long as it is difficult to store that electricity in any significant quantity.

I think the message from this government has been very clear. We are going to invest in expanding charging stations. We are going to invest in expanding charging stations for heavy traffic and for private individuals. We will ensure that it becomes easier to build charging stations where people live so that it is easy to charge the car at home, where it is usually cheapest. It is quite clearly stated; you can see that if you look at the budget that has been presented, and that is what we are out and communicating when we meet stakeholders. It is very important that we stick to that and ensure that people can feel secure that there will be an electricity supply so that one can charge their car.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I have a surprised question and an offer to the member.

The surprise concerns the Moderaternas position here. The member mentioned in their speech that the full focus is on maintenance. It is a broken house, and now it is to be maintained. I have come to know the Moderaternas as a party that aims forward toward technical development and gives hope to people, but new investments are not on the Moderaternas agenda during this parliamentary term when it comes to infrastructure. That is a question.

Then we have the offer. When the government parties argue against trunk lines, we often hear that they do not want high-speed trains, that one should not just travel between Stockholm and Malmö faster than today. That is not the point.

When we have listened to the regions in Skåne, in Västra Götaland, in Östergötland and in Jönköpings län, we receive a unanimous message that they are not interested in high speed. What they are interested in is capacity, rail.

In Sweden, one builds railways for 250 kilometers per hour. That is done everywhere, so my question, which is very close to an offer, is whether the Moderaterna and the government parties could consider re-evaluating their stance on trunk lines if one struck out 320 kilometers per hour and instead only built for 250 kilometers per hour and could connect Gothenburg, Borås, Ulricehamn, Jönköping, from Linköping and upwards, and from Jönköping downwards to Hässleholm and Lund. Would the situation change then for the member of parliament?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! It is of course that we want to build new. I also believe that in my speech I expressed optimism regarding technological development and that we must take it into account and include it in our planning.

The problem is that when a national plan is adopted in June of an election year, the incentives are quite large to push in as much as possible so that one can cut as many ties as possible. Then, things are not funded, and no sensible prioritizations have been made in relation to what is profitable.

I believe that people in their everyday lives want to know that when they take the train, they will arrive. They want to be sure that there are no interruptions due to track breaks or cracks in the track.

We have a house where the roof is leaking and the windows are broken. We must reasonably ensure that what we have on site today functions properly. And it goes much faster to do that than to build new, because building new takes a very long time given the planning horizons we have for infrastructure today.

We are also interested in building new capacity in the Swedish network, but we want to focus where we see that the bottlenecks are in the system. We know, for example, that the Port of Gothenburg is expanding and is almost finished with that, while Alingsås-Gothenburg together with Uppsala-Stockholm is the reddest and has the greatest capacity shortage. In that case, it is a matter of us addressing the capacity shortages we have in the system first, before we start looking at building new tracks and entirely new sections.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the answer. It was quite enlightening.

If I understand the member correctly, it is not actually high speed that is the problem for the Moderates, but simply new tracks and connecting regions – to let those who live in Ulricehamn have a chance to take the rail to Gothenburg, to simplify for the freight traffic towards Gothenburg by relieving the old main line with new tracks. If I understand correctly, it is actually about you not wanting to build more tracks. But I may have misunderstood the member. It might be possible to reach an agreement on an investment in main lines for 250 kilometers per hour.

Västra Götalandsregionen has written a position paper where all parties agree on how they see a future ahead. They are very much in agreement that what is most important is the Borås-Göteborg stretch. It is more important than Alingsås-Göteborg, because if we are to get Alingsås-Göteborg in order with maintenance, we also need a stretch that can relieve the pressure.

I wonder how the member reasons when those who know the rail traffic in VGR make a different assessment than the member themselves of what is most important.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! That we would not build the railway between Borås and Göteborg is incorrect. What I have said is that one must now look at cost savings on that section without delaying the construction. It is absolutely remaining, and it has been very clearly communicated that is the case.

As for passenger traffic, the route Gothenburg-Borås is very important, absolutely. But for the freight traffic with all the goods from the Port of Gothenburg, which will increase, Alingsås will become a huge problem if it is not possible to send the freight that way. Then it will be trucks from there, which would be very unfortunate.

Looking at the national plan that lies before us today, one sees no solutions at all for Alingsås-Göteborg in it. It is remarkable considering that Trafikverket highlights it and Uppsala-Stockholm as the stretches where we really must do something, and it needs to be done now.

The Uppsala-Stockholm route diverts traffic from all of northern Sweden down towards Stockholm. There are many who want faster communications down to the capital, and that is made impossible if one does not get four tracks there. They have now cut the ribbon there for the third election campaign in a row, but it is still only 15 percent financed and is scheduled for 2033.

There are so many other projects to build that come before the large prestige projects and have a greater effect for those who live near and are going to use this railway to travel to and from work.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to listen to Stockhaus.

The picture is that this is about branch line traffic. Still, we know from the regions that have been to us in the transport committee and told us about the concerns they see with the stop for new main lines and what this entails. It is Borås and Jönköping. It is Ulricehamn. It is Norrköping, Nyköping and Linköping. It is all those parts. It is Hässleholm and Lund.

We have an existing main line that we know will become overcapacity when the Fehmarn Belt link is completed. The EU's objective to significantly increase freight traffic on the railway throughout the union will cause our main lines to become full, which means that the regional traffic, which allows us to build larger labor market regions, will not function.

Still, there is talk that it is only about Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. No, this is about southern Sweden, whose different parts should be able to function in a good way and develop. We have heard from the representatives that they want this.

Maria Stockhaus! You say that you will likely build certain parts of the new trunk lines but not the central parts. How is it then going to work with the central parts?

Maria Stockhaus herself said as recently as a year ago that on the important railway sections, one should be able to travel at 250 kilometers per hour. Now we know that it will not work on the Södra stambanan; those speeds cannot be achieved.

What is the actual line that the Moderaterna have in this case?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! The line we have is that there are limited funds and that one must prioritize the projects where the money does the most good. This project has received an enormous amount of criticism from the National Audit Office and researchers. We do not get benefits that correspond to the cost. The price tag is now around 400 billion, and well, no one believes that it will be enough. If one were to continue with the whole, it will be finished beyond 2050. At that time, as I said earlier, virtually all modes of transport will be fossil-free, and then we will not get any major environmental gains from this.

It is better to see what we have in place today and how we can increase capacity by building on and rebuilding. For example, we can build on so that we can have longer and heavier trains and upgrade the main lines so that they can handle 250 kilometers per hour. It is significantly more cost-effective and economically profitable for society. Furthermore, it is faster to do so instead of continuing with this prestige project.

They accuse us of having ideological blinkers, but here there is a belief that trains are the solution to everything, which is not true. We must ensure that the entire system works and that we build on the system we already have in place. One should not build a glass sunroom on a house that is about to collapse. We must ensure that it works. There are opportunities to make improvements in that house so that it works better, so that we can get higher capacity. There are quite a few who have ideas on how this can be done in the existing system. But that has not been looked at at all; instead, they skip all the steps and go straight to building new. So, we Moderates do not think that one can handle tax money.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The problem is that one will not be able to live in that house, as Maria Stockhaus mentions, and which has not been maintained. One will not be able to be there; those who are to travel on the rails will not find space. That is evident if one looks 10, 20, 30 years ahead. The plans that exist for freight traffic, passenger traffic, and regional traffic will not be achievable on existing main lines. You do not want to create new tracks that will allow us to achieve good traffic. When that is done, we can also renovate the tracks that exist now.

Trafikverket has reviewed the railway network and spoken about where it can be upgraded to 250 kilometers per hour. Just for the Södra stambanan, they say that it is incredibly problematic. These are old tracks that have curves that do not work for those speeds. There will be enormous problems when those upgrades are made, and it will not work. But you skip over that entire part. This is the foundation for the railway infrastructure in Sweden. This is what makes it possible to travel from southern Sweden to northern Sweden and to manage the regional development. But it is something that I see the Moderaterna completely skip over.

The chairman of the board wrote himself in a motion as recently as last year that one should be able to drive at 250 kilometers per hour on the central tracks in Sweden. That will not happen there. Possibly we will be able to drive at some kind of milk train speed. Everything will clog up and get stuck in this system. It is not taking responsibility for the railway.

No one has said that the railway is the solution to everything. But if the railway does not work, then Sweden does not work. We must ensure that we get this in order.

Maria Stockhaus speaks about 400 billion. There are different calculations for this. But you say that almost 50 percent of the entire grid is to be built. To speak about it costing 400 billion or 300 billion is completely wrong.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! The reasoning that Daniel Helldén has, that the house is uninhabitable, implies that we build the sunroom first and sit and have it cozy in there while the house falls apart. But there are many people who are dependent on the house. This investment only affects southern Sweden, not northern Sweden with everything that is happening there. In northern Sweden, there are single-track railways, tracks of poor quality, and extremely poor roads. This is a gigantic problem considering the investments being made up there.

If we put all our eggs in this basket, so that we cannot afford to invest in upgrading the railway we have and building capacity everywhere, we will have gigantic problems in northern Sweden. But it feels like that is not interesting for Daniel Helldén. The only thing that is important is that people can move around in southern Sweden. Everything north of Stockholm is forgotten, but it is also important. A very large amount of Sweden's GDP is actually generated up there, and it will become even more of that. Many of the companies that are establishing themselves there are very clear that there will be big problems if we do nothing about the infrastructure in northern Sweden.

The same applies to the defense's needs. In light of our joining of Nato, there will be a great need to upgrade the tracks that we have in northern Sweden. But there will not be money for that if we are to continue with this prestige project. Instead, we shall try to find a system where we utilize what we already have on site, complement and build upon it, and increase the speed where it is possible.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! It must be possible to live, reside and work in all of Sweden - from north to south, on islands in both the Stockholm archipelago and the Bohuslän archipelagos, in rural areas as well as in urban areas, in mountain-adjacent areas as well as in the dark forests of Småland. In all of Sweden, people shall be given the opportunity to choose where they want to live, reside and work.

For it to work, schools, public and private services of various kinds, and not least a well-functioning transport and IT infrastructure are required. It is required that the business sector's freight transport functions so that entrepreneurship and job opportunities can be enabled throughout the country. All of this requires technological development, efficiency, digitalization, regulatory simplifications, and a transition to electrified transport, as well as an increased share of renewable fuels. This contributes to good communications throughout the country that can occur without the environmental and climate impact increasing.

For the Center Party, these are matters of the heart. During the over 110 years we have existed, we have worked to ensure that infrastructure functions in both rural and urban areas. In the 90s - perhaps someone remembers - we launched digital freedom of movement. Now we are actually almost there. We all know that there are deficiencies regarding trains, buses and so on. But where people live, we actually will soon have a digital freedom of movement.

Now I want to turn to you who are listening and who may not be sitting here in the chamber but are wondering where one can read about all of this. Yes, it is described in our committee motions from Centerpartiet, which are titled Sustainable transport with high accessibility throughout the country, Increased resilience for transport, and Green transition of the transport sector. It is also described in the report, TU4 Infrastructure issues, which we are basing this debate on. It is about 300 pages. For those who want to delve deeper, there is a fantastic amount of knowledge to be found there about how the Swedish infrastructure functions right now. The committee will then, throughout the spring, debate aviation, shipping, IT infrastructure and so on, so much of today's debate will be about roads and railways, as has already been shown.

Mr. Speaker! Currently, the absolute largest part of all infrastructure is financed through the state budget. Over the years, this has created an infrastructure debt of around 300 billion kronor because the state's reform space is so limited. It is not sufficient. We must build more capacity. This applies not least in the restless times that we find ourselves in right now.

We also have a maintenance debt. We have both an investment debt and a maintenance debt to contend with. Both Swedish and foreign investors have shown interest in making long-term investments in Sweden. In many countries comparable to Sweden, this is already functioning.

There is infrastructure in public-private partnerships called OPS. It can involve railways, a motorway, or an expanded port. It can open up for more projects in Sweden that otherwise might not have been completed or that at least would have been postponed.

I think that all of us who work with infrastructure issues feel a great frustration over how long it still takes to complete the infrastructure projects that have even been started.

I personally have the privilege of living along the Västra stambanan. It was built in 1856-1862, I believe. Now, it was not a railway of today's standard. I must admit that. It was single-track. But it became possible to travel from Gothenburg to Stockholm in significantly less time than it does today.

Centerpartiet looks at the whole country. That is why we know that we need new main lines. The halt that this government has made is incomprehensible in so many ways. This applies even if one truly tries to understand and listen deeply behind the arguments about glazed outdoor rooms, something else, or if it was bats.

One must understand what actually happens when one says no to important expansion of infrastructure. There were a few of us who had the opportunity to attend an EU summit that we were invited to by the Minister for Infrastructure.

Our European neighbors might not have grasped the situation. They might not follow our domestic policy that closely. When it is said that there will now be a halt in the infrastructure construction of the railway that was part of a European infrastructure project, they just say: What, is that possible? How are they thinking? It is clear that many of us want to know that.

In Skåne, one is desperate. Why was a pause not granted like in Västra Götaland? Jönköping needs to be given the opportunity to recruit from both east and west to have the opportunity to enlarge its labor market region. That was also something the representatives of the Moderaterna were touching upon.

We must also operate away infarcts of various kinds. The stretch Alingsås-Göteborg has already been mentioned. What will not happen when the Fehmarn Bält tunnel opens? We have been into those parts.

Industrialization in northern Sweden is gaining momentum. The Norrbotniabanan has received a number of billions. But it is going so slowly. In the situation we are in now, we must consider: How can we speed up the processes in different ways?

There is another thing that I can take the opportunity to mention now. I am thinking that some perhaps have breathed a sigh of relief in some regions, perhaps in Östergötland. I look at our Östergötska comrades in the committee here in the chamber. One might breathe a sigh of relief because it was planned so far ahead that one could not stop it all. That is what the Moderate said here in the speaker's chair. But one must reduce resources.

Now, worrying reports have come from southeastern Sweden. What will happen with the other railway lines? Will there be the opportunity to connect them? What will actually happen? Here, all of us who work with politics have a great responsibility to ensure that the whole country is connected. We must provide opportunities for as many as possible to be able to transport themselves as effectively as possible.

We are pushing forward so that we can reach the goal of a fossil-independent vehicle fleet and emission reductions of 70 percent by 2030 from our domestic transport. This places demands on us to increase investments in infrastructure. We must equip ourselves in different ways.

I have already pointed out that we want to task Trafikverket with identifying a number of projects from the current national infrastructure plan that are suitable to be handled with external co-financing. Private capital and pension funds should be given the opportunity to invest in infrastructure in Sweden. Here, I believe I received a positive response from the government side.

In this context, I also want to point out that we must obtain more accurate socio-economic calculation models. The ones we have now do not really work.

I want to use my last minute of speaking time for something that is much smaller than the large infrastructure projects. If we can finance them in another way, we will have more money left over for the local and regional.

For 1 million people in our country, the journey home begins and ends on a single road. Here, it is incredibly important that those nearly 44,000, 45,000 kilometers that are single-lane roads in Sweden today are given the opportunity to maintain a good quality.

State subsidies are received for nearly 8,000 miles. It is important that those resources exist, something that the Center Party has championed for a long time. It is about people being able to participate and contribute to roads being generally accessible and that they meet the needs and maintain a good transport quality. All of this is important for a living countryside.

Mr. Speaker! We naturally stand behind all our reservations. But for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 35, Measures in the transport infrastructure.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Ulrika Heie, who is the chair of the Committee on Transport, stands, as I interpret it, here and pleads for loan-financing a high-speed railway and for placing the debt on future generations.

It is not enough that we are probably placing a maintenance debt on future generations. We also risk placing the cost of a very expensive project such as high-speed trains on future generations.

There was also some speaker from Skåne who spoke warmly in favor of the railway there. I promise that as a person from Skåne, I definitely would have done the same, but not for high-speed trains.

She also mentions OPS solutions. In addition to this, I heard something about 300 billion in maintenance debts. We have a huge maintenance debt for both railway and road. But I do not recognize the figure 300 billion.

Where does that figure come from, and what year is it referring to? Is it today, is it in ten years or is it in 30 years? I have not heard that such a high figure as 300 billion has been mentioned. I am therefore asking about the figure.

Then I wonder if the Center Party still wants to build high-speed trains for one train per hour. Today, one train per hour runs in each direction between Malmö and Stockholm. Do you remain committed to that line?

Do you want to use debt financing, as some others have suggested, and place the debt on future generations for the high-speed railway? Or do you want some OPS solution, like for Nya Karolinska? It is perhaps the world's most expensive hospital per square meter.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks, Patrik Jönsson, for the questions! How lucky that I got the chance to speak about that what I said in my speech was that we had a 300 billion large investment debt and maintenance debt.

Forgive me. Now I am saying it wrong. I say maintenance debt of 300 billion kronor. We have a need to maintain. Now the member is looking at me so strangely. I must look at my script. I became a bit unsure.

The word I mentioned was infrastructure debt. It was a word on the way, but not investment and maintenance, but infrastructure debt of around 300 billion kronor.

We have a reform space that is so limited. I would be happy to return to how I can increase the understanding of how we think about infrastructure debt. Since we finance everything through the state budget, there are very many things that we cannot do and do not have time to do.

I would like to take the opportunity to answer the first question regarding debts for future generations. In my world, it becomes debts for future generations if we do not ensure that we expand infrastructure so that Sweden continues to be a competitive country, where freight transport and passenger transport are able to function in such a way that we do not contribute to not increasing growth in the way that we could.

If we believe that the state should do everything, and thus can do very little, we get a debt to future generations because we do not ensure that we build in the way that we see we could.

When it comes to high-speed trains, we are talking about trains at 250 kilometers per hour.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! High-speed trains are not 250 kilometers per hour, and Ulrika Heie is well aware of that now. I can understand if one, as a newcomer to the committee, did not know that, but the chair knows very well now. It is 251 and above that applies.

From the Center Party, you have constantly advocated for high-speed trains, one train per hour. We cannot run local trains, nor can we run today's regional trains on these tracks. Then one is talking about regional trains that would travel faster than 250 kilometers per hour.

The question remains: Are there still trains on special tracks, which are only intended for this? Or is it also for local trains? Have you shifted in the question? That is my question to Ulrika Heie.

I am not quite clear on this matter regarding the infrastructure debt. The member may well elaborate a bit more. I would appreciate that, because I think I have a slight inkling of what Ulrika Heie is after: that it is desired to build more than we have built. If that is what is being sought, the question is: What do we want built? Is it trains, is it high-speed trains, or is it roads? What is it that we are requesting?

If it is this amount, it is more of a party-political question than a question of fact. Is it a maintenance issue? We have a high maintenance debt, but it is not about these sums, not even in five or six years.

Finally, it concerns the financing issue. We take a loan, and it is the coming generations that shall pay it off. The practice is that we pay for our investment with direct appropriations, and the direct appropriations have historically always been significantly higher. They have been twice as high percentage-wise as they are today. I can only state that Centerpartiet gladly sees that we borrow for the payment of coming generations.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the opportunity to once again clarify my answers! We need to increase the capacity of the Swedish railway. We do not intend to propose that tracks should be built where only a certain type of very fast trains can run. We are talking about tracks where one can drive fast, but also slower, so that freight and passenger transport can be shared in a good way. We need more tracks, and that is why we want to see new main lines built in Sweden.

When it comes to what the trains are called, I think it has been a way of saying that one is against calling them high-speed trains. It is obviously true that there are speed limits when it comes to what one calls the trains, but I was, on the other hand, thanked for traveling on the SJ high speed train the other day. But that might mean something completely different in English. It is possible to use words and twist and turn them to a large extent.

We do not intend to place the blame on future generations. If we do not do things, it is to push the problems into the future. We need to have much better robustness in our entire infrastructure system. I think that the members are also fully aware that the railway needs more rail and that one needs to invest in new systems. We have not entered into a part of the others. We can discuss them, but it is such a short time we are going to do this on.

The infrastructure debt of 300 billion kronor that I mentioned and which the member requested an answer about is about the fact that there are a lot of things we have not built. It is about us creating the conditions to build faster, because it is only when the tracks are finished that they become efficient and provide the growth we expect. If one then expects that tracks for trains will be built in 20-30 years, it truly becomes a matter of placing the debt on future generations. So let us now see to it that we build a bit faster!

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ulrika Heie moved for approval of reservation 35. Since it is a reservation from Vänsterpartiet, we suspect that Ulrika Heie intended to move for approval of reservation 36. I would therefore like to give the member the opportunity to move for approval of this reservation if she so wishes.)

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the generosity, for the clarification and for the opportunity to correct myself! It was obviously reservation 36 that I intended to move for approval.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety.

All of Sweden shall live! It is a slogan that we politicians eagerly use every four years, almost always during election years. It is very important with the words and that it does not just become words but also becomes workshop. I am glad that we now have a government that intends to do exactly that and move from words to action, because all of Sweden's transport system must function.

The new government prioritizes and prioritizes correctly. Sweden must get better roads and a railway network that is operationally secure.

The metaphor of the house has been used before, and I thought I would take it now as well and speak about the house. We cannot start by building an exclusive roof. One must start by getting a secure foundation; then the house will stand longer.

So it has been a long time. Sweden has an enormous maintenance debt in both roads and railways. There is a maintenance debt of 110 billion kronor until 2033. It is not just possible to say that we will take care of that later. No, Mr. Speaker, we must start tackling the maintenance debt now.

It is pleasing that the government is allocating 1 billion kronor to refurbish our roads in Sweden. It is important to improve the conditions for the countryside. The money will be needed for our roads to become drivable and traffic-safe. This will include, for example, pavement maintenance, line marking, bridge repairs, drum replacements, and wildlife fences.

The government will also invest 2.6 billion kronor in charging infrastructure across the entire country. There will be charging stations for light and heavy vehicles. Additionally, the charging infrastructure will be expanded in ports and on quays. The journey has only just begun. All of Sweden shall live.

Mr. Speaker! We four coalition parties gave notice last autumn that we are laying down the high-speed railway project. We believe that the high-speed railway is not the right way to go, because the maintenance of the existing road and railway network must come first. Given the gigantic maintenance debt that we have, this project is not socio-economically justifiable.

The price for this high-risk project is very uncertain. External calculations point to a total cost of perhaps 350 and up to 400 billion kronor. But we do not know exactly - no one knows. The temporal gains will be limited.

The previous government, however, chose to ignore actual costs and criticism from researchers, the Transport Administration, and the National Audit Office. They continued to push forward with the single largest infrastructure investment in many decades, fully aware that the project was underfunded and that costs for supporting components were not included in the calculation.

Mr. Speaker! It was a piece of good news that the government gave a few days ago: Bromma Airport shall remain. We see Bromma as a transition hub for green aviation. Electrification and hydrogen are the fuels of the future, or wings, if you will. Aviation will be a very important part of the total transport system and shall be seen as part of the Swedish public transport. Aviation shall not be phased out, but developed.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will not discuss Bromma. It is clear that it should be closed. We can move all traffic to Arlanda; it is no problem, and so the flights that you think are needed can find space there.

But it is still a bit exciting when the Christian Democrats and the new government here talk about maintenance debt. Everyone knows that we need to maintain what we have, but the first thing you did was to pull away 750 million from railway maintenance and put it on roads. It is sad to see. A large part of that would be used this year.

The Christian Democrats have the position of Minister for Infrastructure, and Andreas Carlson has been clear in a number of motions. I must quote him: "Today, the lack of new main lines is palpable and it is necessary that the government takes initiative as soon as possible so that new main lines can be built. Jönköping is a natural hub in southern Sweden for many different transports and types of transport. An improved railway communication is therefore a self-evident part of building a 'rounder county' that benefits other parts of southern Sweden. The investment in, for example, more regional railway becomes effective if new main lines are also built."

Then it continues with all the things we know, the development of larger labor market regions and so on.

I know that Member Oscarsson lives not so far from Jönköping, in Ödeshög. I just wonder: Is the Kristdemokraterna line now that it is no longer important to establish these larger labor market regions, that southern Sweden gets the connections that allow more people to travel longer distances and work, but with shorter times, and that we get a good railway infrastructure for the railways that are closest to the Member?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Helldén, for excellent questions! It was a pity that we could not talk a bit about Bromma. We actually had thoughts about offering cake over there, but we did not do that.

The member's question is very important. How are we actually thinking? The Christian Democrats actually pushed this, as the member was pointing out. But then we had a national meeting where we deliberated back and forth within the party on how we should actually proceed. We realized then that it was not feasible, that it was too much of a high-risk project. We have, just as I was speaking about a moment ago, a maintenance debt that is gigantic.

We have a railway today that must be invested in. We think it is wrong to put all our eggs in one basket and say: Just by building this, it will surely become good. We must, with the resources we have, now ensure that we build, fix up, and maintain both railways and roads. They are connected, just as someone pointed out earlier. We must ensure that we have a reliable railway and also have roads that can be driven on and that are traffic-safe.

We have discussed accidents a lot during the winter. We must ensure that people feel that the roads they drive on are operationally secure. Several of us live here in Stockholm, but the thing is that the whole country must be able to have roads that one can rely on, that exist and function. That is what we do not have today, we mean.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I could have eaten the cake. It would not have changed my opinion on how we should proceed with Bromma.

The member's nearest railway station is Mjölby, if I don't remember entirely incorrectly. Now new tracks are to be built down to Linköping. But then one is not to continue, instead it shall be the old main line - how far down we do not quite know. Whether it is to Lund or to Hässleholm remains to be seen, since you have stopped the projects at the bottom.

What we know is that the main line we have there is old, very old. Trafikverket says that it is problematic to upgrade it, and even if it is upgraded, the tracks will be full when all the freight trains arrive, when the regional traffic is to run, and when we have a change in the transport system that makes more people travel by train, which is the goal both nationally and within the EU.

Then those who are to commute from Mjölby will likely be stuck there. It is possible that they can travel to Skänninge; that might work. But otherwise, the question is how this will function.

I don't quite understand how the Christian Democrats are thinking here. We need the tracks. And this is not the only investment being made in Sweden, far from it. Nor is this the issue that eats up everything. The part you still say you will build will cost approximately 200 billion kronor. The last part, which is about half, might cost 100-150 billion, I don't know.

However, I know that what you have done is to remove the EU funds that we could have received for these stretches, both those that you have said should be built and those that we think should be built in the future. It surprises me. We would have needed those funds, wouldn't we, member?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, thank you, Member Daniel Helldén, for your questions!

The first question was about the money that was removed from Trafikverket. It was actually money that they themselves said they could not do without. That is why we made that redistribution.

Then it is interesting that the member has a real grasp of where I get on the train. It is indeed in Mjölby. I would, of course, like to have a railway all the way down to Ödeshög, where I come from. That might not be possible, but there we have roads that must function.

That is somewhat what we are getting at, and it is the member too: We know that a part of the railway we have today certainly needs to be put in order and renovated. There are systems that do not work and all that. It is a huge amount, and there we come back to the fact that we have a gigantic maintenance debt that we must address. I am happy and grateful that this government wants to do this.

We mean that we are going to achieve this in a good way. But it should not only be railways but also roads. The roads are also incredibly important for the whole country. We cannot get everything on the railway, and then the road network must also function. Today, there are huge deficiencies in many ways. If you travel in the interior, you can encounter roads that really need upgrading.

I really look forward to the government now taking action on this in a way that I believe is very positive. So thank you for your question!

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the report TU4 on infrastructure issues. It feels a bit important to remind those who are not here in the chamber but who might be sitting at home watching what we are actually talking about. It concerns 329 motions from the general motion period, 20 motions in follow-up motions, and also the letter on national planning for infrastructure.

When one sits and listens, one can get the impression a bit that if we do this, there is no money for that. Then I still want to remind of the 799 billion that were nevertheless invested. Of the 799 billion, 165 billion were to go to maintaining state railways, 197 billion to maintaining state roads and 437 billion to the development of the transport system. It is therefore not a matter of either or; it is a matter of both. It is very important to remember that when one listens to the debate, so that is what I want to say first of all.

I have sat in the Committee on Transport for 142 days, after having worked with education policy for a long time. Today is the 142nd day. It is fun to change committees and areas of responsibility. One learns a great deal of things and meets new people.

If anything, one learns from this area that it is about large, heavy and expensive investments, which were actually decided very long ago. Most of the things in the national plans were not decided during the last parliamentary term, but perhaps four, five or six terms ago. So we who are here today must also think. What is going to happen in the future?

It is about necessary investments. Infrastructure is the glue that holds Sweden together. It is a prerequisite for jobs and growth, for new housing, and not least for increasing faith in the future.

The transport policy goal is clear: We shall "ensure a socio-economically efficient and long-term sustainable transport supply for the citizens and the business community in the entire country". It is binding. It is important.

There are also functional goals regarding accessibility and consideration goals regarding safety, environment, and health. We also have a climate goal which states that the interim goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport by 70 percent by 2030, calculated from 2010. Much has been done, but it is not enough. As someone said earlier: We must increase the pace of the transition.

We Social Democrats have eight reservations in the report. I intend to dwell a bit more on two of them. The first concerns a long-term sustainable transport system. We see that it is possible to transition. All of us who are out meeting the transport industry across different modes of transport see that they have come a long way in their respective fields. They are transitioning fully. More cars and trucks are being electrified. It is moving from fossil to renewable fuels. It is moving towards more efficient vehicles and increased efficiency.

What is requested from us, from politics, are long-term rules of the game but also a will, a clarity, a direction. Where is it we are going?

Since 2017, we have had a climate policy framework, with climate goals, a climate act and a climate policy council, which states that we should have no net emissions at all in 2045. We have a climate act that has been in effect since 1 January 2018. And a climate policy action plan shall be adopted every four years.

The Social Democrats are clear that this must go faster than it does today. It is very important. The industry is demanding, as mentioned, long-term perspective. Where are we headed? Now we are waiting anxiously for the climate policy action plan which hopefully will soon come from the Minister for Environment and Climate.

It is important to have a long-term sustainable transport system. Therefore, we will move for approval of reservation number 11.

The second reservation is common to the entire opposition, that is to say S, V, C and MP. It concerns what we have talked a bit about today: new main lines for trains. We know that it is crowded on the tracks. Many freight transports do not fit. Passenger traffic on trains is increasing, but freight traffic is not increasing in the same way. That is because it is too crowded on the tracks. Therefore, more main lines are needed.

Furthermore, it is not simple to upgrade and maintain tracks that are used every day. That causes a standstill. More main lines need to be built, so that those that already exist can also be maintained. We believe that new main lines are also important to create space for more freight transport and for more regional commuting on the existing network.

With that, I also move for approval of reservation number 40.

Finally, I want to say that there is no doubt about where the Social Democrats want to go. We want to move forward. We want people in our country to have faith in the future and believe that we see something ahead that is good and important for both those who live now and those who come after. I hope that was how people thought in the 1800s, that one had a vision when one dared to build new railways at that time.

Investments in the future create jobs and provide hope for the future. They provide new opportunities and increased freedom. One does not need to take a job exactly where one lives, but can travel a few miles, because it takes quite a short time to move.

That is why it is important that we in politics decide where we want to go, how we are to steer in that direction, and which policy instruments we are to use. We Social Democrats have clearly pointed in which direction we want during the latest parliamentary term. I would wish that the new government were equally clear.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Gunilla Svantorp for her contribution to the debate. I would like to ask a few questions and make a few observations.

The Social Democrats have governed from 2014 to 2022. During that time, we have seen a dramatic development regarding the costs for construction and maintenance. I want to note that the average cost increase on the basic contracts for maintenance on railways is 74 percent. The figures are roughly similar on the road side.

Trafikverket was established in April 2010 and, for most of its existence, has been governed by the Social Democrats and, for that part, also the Green Party. There, the increase in staff has been around 3,500 people from approximately 6,600, an increase of more than 50 percent. At the same time, the number of contractors in the railway industry has decreased.

A new record for train delays was recently reported. One has to go back about ten years to find such low figures.

There is also a significant maintenance debt.

We can observe that most things have gone downhill during the Social Democrats' time in power. Now, they no longer have power. I would therefore like to ask a simple, retrospective question to Gunilla Svantorp. Are you satisfied with your governance during the eight years that have passed?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! One naturally always wants to do more. But we have nevertheless contributed to very many good things during the past parliamentary term. We have, among other things, ensured that municipalities and regions have received 22.5 billion more in increased general government grants. This is very important in order to be able to employ more people in the welfare sector, for example, bus drivers who drive people to their jobs and so on.

I am most proud of the fact that we have ensured an increase in the general government grants. They make a difference for people, regardless of where they live. Look at any municipality or region during the last parliamentary term and you will see that they have more employees than before 2018. It is very important.

When one has to cooperate with other parties, one does not get exactly what one wants. That is perhaps what Patrik Jönsson sees now when the Sverigedemokraterna cooperate with the government and are part of a majority government, even though they are outside the government. One does not quite get what one wants.

I think that the Sweden Democrats will have to decide for themselves whether they want to be in opposition or part of the majority. They are obviously part of the majority, because they are involved in and poking at most things concerning the current government.

In response to the question: Yes, I am satisfied, above all with that we have ensured that more people can be employed in municipalities and regions. Then there are heaps of other things I would like to see, but I would like to pose the question back to Patrik Jönsson: What is the most important thing that the Sverigedemokraterna want to push through during the four years to come?

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, I do not intend to sabotage my next two minutes, but I intend to use my speech to tell what we want. Instead, I intend to focus on the question I have just asked.

I raised some large and very serious problems regarding infrastructure. It may be that the Social Democrats have allocated money to an important project to save bats, but that has nothing to do with infrastructure. Can we please stick to the subject? I would be very grateful if we could do that.

One thing that the Social Democrats have done – and which may have reduced unemployment – is of course that Trafikverket has been able to hire more administrators, but that is not what we are looking for. What I question is simply the Social Democrats' ability to govern. We see more train delays. We see more administrators and fewer people working with direct maintenance on roads and railways. We see a sharply increased maintenance debt.

There is a safety aspect, namely that we see more and more people being - how shall I put it - jumped on. It is employees who are being treated poorly, for example bus drivers and train attendants. Safety has dropped drastically during the Social Democrats' time in government. The delay minutes due to track breaks have increased significantly.

The list can be long, and one can be satisfied with this. One can be satisfied with putting in more money but not getting more maintenance, but on the contrary, just more people sitting and administering.

I would have really appreciated a summary of this, not of what has happened in other sectors. It is transport infrastructure we are debating here, which is why I would have appreciated a factual debate on just that point and not about other things that affect society.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first say that I have not spoken about any bats. I do not know what the member was referring to, but I have not spoken about it. I have stuck to the subject until just now, when I was asked what I am most proud of that the Social Democratic Party did during the last parliamentary term. I answered the question. What is absolutely most important for my party is the welfare in our country, and we have invested very much in that.

When it concerns an agency that falls under the Minister for Infrastructure, Patrik Jönsson now has every chance in the world to influence it, because it is the government that governs the agencies. He can, therefore, really exert influence now. Now he has the chance to rectify all the errors he believes arise in various agencies.

In response to the question of what has happened in the transport area, I would like to refer to the national plans that have existed during these eight years and what they have entailed in terms of new infrastructure projects and new initiatives. Then, both Patrik Jönsson and I know that there are requests for much more beyond what has already been completed, but very much has also happened.

In an opposition role, or whatever one shall call it that Patrik Jönsson has been in until the last election, it is of course about finding what is wrong and not what is good. I therefore understand that Patrik Jönsson stands and looks up everything that was bad during the previous mandate period, but now that he is in the majority, he has every opportunity to rectify it.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! The report refers to the Social Democrats' party motion, where the party argues that the transport laws should interact better in order to achieve seamless and intermodal transport. It is important to have an increased shift of freight traffic to shipping and rail, and for that to succeed, the transport laws need to interact better.

Furthermore, the proposers point out that the government should ensure that we have a good infrastructure to and from our ports, and they also emphasize the importance of a well-functioning shipping industry for, among other things, trade and business and for realizing a shift of freight to shipping. My question to Gunilla Svantorp, Mr. Speaker, is: If shipping is so important, why was the Western Main Line from Alingsås towards the Port of Gothenburg removed? It is Sweden's worst railway bottleneck and the connection to the largest and most important port in Sweden. Why was it removed from the planning decision in June 2022?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will be honest and say that I sat in the Education Committee and worked on education issues then. I do not know how they planned at that time - I was not involved in that work - but I know that we in the national plan have very much that we want to develop. As I said before, there are 437 billion kronor for the development of the transport system and all in all 799 billion.

Maria Stockhaus knows just as well as I do that there are requests for many more roads, railways, and ports than what will be included; there is always more we would like to do. As we heard earlier today, it is also about the regions, which do their own prioritizations. What I have understood is that Västra Götalandsregionen has made a different prioritization, and it is clear that as a minister, one listens to what the regions in general do. What prioritization do they make? If the regions agree on something they think is important, we must still hope that the minister listens to them. I think it is very important that this is done.

I would like to repeat my question from earlier to Maria Stockhaus. What is the most important thing moving forward? What does Maria Stockhaus intend to drive for in the work for a transport sector that is transitioning, more than charging stations? Charging stations are very important, but there is more that needs to be done – perhaps not least on the fuel side.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is important that what one writes in their motions hangs together. Here, it is that one has sold out to the Green Party and the high-speed train that makes one remove such an important stretch as the part towards the Port of Gothenburg from Alingsås.

It is possible that that stretch is not of decisive importance for Västra Götalandsregionen, but our responsibility is to ensure the whole. This is about the fact that there will be problems for exports from and imports to the whole of Sweden when the port is expanded but the infrastructure to and from the port does not follow suit.

The same thing actually happened here in the Stockholm area: Norvik's harbor has been expanded, but Tvärförbindelse Södertörn was scrapped, which makes transport to and from that harbor much more difficult. When one writes in a motion that one wants the transport system to be connected and that it is important to shift freight traffic to maritime transport, one must also ensure that the infrastructure to and from the ports functions.

As I have said before, the two sections in our railway system that have the highest load are Alingsås-Göteborg and Uppsala-Stockholm. The Alingsås-Göteborg section is crucial for the Port of Gothenburg, which they have now invested large sums of money in expanding so that they can accommodate the very largest ships. The problem is that it will be difficult to take the cargo from the Port of Gothenburg, because the Socialdemokraterna together with Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet deleted this important section from the national plan. There is a small investment in some switch, but that does not help given the large amounts of cargo that are to arrive.

If you want freight to go by rail, you must ensure that it connects. If 90 percent of the freight arrives in a port, it must also be possible to transport it from there, and that is not possible today.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! I find it a bit exciting to listen to Member Stockhaus's agitation over that someone's stretch was deleted. The Member seems to have forgotten what happened when her own party ruled last time and the entire Norrbotniabanan simply disappeared with a stroke of a pen. Talk about ensuring that all of Sweden hangs together and that one can move around!

I will be honest and say that this is something we are very afraid of. What will happen? There is a lot of talk about what is happening in the north, but will you stand by the fact that it should continue to be developed and built according to the plans up north – or will you use that money to, for example, lower taxes? Then the money won't be enough, because then there will be even more things that will need to be moved out.

Before accusing us of a lot of things, Mr. Speaker, one can therefore go back and look at one's own history. What was it that happened during the time you governed last time? Then, in at most four years, we can see the results of what has happened during this mandate period.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is exciting to read each other's reservations. One learns a lot and reflects on how different things are connected.

I have a rather brief question for Member Svantorp.

In one of the reservations, it states: "The investments in the current national plan represent the largest infrastructure investment ever, with massive investments in railways, roads, and shipping. This will create jobs, new homes, and a more climate-smart transport system. We also want to strongly emphasize that it is central that the pace of investment in infrastructure is maintained as Sweden moves towards tougher economic times."

It was exactly what the member presented in their speech, that we must increase the pace. Then perhaps the member has figured out what the issue is. One way to increase the pace is that one can find another form of financing. My question is: What is the position of the Social Democrats on broad infrastructure policy agreements where alternative financing, for example OPS solutions of various kinds, can also be a good way to finance?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! For the time being, our party congress has said that we shall not have it. That is what I bring with me.

All of us who have read the book Sjukt hus realize that the issue of private money entering the public sphere and private money that is supposed to make a profit on something that we all have a common benefit from is perhaps not very good.

Then private money can, of course, look different. The member was in his statement about pension funds and other things, i.e., not limited companies that are supposed to make money. We are open to most things, but right now, as it looks after the latest party congress, it is not quite as open, and then we do not have that mandate. That is how it looks, honestly.

But I think it is exciting. We have seen the Öresund Bridge, but there it was loan financing from two countries. We see that the bridge came and that it now actually will soon provide positive returns. It is clear that I also think it is interesting to look at, but we do not have that mandate yet.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I hope that the member and other members from the Social Democrats in the committee will be given the opportunity to highlight, in various ways, alternative financing models that the party can accept and which can enable an increase in the pace of infrastructure investments with their help in the future.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that I get to clarify that I do not believe that my party will be involved in ensuring in any way that it becomes like in the school world, where money comes in that causes money that should have gone to education to go to something else, that is to say profits and dividends from the private limited company-run schools. We do not need this system in the infrastructure sector, and I will never contribute to it.

I think, however, that it is important to look at how it can look otherwise, but it should not be something that one can make money from.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the country's infrastructure.

Let me first state that we Liberals see the country's various modes of transport as a system where all types of transport are needed. It is the efficient utilization of each mode of transport's advantages that builds a coherent transport system in Sweden. Therefore, we need an increased focus on how different modes of transport interact. It is the door-to-door time that is important, not least for passenger transport.

An effective transport system affects the possibilities to choose jobs and school and what we do in our free time. At the same time, companies are dependent on reliable freight transport and access to the right competence. Sweden's competitiveness and the possibility to run businesses throughout the country are strongly dependent on functioning transport.

Current infrastructure needs to be maintained. It is the most effective use of our tax funds. At the same time, the need for transport is increasing, and we must invest in new capacity. A holistic perspective at the national level is required here. We need to build away bottlenecks on our roads and in the railway corridors and invest in smooth transfers for passenger transport and functioning hubs for loading and unloading of goods. Transshipment from trains and trucks to maritime transport in our ports and efficient public transport to major airports are just two examples.

Sweden is a large export country and also has great needs for foreign labor in order to be able to continue to take advantage of the possibilities of technology. To facilitate and prioritize cross-border transport, greater coordination is required, primarily with our neighboring countries, but also that we exert more influence within the EU and on a global level.

Mr. Speaker! There is a great need for new infrastructure to facilitate commuting and meet the business community's needs for transport. The money is not enough for everything, and therefore prioritization is required. It is against this background that we Liberals say no to the expansion of new high-speed railways in southern Sweden, a project that would probably have cost closer to 400 billion. These are funds that can do significantly greater good for Sweden.

That Sweden's largest bottleneck for both passenger and freight transport, the railway section Göteborg-Alingsås, is not included in the national infrastructure plan is for me a symptom that the prioritization process that has existed for eight years is not working. This we need to rectify as soon as possible. And even if new high-speed railways are stopped, it is important to see that the three already identified sections cover a need to specifically build away bottlenecks.

Mr. Speaker! In order for us politicians to be able to prioritize correctly, the socio-economic calculations for the projects are extremely important as a basis for decision-making.

The high-speed railways are an example of how the costs have tripled and thus become three times more expensive compared to the initial calculations when the decision on high-speed trains was made. The Liberals want to see significantly higher accuracy in the critical initial calculations, which determine whether a project is prioritized or not. The calculations also need to more clearly reflect the importance of freight for Sweden's development, which today is undervalued.

Investments in the road network have been deprioritized for a number of years, which primarily affected the road network in rural areas. This hits hard because the car is often the only alternative for passenger transport in rural areas. It also reduces the possibility for longer and heavier trucks that provide efficient freight transport and which are also better for the climate. It is therefore important with increased road investments that enable better standards on the roads, not least in rural areas.

Mr. Speaker! The transport sector accounts for a third of the Swedish domestic carbon emissions, and 90 percent of these come from road traffic. The Swedish vehicle fleet must therefore be replaced with electric vehicles. The charging infrastructure is today a limiting factor, as the expansion is proceeding far too slowly. People hesitate to buy an electric car because there are not enough charging points. This applies perhaps especially to multi-family dwellings, as those living in villas can decide for themselves.

A review of regulations is required to facilitate the expansion, requirements for an increased number of charging points in parking lots, and various support measures. During the transition to electric vehicles, biofuels and also e-fuels are important to quickly reduce the climate emissions of road transport.

The transition to electric vehicles started a bit later for heavy transport, and to accelerate the development, the Liberals took the initiative for the Electrification Commission, which has focused on how heavy transport should be electrified. As a result of this, we need to continue providing support for electric trucks, partly through truck premiums and partly through charging infrastructure, during a transition period until the market has taken over and functions on its own. This support for trucks and for charging infrastructure needs to be coordinated in a clearer way to achieve greater efficiency.

Mr. Speaker! Aviation and shipping also need to transition from their dependence on fossil fuels. For aviation, a promising development of electric flight is now taking place, not least through the establishment of a new aircraft industry in Western Sweden, Heart Aerospace. Electric flight can gain ground before 2030 for shorter distances, up to 40 miles.

The Liberals view the recently presented investigation on the state's responsibility for Sweden's airports positively, where accessibility, climate, and socially important aviation are prioritized. Great focus is placed on future aviation infrastructure, where charging infrastructure, new fuels, and electric aviation's possibilities to more efficiently connect Sweden take center stage.

It is important to see that electric aviation can make it so that not all flights need to go via Stockholm, and that one can get more direct flights between Swedish locations.

Sweden is far ahead in the climate transition for shipping, where new ships for electricity, wind, and new fuels are being developed. Here, Swedish ports must meet the need for charging infrastructure and new fuels. I want to highlight Göteborgs Hamn, Scandinavia's largest port, for their goal-oriented work to eliminate climate emissions by bringing together the actors in the port's entire transport chain around a green vision. We need more such initiatives if we are to succeed in the climate transition.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to meet our climate goals and streamline our transports, research, innovation, and technological development are required, not least within road transport, which accounts for 90 percent of climate emissions. We need to develop self-driving, electric vehicles that are connected and that facilitate the sharing economy that will emerge in society. We need to have legislation that enables us to utilize this rapid technological development and ensure that it simultaneously meets safety requirements and the requirements for personal privacy. Digitalization offers great opportunities where the availability of data is included as part of the infrastructure and provides a traffic-safe and efficient transport system.

The Liberals support the committee's proposal for a decision, which I move to approve. And it is important that we now prioritize all types of transport so that we can achieve an efficient transport system.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! From the Sweden Democrats, we stand by all our reservations, but I move for time-saving approval of reservation 50 to split Trafikverket into a road authority and a rail authority, i.e., the order that prevailed before 2010.

Mr. Speaker! Precious things that one has inherited or received on loan must be cared for. The country's infrastructure is something we have received from our previous generations and must give to our children. It pains me that the infrastructure has been allowed to decay for a couple of decades.

Mr. Speaker! I will make a comparison with a car where a grandchild has borrowed grandfather's car for a longer period. Grandfather is then very kind. But when the grandchild returns the car one year later, it has traveled 4,000 miles. The brake pads are worn out and the brake discs have been destroyed. The air filter is clogged so that the car does not run properly. The oil light is on, and the engine is about to seize. The car is dirty, and there are empty soda cans lying all over the floor. Is it in this condition that one should return the car?

Mr. Speaker! In what condition do we want to hand over our infrastructure to our children? Do we want to hand over more than 1,000 points that must be replaced? Sweden today has over 10,000 points and over 1,400 miles of state railway. Of rails and points, around one-fifth are worn out and need to be replaced. And here we are talking about multi-billion amounts, money that has been missing at Trafikverket for a long time. There is simply a lack of money to replace the infrastructure at the rate it is wearing out. The result was clearly seen during the last parliamentary term in the form of a multitude of cracks appearing in rails and points with acute traffic stops and speed reductions as a consequence. Replacing a point costs several million, and extensive planning and design are needed.

We have roads that are so worn that it threatens the road body itself. If you let the road wear down so much that you practically have to rebuild it again, we are, of course, talking about completely different sums than maintaining the same road.

I could spend more than an hour listing examples of costs that arise for various reasons due to the resulting maintenance debt. It is a matter of potholes, road embankments, sleepers, contact lines, substations, and switches. We can state that we have a gigantic maintenance debt.

The transport companies have calculated that the maintenance debt for state roads alone amounts to 42 billion in the year 2030. It is less than seven years until then.

Trafikverket calculated just over a year ago that the maintenance debt on the railway side amounts to 43 billion. Just during the time I am standing here and speaking, several thousands are running away, and the maintenance debt just continues to build up. It does not end, for all that, because I stop speaking.

Mr. Speaker! With this said, the most central thing, not just for this mandate period but also for the next two or three mandate periods, must be to work off this maintenance debt and ensure that we catch up. We must have a long-term plan and bring down the skyrocketing costs in the sector. We need to redistribute money. We need to reduce Trafikverket's swelling personnel budget and instead get these funds out for direct maintenance on the tracks.

The Sweden Democrats, together with the government parties, have already made a fundamental reprioritization. In light of this consideration, we will now decide to stop the high-speed rail megaproject. As a result of this, we will save a couple of hundred billion which can instead be allocated to better maintenance and other more well-considered expansions of our railway network.

The high-speed rail project was one of the biggest miscalculations we have had in recent times. Today, approximately one high-speed train per hour runs between Malmö and Stockholm in each direction and approximately 1.4 between Gothenburg and Stockholm. For these trains, the Reinfeldt government wanted, from the beginning and then from previous socialist governments, to build railways for at least 300 billion. But probably, with today's developments, the cost would not have landed there but stopped at perhaps 600 billion. KTH previously spoke of 400 billion, and a lot has happened since then. On these tracks, neither freight trains nor local trains would be transported. Furthermore, station locations far outside the city centers were proposed. It is a moment of joy that we are putting a stop to this project.

From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we want to see a long-term upgrade of the maintenance and also increased support for the municipalities' road maintenance. It is about strengthened winter road maintenance on our roads, where those who perform the winter road maintenance are given better opportunities to preventively prevent snow and ice formation, more paving work carried out, strengthened maintenance of sleepers, more new points, many kilometers of new overhead contact lines, an increased replacement rate of everything - the list can be as long as anyone likes. But it is important that one thinks long-term and draws up a good plan.

But it is not just about the maintenance. We must also strengthen the new construction and expansion of roads and railways. Now we are stopping the high-speed train. But that does not mean we are stopping the expansion of the Swedish railway network - on the contrary. Instead, we are making a sensible reprioritization where we look at both the needs of industry and passengers. We look at the daily commuters who are going to work and education so that they get improved tracks and roads. We shall strengthen the possibilities for both local and regional commuting.

I will mention some of our priorities. Some of them are, of course, included in the national plan. But in some cases, we want to move them forward. There will be four tracks between Hässleholm and Lund, to the greatest extent possible along the existing route as the municipalities and the region in Skåne want. There will be four tracks for the entire stretch between Stockholm and Uppsala. It also involves, among other things, that the shovel is put into the ground for Ostlänken, that Borås and Gothenburg get a modern double track with a focus on work commuting and that it connects to Landvetter, that the Ostkustbanan becomes double-tracked in its entire length, that there will be four tracks between Gothenburg and Alingsås, that there will be double tracks between Hässleholm and Kristianstad and that the Norrbotniabanan is completed.

We must not forget that the majority of transport work is carried out on the roads. Without the car and the truck, Sweden stops! The interaction between roads, ports, and railway terminals and the connections to airports must work. The increased traffic volume must be taken into account, and for example, the E6 through Skåne needs to be converted into a six-lane motorway. It is necessary to continue upgrading the E22 and start the construction of Tvärförbindelse Södertörn. The entire E20 must get at least two-plus-two, but preferably motorway standard. These are some projects that must be completed as soon as possible. The population is increasing, production is increasing, and the infrastructure must be planned and built for current and future conditions.

In conclusion, I intended to address one of the report's most important issues, which concerns the Sweden Democrats' reservation 50 regarding returning to a road authority and a rail authority and letting Trafikverket go into the grave. For about 23 of my 25 years of professional activity, I have worked at SJ, Banverket, and Trafikverket. I was an electrical and rail operations manager and was responsible for Banverket's, and later Trafikverket's, infrastructure and accident management for approximately ten years.

As early as 1989, I started working summer jobs at SJ. At that time, there were many people out at the stations. Even the smaller stations were staffed, often by a train shunter and someone who sold tickets. Maintenance was carried out in-house, but obviously, external contractors were also hired to perform work. The year before I started, the maintenance of and investments in the infrastructure had been broken out and placed under the newly formed Banverket. Good so.

A lot was rationalized. The division I worked with, SJ Express, was shut down in 2000 due to poor profitability. We transported goods in freight wagons, and the trains that could carry freight wagons were phased out successively. Fewer people performed maintenance, and that was also streamlined. The stations began to be remotely controlled on an increasingly large scale. The train clearers and ticket sellers disappeared. SJ AB was formed in 2001. At the same time, SJ Fastigheter became Jernhusen and SJ Gods became Green Cargo.

Around 2002 I started at Banverket. What I experienced then was how Banverket successively outsourced its maintenance to external companies area by area instead of carrying it out under its own management.

In 2009, both Banverket and Vägverket were rid of their design departments, which were converted into Vectura Consulting AB. The death blow for Banverket and Vägverket came on April 1, 2010, when Trafikverket was formed. It was no April Fool's joke, it actually happened. I am the first to regret it. This merger did not turn out well. When management positions were to be appointed, it was considered meritorious if one on the railway side came from the road side and vice versa, despite these being fundamentally different. Even here, the competence shortage at Trafikverket began.

That the self-reporting activity ceased was even worse. Consequently, the established career paths within the plant disappeared, where those who knew their facility became area managers and managers and so on, and thus the dependence on external consultants increased. They even outsourced as important things as the inspection of the own facility to consultants.

Mr. Speaker! The time has long since come to return to a road authority and a rail authority. The merger did not work, and instead, Trafikverket became a difficult-to-manage bureaucratic colossus that has drawn strong criticism in countless reports from the National Audit Office. A receipt of Trafikverket's failure is that since the start in 2010, it has increased its staff by over 50 percent, even though the construction mass is largely the same. While the agency has swelled with over 3,000 new desk jobs, the number of railway technicians has decreased by over 3,000 since the turn of the millennium. If you replace those who actually maintain our railway with people behind a desk, is it then strange that the maintenance debt grows?

From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we can state that there would be great advantages if the state conducted part of the basic maintenance in its own capacity. The pure contracting organization must be removed because it dilutes the agency's competence and its grip on its own facility. Through own-operation, the possibility to recruit competent and experience-oriented personnel such as managers, project managers and business developers is improved.

We want to see self-management in both a future road authority and a future rail authority. We mean that Infranord and Svevia should merge into respective authorities and thus be phased out as companies. The remaining share of the market should continue to be outsourced. With these words, Mr. Speaker, I look forward with confidence to a better Swedish infrastructure and a productive debate.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Member Jönsson spoke a lot about changes to authorities and companies, and there are interesting things there. But I did not intend to speak about that but instead congratulate the Sweden Democrats, who have had much of their policy passed and succeeded in scrapping the new main lines. From my perspective, the Green Party's and several other parties' perspectives, I can only regret it, but that is how it looks.

The Sweden Democrats were also involved and moved 750 million away from railway maintenance. The money was instead spent on roads. I understand that roads are of greater importance for SD than railways. There has been a lot of talk about cars, houses, and other things that are not maintained. One can also talk about money in this context. Member Jönsson said that it would likely spiral out of control and suddenly cost perhaps 600 billion if one were to build new main lines. Even if it does not cost 600 billion, it is still a juggling of figures - 300-400 billion - and talk of a megaproject that was not needed. But the other lines that Jönsson nevertheless says shall be built - are they free? Are there no costs for them? They were in this project, so the question is what one saves by scrapping the central parts of the main lines.

I also wonder about something that came up in a previous exchange of remarks that I was not part of. The discussion was about what fast trains are. I would like to hear the member's definition of a high-speed train.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Daniel Helldén for the congratulations. It is absolutely a joyful victory, above all because we can put the money on the right things and not on the wrong things.

I will first answer the question, which is very relevant, about the tracks being free. Some sections are already in the plan, and it is true that they are not free. The Ostlänken is actually built in the way that the Sverigedemokraterna advocated, with conventional technology and for 250 kilometers per hour. It is a track where there is a great need to increase capacity. There is also a great need to increase capacity on the sections that are identified in the current national plan. Hässleholm-Lund is a very central part, and we Sverigedemokrater, as stated, stand behind it.

It is not wrong in itself to build railways on other sections, but we must see where it is needed best right now. One can talk about the high-speed rail project and very skillfully pivot it to new main lines, as the former Infrastructure Minister Eneroth did. It was skillful. If it had been done from the beginning, one would probably have had greater opportunities to get support for it, because a lower cost follows from using a different construction technique.

Previously, one counted on approximately 1 billion per mile of double-track railway built with conventional technology on simple terrain, but now we are talking about completely different sums. The East Link contains, for example, many tunnels due to the topography. It is therefore true that one will not save a huge amount, but one will save some money by building in a different way on existing sections – but we do not want to build the rest of the sections because the money is needed elsewhere.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I then understand it as that the Sweden Democrats are open to building more trunk lines in Sweden but want to allocate these specific funds elsewhere.

I am still curious about what high-speed tracks and high-speed trains are. I understand this with conventional technology. There is a difference there, even though there are calculations that one can build even faster railways with other technology, which also becomes cheaper than conventional technology. This we can discuss.

I also wonder how the Sweden Democrats will handle the Southern Main Line when those tracks are full. The Sweden Democrats say that the money must be spent elsewhere right now, but these are projects that have a timeframe of at least 20 years. How we are to meet the transport needs that we know will exist lies far ahead.

Is it the case that the Sweden Democrats simply want to prioritize over the transports from rail to road? This is what will happen when one cannot get through on the Södra stambanan - when it becomes too full with freight trains when, for example, the Fehmarn Bält connection arrives, when we are to have more people traveling by train and when we want more regional traffic. But the Sweden Democrats' idea is perhaps that these transports should not exist on the railway.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that we allocated money for road maintenance. It involved 750 million and a supplement of 250 million, I recall, to maintain roads.

I believe that Member Helldén also realizes that we also have rather poor maintenance of the roads and that there is a need to maintain them. Here, however, the basis was that Trafikverket said, which I am the first to regret, that they could not do away with the money – they had too much money. I do not have time to develop an argument about this, but I think it is sad that Trafikverket cannot handle this better. It is truly bad.

High-speed rail is an established term for trains that run at at least 251 kilometers per hour. Trains with a maximum speed of 250 kilometers per hour are called fast trains.

In 2014, Fredrik Reinfeldt left the office of Prime Minister. That government left behind the project with high-speed trains. Had one from the beginning been content with trains that can be operated like all types of trains - local trains, freight trains and regional trains - in addition to trains that run at 250 kilometers per hour, we would probably have had a different attitude and the project would have come further, for we agree that the need exists.

If Daniel Helldén looks at the figures on how many trains run south and north of Hässleholm, he sees that there is a quite large difference. It varies, of course, along the distance, but the need is much greater up to Hässleholm. North of Mjölby, or Linköping, the need for Ostlänken increases.

It is about priorities. I wish we had more money.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was on October 3 that the government and SD made their most business-hostile decision: to carelessly write in a motion that they said no to building a high-speed railway.

New trunk lines are needed, because Sweden's railways are full. The railway needs to be renovated and completed. Cost controls are needed, because Trafikverket's projects are becoming far too expensive. But above all, more capacity is needed so that the slow freight transports do not end up ahead of the X2000. This is not a choice between repairing and renovating what already exists and building new; both alternatives are needed. But the government refuses.

The transport sector accounts for a large part of the emissions. The Left Party's focus, in contrast to the government's, is to reduce the transport sector's emissions by 70 percent by 2030, just as the transport sector itself wants to do. It is the climate goals that should be guiding in infrastructure investments, because the infrastructure that is built will also be used.

There is no one in the transport industry who pits different means of transport against each other. It is only the government that does that. There is no one in the transport industry who is against, or who does not want to carry out, a climate transition and lower the transport sector's emissions by 2030. It is only the government that is against this. It is too expensive, says the government. But what does it cost municipalities, regions, entrepreneurs and the business community for the planning of new main lines, which has been ongoing for 10-20 years, to be stopped and paused? The government cannot answer that.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is most fascinating – or depressing, depending on which perspective one has – is that the government parties, heart and soul, have swallowed the Sweden Democrats' conspiracy theories about high-speed trains. According to them, these trains do not seem to stop at any station between Stockholm and Gothenburg; the stations seem to have disappeared. According to the Sweden Democrats, ordinary people do not even take trains. According to the Sweden Democrats, it is not even possible to transport freight by train.

We in Vänsterpartiet want to build new main lines and complete all railway projects that are included in the national plan. We also want to complete the projects faster than what is proposed. High-speed lines are needed, because the tracks are full. But since the right wing seems to have some kind of hang-up on exactly the high-speed train, I can now live with "only" new main lines. The speed is not as important; the important thing is that the trains arrive.

The most important thing about the new main lines, however, are the regional journeys, such as Linköping-Norrköping, Göteborg-Jönköping, Göteborg-Borås and Malmö-Jönköping. According to calculations, the largest part of the travel occurs between the intermediate stations - not from end point to end point.

With new main lines, capacity is freed up on the regular tracks where freight transport can take place. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet allocates 170 billion more than the government for upgrading and expansion over the next ten years. With Vänsterpartiet's proposal, main lines can be completed by 2030. It is possible to build eight to ten kilometers of track per year.

These new main lines shall be debt-financed, for that is the only way to build new infrastructure. The state must also have an investment budget, which means that the cost of investments is distributed over their lifespan. Furthermore, the EU has urged member states to make large and sustainable investments, and there is now full flexibility in the EU's financial framework. It is simply a matter of building. It is now that Sweden's railway shall be connected with the rest of Europe.

Vänsterpartiet invests 60 billion more than the government on railway maintenance.

Vänsterpartiet invests 9 billion more than the government on road maintenance, because Sweden's roads do not look good.

Vänsterpartiet proposes a reduction so that more people can buy an electric car - unlike the government, which has crashed the electric car market overnight.

Mr. Speaker, the question is whether the national plan has played out its role. This document will become a paper plane that will spin away somewhere. It is obvious that parties can change their minds from one day to the next regarding long-term investments of several billion. The national plan does not provide the long-term conditions needed for the infrastructure.

We see how companies, authorities, municipalities and regions believe what is said in this chamber. They believe in the decisions we make. Nevertheless, the government chooses to put those who believe in us on the sidelines.

One of my first political assignments was in 2007. We were to look at the new travel center that was to be built in Linköping, as the Ostlänken was soon to arrive. We would finally be able to travel quickly both to Stockholm and to Jönköping.

It is fortunate that so much of Ostlänken has been built and that the investments have been so large that the government cannot stop the stretch. But Ostlänken is not finished, and the travel center is not built, far from it.

So that is what the Moderate-led policy looks like. It is the Sweden Democrats' conspiracy theories and prejudices that are in control.

I vote in favor of reservation 40.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It would have been appropriate and benefited the debate if it had been conducted somewhat more objectively from Member Sneckers' side. I had many debates with Jens Holm, and it honored him that he was always objective. Linda W Sneckers is a skilled politician, and I believe that the audience, the voters, and the citizens would have benefited from a more objective debate.

In my speech, I listed nine railway projects that we prioritize. I also listed four road projects. How can Linda W Snecker mean that we do not think railways are important? I do not understand that. I believe I spent the most speaking time on the question of the freight's possibility to move forward in Sweden.

Let me ask a factual question that I might be able to get a factual answer to. I proposed, as I said, nine railway projects: four tracks all the way to Uppsala from Stockholm, the completion of Ostkustbanan, which costs perhaps 30 billion, and Hässleholm-Kristianstad, a cost of about 2 billion according to Trafikverket, and so on. All these projects would fit within the framework of our reprioritization from the high-speed project. Doesn't Linda W Snecker want these projects to be carried out?

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! One must absolutely be objective in the debate, and therefore it is so interesting that objective arguments are not used against high-speed trains, but rather various made-up arguments, such as that it does not favor an expansion of labor market regions.

You talk a lot about regional commuting, Patrik Jönsson, and it is precisely the new main lines that facilitate this. The entire climate transition depends on us starting to travel in a different way, more collectively. The business community is calling for more railway, because it is part of the companies' climate transition and the entire business model to transition.

The railway is therefore incredibly important, but you are scaling back the investment in the main lines. It is being paused and stopped. It is not an investment; it is a retreat. It needs to be upgraded and rebuilt. That is what the business community and the transport industry say.

The nine projects are included in the Left Party's follow-up motion. We mention Norrbotniabanan, Nya Ostkustbanan, Alingsås-Göteborg, Borås-Göteborg, Industrispåret and Inlandsbanan. We want to build a railway to Sälenfjällen. We have enormous ambitions for all types of travel to increase on the railway - especially in Skåne, which I know Patrik Jönsson is particularly passionate about. We also include Bohusbanan, Lysekilsbanan, Kinnekullebanan, Stångådalsbanan and Tjustbanan. We add a total of 170 billion more to Sweden's infrastructure than the Sverigedemokraterna and the government do.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for increased objectivity.

There was previously a railway to Sälen, but it has been dismantled.

We are definitely objective in our basis when we say that a high-speed train runs every hour between Malmö and Stockholm in each direction. It is a fact.

When it comes to the cost calculations, we all know what the cost increases in the projects are, as the National Audit Office has clarified this. If it is to cost 300 billion but 70 percent is added, we are suddenly up to 500 billion. That is not insignificant.

It is a sympathetic thought to allocate higher direct grants to investments in infrastructure. I believe there are great points to that. Then we would have had completely different possibilities. I am well aware that Vänsterpartiet was the only party that advocated for more money for infrastructure in the infrastructure plan, which of course would be financed through higher tax revenues. It is absolutely an interesting thought, and in the past, twice as much money was indeed spent on infrastructure.

You don't get any economy in high-speed trains, Linda Snecker, and above all, they are not needed. We need to be able to run local trains and freight trains. Around 95 percent of commuting consists of short journeys locally and regionally. I would personally have liked to reduce the travel time to Stockholm by an hour - we do share trains sometimes, and that wouldn't have been wrong - but that is not where the limited amount of money we have does the most good.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! I spoke for quite some time in my speech about how these large investments are to be financed, and I did not say a word about tax increases. New main lines shall be financed through loan investments and a state investment budget, for that is the only way to be able to make such large and expensive infrastructure investments. Furthermore, there are EU funds, but the government has seen to it that Sweden does not receive them because they were not applied for. Therefore, Sweden has lost several billion that could have been spent on infrastructure specifically.

I don't know where to start. It is as if the Sweden Democrats are still living in a world where people commute short distances and the labor market has not changed. But the companies want their employees to arrive at work on time and for the labor market to become much larger. And it can become that if there is public transport on new trunk lines to get to work with.

One thing that Patrik Jönsson and I agree on is Trafikverket's increased costs for projects. The National Audit Office points out that Trafikverket might set a too low initial figure to get the investments started and that the cost then increases disproportionately much. That is not good, and we must address it. As politicians, we must have a realistic figure on what infrastructure investments will cost. Of course, we have inflation and unforeseen events, but Trafikverket must be able to deliver clearer and more truthful figures. The work on this we can actually do together in the committee.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We need new trunk lines in southern Sweden. We need railway capacity that meets the demand we can expect when more and more of the transport is to go by rail. Today, passengers are stuck in eternal delays, and the tracks are full of trains running at different speeds and blocking each other.

The shift of freight from road to rail is necessary, and the EU is pushing all member states to significantly increase the share of freight on rail. Long-distance transport should, for the most part, not take place by truck. Between Denmark and Germany, the Fehmarn Belt link is now being built, which will many-fold the freight transport on rail up through Sweden.

In this situation, the government, together with SD, is shutting down the initiatives on new tracks.

The regions are queuing to air their disappointment and concern. Will anything of what the government still says it wants to build actually be completed? How delayed and with what quality? And why is the government scrapping the regional expansions? By completely concluding all planning for the central parts originating from Jönköping, they have effectively shut down all plans for larger labor market regions. Linköping, Borås, Gothenburg, Värnamo, and Hässleholm now lack the upward connection. Jobs, growth, and a sustainable transport system are blown away. A heavy, wet blanket is now being laid over the regions' optimism and spirit of the future.

This is what we see with the new government. At the same time, they have effectively bungled away billions in EU funding by removing the tracks from the EU's mapping material for the new trans-European railway network. We stand alone and exposed up north while the rest of the union invests. In terms of money, it could be around 30 billion in EU support, support for a connected Europe, which is now frozen because the government is so eager to clear away everything called new main lines. Even for the sections where the government says it wants to build, the money is burning up inside. It is enough to make one hold one's forehead.

Just a few years ago, today's government representatives stood up for new trunk lines. Today's Infrastructure Minister motioned as recently as last parliamentary year and the years before that with the arguments that the business community and politicians in regions and municipalities now repeatedly point to: regional growth, expanded labor market regions, and functioning railway infrastructure. Today, this has been blown away.

From the Moderates' side, motions were submitted as recently as last parliamentary year declaring that Sweden's most important railways should maintain a speed of 250 kilometers per hour. But with the dismantling of the planning for new main lines in southern Sweden, they are now stopping the possibility that new tracks provide regarding speed, while simultaneously stifling the possibility for new, necessary capacity. The government parties are therefore no longer standing up for Sweden's railways.

Mr. Speaker! Today we will, of course, also address other issues, for example the question of charging infrastructure.

In order for us to manage the transition within the transport sector, electric vehicles are one of the most important pieces of the puzzle. We have long seen a strong trend towards electric vehicles in new car sales, and the heavy vehicles on electricity are becoming increasingly numerous.

The EU has just decided to ban the sale of passenger cars with an internal combustion engine. The year was set to 2035. It is soon; it is 12 years away. We would have liked to see it come earlier.

For heavy vehicles, the current proposal is an internal combustion engine ban in 2045. The engines that we have historically associated with road traffic are therefore on their way out.

But actually, no new internal combustion engines should be put on the roads at all. Over the next two decades, those that are put out will require liquid fuel that is mainly oil-based. It is a major problem from a climate perspective. The ban should come earlier.

We have had national support systems to accelerate the transition to electric cars. But this autumn, the government, as everyone knows, scrapped the premium for electric cars, bonus-malus, overnight. This slows down the development towards electric vehicles and will result in more fossil fuel cars than the climate goals can handle. It also creates insecurity among consumers regarding state regulations. It is unfortunate and disillusioning that one abruptly dismantles the support systems. One must think in a different way if one is going to do so.

What needs to be done now is to ensure that there are enough charging stations around the country, because besides the price, the fear of not being able to charge the car is the biggest brake for the transition to electric cars.

For private individuals' normal everyday driving, it is not a major problem. For everyone who lives in their own house, the charging station is practically on the side of the house. For those who live in multi-family buildings, it is a bit more complicated, but forward-thinking property owners are now taking the lead and showing that it is not so complicated. It is when we come to the national road network that the problems are visible. The security of being able to charge along the road network must exist.

A national plan should therefore be developed for the expansion of the charging infrastructure across the entire country. I particularly want to point out the need for increased state responsibility for the white spots on the map of charging stations.

Mr. Speaker! Electrification is one of the pieces of the puzzle to achieve a sustainable transport system and a fossil-free future. Another important piece of the puzzle is a transport-efficient society where the resource-intensive modes of transport—car, truck, and aircraft—are given a smaller share of the transport space. It is a matter of using the necessary road transport more efficiently but, above all, promoting those modes of transport that are high-capacity.

During the winter, we have seen how Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson has gone completely against these goals and spoken warmly for more car travel in cities, more freight transport on roads, and increased flying. Maintenance funds have been moved from railway to road, 750 million, and the expansion of new main lines has been stopped.

We see a clear trend here. But if we temporarily disregard the minister's desire for a transport-destroying society, we see that there are, after all, different measures to be taken to create a sustainable society.

On the state side, it is primarily the Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) that must receive a clearer mandate to work towards a transport-efficient society – or transport-lean, as it is also called. That is what we lack.

At the same time, there are obstacles for Trafikverket to work effectively with what is called the four-step principle, a principle aimed at good resource management and smart measures first, before ultimately, for example, building a road. Among other things, the ordinance on state co-financing for certain regional public transport facilities limits the possibility of co-financing cycling measures and behavior-influencing measures, so-called mobility management. There is much to be done here.

Even the regulation with instructions for Trafikverket is perceived as restrictive and would need to be supplemented with provisions stating that Trafikverket shall work with measures that can affect transport demand and the choice of mode of transport, as well as measures that provide more efficient use of the existing infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker! What hurts Sweden the most right now is that the government, together with SD, is stifling the expansion of new main lines, severely hindered the expansion of railway traffic in southern Sweden, and caused problems for freight traffic, regional passenger traffic, and national rail travel. We will continue to have trembling passengers standing and waiting for delayed trains. We risk having to live with an inadequate infrastructure for decades and standing as the country in the north where the trains run at a maximum of 200 kilometers per hour, despite everyone agreeing that higher speeds and increased capacity on the tracks is what is needed. It is deplorable.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of our joint reservation 40 on the construction of new main lines and reservation 15 on a long-term sustainable transport system.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I felt that Daniel Helldén and I were not quite finished with each other tonight, so I requested the floor to have a small discussion further. It is a golden opportunity, and the evening is young.

I previously asked a question to Gunilla Svantorp from the Socialdemokraterna about whether she was satisfied with how it had worked. I will not repeat the question completely identically; it is probably too extensive. She then gave a reflection on the time that has passed. But the fact is that it is not only the Socialdemokraterna who have ruled, but we also have another party that has had the pleasure of being involved. I assume that Helldén saw it as a pleasure in any case. I see you rather as accomplices.

A great deal has actually gone in the wrong direction. This applies, for example, to the maintenance debt and the train delays. The first quarter of 2022 is the quarter that has had the worst punctuality since 2013. The cost development is now a real problem, and I believe we share that opinion. It is not entirely simple to solve, but it has nevertheless been allowed to spiral out of control. One has also allowed the number of employees at Trafikverket to swell.

Now, I don't think I will get a question about the county council and healthcare, but I think I will get a concrete answer from Helldén. Do you, as a representative for Miljöpartiet, feel satisfied with what you achieved during the past two parliamentary terms? You want high-speed trains, but in eight years, not a single meter of railway has been built, for example. The question remains the same. I also want to prepare the members that in my next turn I will pose a question about charging stations.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, Member Jönsson, it is completely obvious that it should have gone faster and more should have happened in the infrastructure area. We should have invested more money in the expansion. But it is not the case that no railways have been built during these years. The large projects that have been worked on have come quite far. This applies to Ostlänken, for example. One is starting in principle with the first parts now after having adopted the detailed plans. It is not that nothing is in motion. But these are things that take a long time. Had I sat in the government, I would probably have pushed for even larger investments, but I did not sit there.

Patrik Jönsson speaks about the cost development and Trafikverket. I can agree that one can discuss Trafikverket's efficiency. I have myself had dealings with them as a municipal politician here in Stockholm. It has not always been so simple. Things have gotten stuck in different parts and at different levels. This needs to be reviewed.

The cost development for projects has been enormous wherever you look around in Sweden and Europe, I would say. Even when it comes to the housing market, it is a question of a systemic error of a major scale.

I have personally been involved in making decisions regarding bicycle projects – in those cases, it is a matter of smaller amounts. But I have had the privilege of following them all the way from the first idea until they were implemented, and during that time, the costs have risen enormously. This has to do with the differences between a directional decision and the final implementation decision. It takes a terribly long time until it is actually implemented. One has to reflect a bit on what happens in between.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That was a fairly sober answer. One is rarely completely satisfied after having governed for a period.

I take certain things seriously. The cost development has, as far as I can see, been higher than in, for example, municipalities and regions in just this sector. It is not directly the wage development that has broken the whole thing, even though there are many employees.

When it comes to how things that have come to pass have been handled, I must still give Helldén some credit, because in Stockholm, things have actually happened. Then I do not think they are positive. But things have certainly happened. That is what one has to say. It has kept rolling along.

The committee members are talking about charging stations. There is an increased interest among trucking companies to transition to electric transport. Sweden is, after Norway, the country that has had the best development for electric cars. In southern Europe, it is significantly worse. I can think that completely horrible decisions have been taken regarding our nuclear power. Nuclear power has been dismantled for hundreds of billions - safe and stable base power for our electricity grid. It does not help that we have a charging station when we do not get electricity to it. It might work today, but it will not work in the future.

That one can charge when it is windy outside is not enough. And it is not even enough then, because if we expand this massively, the grid will not suffice at the final delivery point. It does not work if every car owner in every residential area has an electric car or if all trucking companies have electric vehicles. Perhaps seven trucks will arrive at a point at the same time to charge while people are eating dinner, which they do at twelve in the afternoon in Skåne. Then it will break.

What is the Green Party's strategy for expanding the power grid and ensuring that we have base load?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! These are interesting questions about things that need to be developed. But when I have looked at these things, I have seen that it is not that much electricity and power that is needed in order to be able to charge passenger cars. There is an idea that a regular car should be fully charged overnight, which is rarely needed, because so little electricity is consumed. A car is driven approximately 3.3 miles a day on average. There is no real problem there. If it is managed so that it happens at night, there is the power that is required. There is also power in the grid.

When it comes to the heavy transport and the commercial traffic, which travels much more, there are bigger problems, and those we must solve. I know that nuclear power is being advocated for in this context, but with the expansion of wind power that will take place – at least that is what a minister in the government says – we will have the power we need.

What we need to do is to ensure that the power grid and electricity services are expanded. That is where the bottlenecks are. We have, for example, been to Postnord in Rosersberg, and there, it has been discussed to have charging points. But if the trucks come in there and are to be loaded, and you charge them at the same time, it becomes a big problem. Theoretically, one might perhaps be able to use the railway's power that exists there, but one must in any case ensure that more electricity comes in. It is absolutely necessary.

It is not so much about a lack of electricity as it is about getting it to those points. This is something we must work for together. Otherwise, we cannot achieve the transition we need. As I said earlier, the EU has stated that by 2045, trucks powered by anything other than electricity shall no longer be sold.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! Investing in new railways is very expensive. We have all seen the price tag. It also takes a very long time. Furthermore, the construction leads to large emissions. The investments that Miljöpartiet proposes are based on today's emission profile but will be completed at a time when probably all modes of transport will be more or less fossil-free. To assume that the emissions in 2035 will look the same as in 2023 is unreasonable given the technological development that is occurring. Furthermore, this will cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions in unnecessary investments when we see that all modes of transport are transitioning.

Previously, Miljöpartiet has been involved in driving the phasing out of fossil heating of our houses. One might wonder when Miljöpartiet here in Sweden, like Die Grünen in Germany, will realize that we are in the process of transitioning all types of transport. Unilaterally cuddling trains and bicycles is not quite reasonable given the emission profile we see ahead. The future is not that far away. It is already at hand for certain types of transport here.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In its analyses, the Swedish Transport Administration has already subtracted virtually all emissions from cars. In a longer perspective, there are no more emissions, they say. It is a bit strange, because we know that there will still be plenty of cars with internal combustion engines even in 2045.

But of course, a transition is happening. It is completely obvious that it is coming. But it is also about a sustainable transport system and resource efficiency. We know that the railway is the most efficient thing one can have. There are those who claim that if you drive an electric car and fill it with four people, it would be better than the trains. That is not true.

We need to build a transport system that is resource-efficient and that also ensures we do not take up the space and area that cars do, especially in cities. I am thinking about how the Minister for Infrastructure wants more cars in the cities.

Those who live in the cities do not want more cars in the cities. Eventually, we are back to how it was in the 50s when there were a lot of cars everywhere. We built highways, parking garages and other things. That is not the future we need. We must also think about efficiency in other areas. It is a resource efficiency.

It is obviously expensive to build railways. It is a long-term investment, and it costs money. It is also not particularly cheap to build for cars. Look at the Förbifarten here in Stockholm. With the financing form that is used, it is soon up to 70 billion. Those are enormous amounts. Look at all the carbon emissions that construction releases. But that is rarely talked about.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! We will certainly keep internal combustion engines, but they may not run on fossil fuels. Even there, there are opportunities to transition.

When it comes to what constitutes an efficient society, that is why we have socio-economic calculations. It is to see if the investments we make in infrastructure are profitable. Do we receive benefits that preferably correspond to or provide more than what we invest in infrastructure?

With the reasoning that Daniel Helldén presents, the socio-economic calculations should reasonably indicate that it would be profitable to build the railway. But above all, when it comes to the high-speed project, it turns out to be violently unprofitable.

Several have criticized it, including the Swedish National Audit Office, and said that it is not reasonable. We have not followed the four-step principle, which Daniel Helldén himself mentioned in his statement. Furthermore, the investment is extremely unprofitable.

It is important that we use the tax money we have wisely. How are we going to recover the enormous carbon debt that grows during the construction of the high-speed railway if all modes of transport are fossil-free when it is completed?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds as if a car or a truck has no emissions when they are built and driven around or when the roads are built. That is a strange way of looking at it.

There are many discussions about the calculations that exist for railway projects and how they are calculated. What is a socio-economic calculation? There is strong criticism. Above all, one cannot include the freight traffic. One does not really know how to handle it.

The socio-economic calculations used when making the calculations are mostly about trying to compare different projects. It is not really so much about money, but about a way to somehow try to value it.

We also know that when it comes to car travel, it is always valued more in context, which is strange. It has to do with the fact that the person driving a car says that it is worth more to get rid of a minute than the person sitting on a train. It is about the very way of measuring it.

When one sits on a train, one has it better. It is valued a bit less. That time, like, has no significance. One can sit and read a book, and then one thinks that it can take a long time. Those calculations are not all that much about social economy in the way we think of it.

We must have some idea of the money rolling in and out. It is a way to compare different projects. I think those methods should be reviewed. It is also something that we have put forward as a party.

One should review how Trafikverket performs these socio-economic calculations for the railway. We know that it is done in a completely different way in other countries. These are long-term investments. They have such significance for the regions, freight traffic, and passenger traffic that they provide a great benefit even when one speaks of socio-economic benefit.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I begin my question with a story about my background. I am fundamentally an engineer and come from Volvo Cars. I have worked for many years with internal combustion engines. This includes, among other things, our engines for diesel with four-cylinder two-liter engines, two-liter gasoline engines, and three-cylinder engines.

I have seen the development in our company. It was a direct result of the Miljöpartiet's and Socialdemokraternas policy regarding the transition. I have seen how skilled engineers who were passionate about the technology were kicked out of the company. It was simply because there was no understanding of the technology. There was no understanding of the global perspective with the technology.

I see that Member Daniel Helldén cheers that the sale of cars with internal combustion engines will be banned in 2035 due to the European Green Deal. Is there any technical understanding behind that? It concerns everything we have here. My clothes, Daniel Helldén's clothes, this rostrum, my shoes, and the food we eat have arrived here by a car with an internal combustion engine.

Why is there such hostility towards internal combustion engines? We develop the world's best engines in Sweden with the best exhaust cleaning systems. That is my question. Why is there such hostility?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if it is hostility. It is perhaps rather a technological development that is positive. Electric cars are nothing new. They already existed at the beginning of the 1900s. The development then took a different turn.

Now, we have succeeded in constructing such good electric cars that we do not need internal combustion engines. Why should we burn things in, for example, urban environments where it is a major problem? It is not as big of a problem when one goes out to the countryside.

Even if one has a fantastically good technology for cleaning the exhaust gases, one still gets quite large air quality problems with them. Something that one forgets is that even if one runs on HVO or something else, it is, for example, the same emissions of nitrogen dioxides as it is for a diesel-driven truck or car.

I have worked a lot in urban environments. A car and a truck that do not have internal combustion engines do not sound at all the same. There is something positive in that.

It is not a hostility towards technology or a hostility towards technology in itself. If one can use electricity in vehicles, they are enormously efficient. Of the electricity that is sent in, an incredibly large part also goes out in the propulsion of the car. With internal combustion engines, one wastes a hell of a lot of energy to heat up the engine and ventilate away the heat.

Of course, one should use the technology. I think that is positive. The decisions that have now been made in the EU are absolutely excellent. This applies to passenger cars. If decisions are made for heavy vehicles from 2045, we do not know yet. It is also an absolutely excellent development for the environment, health, and climate.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Helldén, for the answer!

It is about the holistic perspective, the global perspective and the entire life cycle. I believe that politicians should be technology-neutral. During the vote on the European Green Deal, the Sverigedemokraterna were the only party from Sweden that voted against it.

When it comes to electric cars, it is about the batteries. First and foremost, 98 or 99 percent of the raw materials in the batteries used in Europe come from China. This applies, for example, to lithium, which is mined in China. Cobalt, which is used to stabilize the batteries, is extracted by child laborers in Congo. Then it is sent to China, and China sends it to Sweden and the rest of Europe.

I come from this industry. For the last four years, I have worked with electric cars, batteries, and charging. One day I was Volvo's best guy for charging. It is not ethical to drive an electric car today, because there is child labor and slavery behind charging cars - behind the batteries in electric cars.

How does this align with your values regarding human rights, Daniel Helldén? And again: What kind of holistic perspective do you have when it comes to the entire life cycle?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can start with the last point: the life cycle perspective. As far as I know, work is currently being done on processes to recycle batteries from electric cars and heavy vehicles. We have a manufacturer up in Skellefteå, Northvolt, which is working with that process. I see that Member Rashid Farivar is shaking his head, but that is at least what they tell me.

We have the opportunity to recycle batteries. Thus, over time, one can make it so that it becomes circular. I really hope that pressure is exerted so that it becomes so, and it is also an idea that the EU is working on so that it becomes that way. We have found ourselves in a situation where car batteries have been discarded, and that is obviously not a way we can work.

When it comes to raw materials, there is the concept of urban mining, meaning that we have a hell of a lot of landfills and other places where there are minerals that can be used in batteries. In Kiruna, for example, there are LKAB's heaps with a good deal of metals that are needed in these contexts. It is also about the new mines, but whether it is good to mine them can be discussed.

Cobalt is often cited as an example. I believe that approximately 60 percent of the cobalt comes from Congo. That means it also comes from other places. One must ensure that this is done in a good way.

There are also now battery manufacturers on the Swedish front who say that they have a completely new technology where one does not need these raw materials at all. I cannot answer whether that is true or not, but it is said to be in the works. We must achieve this technological development.

Mr. Speaker! One can also look at who it was that produced the oil when the fossil fuel cars arrived once upon a time.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I stand behind all the Sweden Democrat reservations in the report, but I move for approval only to reservation 50.

Mr. Speaker! Facilities, structures and systems that secure basic welfare functions in a society are defined as infrastructure. Transport of goods, persons, services, energy and information comprises, in principle, the most important part of our modern and collective infrastructure.

Safe, secure and efficient transport of goods, people, services and sometimes energy depends on well-functioning roads, railways, shipping and aviation. All these different modes of transport are important. They are dependent on each other, and they should complement each other.

Many of us in Sweden sometimes take our transport infrastructure for granted. The importance of infrastructure is only noticed when it stops functioning, for example when the train is delayed, when the bus does not arrive, when packages you are waiting for do not show up, or when feminist snow removal is introduced in your municipality or city.

Since the title of the report covers a broad area, I will limit my speech to only road transport, i.e., most of what rolls on rubber wheels on our roads. Another reason is that I come from the business sector. As I just mentioned, I have worked for over a decade with research and development within the automotive industry.

Sweden is an export- and import-dependent country that stretches quite far from north to south. It is natural that food, clothes, goods, and industrial needs are transported long distances to reach the correct destination with satisfactory timing and conditions. Nearly 70 percent of freight transport in Sweden takes place on our roads.

In the same way, living in the countryside and outside urban areas is completely dependent on a functioning road infrastructure for the business sector to function well. It is also important for essential community services such as healthcare, police, rescue services, home care, etc., to be easily accessible when citizens need them.

Therefore, the focus must always be on maintaining good quality, capacity, and safety on our roads, around the clock and year-round, regardless of weather conditions and seasons.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish road infrastructure is not in good shape today. There is a great need for continuous expansion and continuous maintenance of roads everywhere in the entire country. Therefore, it is highly reasonable to prioritize what can function better today over what will probably or perhaps, hopefully, function in 20 or 30 years.

With that said: A stop to the construction of the high-speed railway, which the coalition partners have put forward as a proposal, will free up enormous economic resources specifically to achieve these objectives regarding our road infrastructure. The high-speed railway can be briefly summarized as a purely ideological project, doomed to fail.

During the week, the Transport Committee was visited by the Swedish trucking industry. Many challenges and problems were raised, but among the worst was the serious crime wave that hits professional drivers and trucking companies daily. Diesel thefts are still at extremely high levels, and the trend is increasing. Many drivers choose to keep the tank empty overnight and refuel first before setting off. Others get drill holes in the tank. They cannot even drive and choose the workshop instead. It is extremely regrettable.

Mr. Speaker! There is, therefore, a large, well-established market in Sweden under the radar where stolen diesel can be bought and sold. We know that expensive Swedish diesel is not smuggled to neighboring countries, where it is significantly cheaper. Theft gangs use Swedish trucks and construction machinery to strip off spare parts. My colleague Thomas Morell sometimes sends pictures of trucks that have been vandalized in this way. They lack doors, windows, tires, and wheels. It is extremely regrettable. Sometimes these spare parts are retrieved based on an order list.

Our roads are used to smuggle in drugs, weapons, explosives and people. Stolen goods are transported in the opposite direction by foreign criminal gangs.

Despite stricter requirements on cabotage traffic, driving and rest times, and the use of tachographs in accordance with the professional transport legislation and the new European mobility package, foreign truck drivers and operators continue to break the rules. Controls are performed far too infrequently by customs or police.

It is therefore not wrong to state that the road is Sweden's largest crime scene.

The Sweden Democrats want to introduce stricter, more comprehensive and broader police controls and inspections on our roads as well as increased penalties for, for example, cabotage traffic.

Mr. Speaker! The green transition being imposed on Sweden and the Swedish people by bureaucrats and globalists in Brussels in the form of the European Green Deal has created enormous challenges and, most often, problems for both passenger and freight transport. Last week, the European Parliament hammered through new emission targets which entail a ban on the sale of passenger cars and vans with internal combustion engines from 2035 onwards – a completely ill-considered proposal that was passed. The emission requirements for buses and trucks are also further tightened in the new decision. Sverigedemokraterna was the only party that voted against the proposal.

We Sweden Democrats are for sustainability and a green transition, but it must occur at a pace that does not drastically damage basic welfare functions in society or the citizens' daily lives and economy. Otherwise, there is a risk that the measures will be pushed back and we will get no transition at all.

This area, electrification, is among the biggest challenges that Sweden and all of Europe face. The technology to develop and manufacture new zero-emission drivetrains and energy storage systems is already available – something I myself have worked with. The problem is a lack of capacity to deliver energy where it is needed and with the right timing. This problem is extremely visible within heavy traffic and heavy transport.

What is generally missing is a long-term plan, a roadmap, for the expansion of Sweden's charging infrastructure where consideration is taken of both the energy and power supply for households, the business sector, industry, and the transport sector. The key to a successful electrification, not only in Sweden but everywhere in the entire world, is access to cheap energy in the form of kilowatt-hours and available power in the form of kilowatts at the right place and with the right timing. If we do not succeed in solving this in a thoughtful and sustainable way, the green transition will cause our welfare society enormous economic, social, and perhaps human damage.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! My party colleague Ulrika Heie, the chair of the Transport Committee, accounted earlier this evening for the Center Party's broad policy on the large area that we are debating tonight, infrastructure. I myself intended to devote a few words to the issue that perhaps has been the most difficult and most on people's lips when it comes to infrastructure, namely trunk lines.

We have often been told that it is a prestige project with main lines. It is a rather strange and odd view, because in reality, it is about a project that binds people together, that makes dreams come to life, that gives opportunities to live and work in large parts of the country and that ties regions and towns together with one another. I do not think it is so much about prestige. I think it is about thinking about how people are doing and how they can have it well in the future.

I am an engineer, and I intended in my speech to be a bit square and list nine arguments for why the decision to stop main lines is a bad idea.

The first thing is that the government does not provide a single economic calculation or consequence assessment regarding the decision. For over ten years, planning has been ongoing. Different towns and cities have waited with their urban planning. Perhaps some urban planning has been done for new station locations, the business community has stood and waited to establish itself, and people have desired housing and wondered whether they should move to these towns. What does it actually cost to say no to trunk lines? We actually have no idea, which is quite strange when making such a large decision.

The second thing is that the decision being made is a very fragmented decision. Different parts of the main lines are to remain in some way, but different messages are being given. It can easily be seen as that one would prefer to see a split among the regions and the actors. It is quite unfortunate. When one additionally builds small parts of the railway to perhaps extend them at a later stage, we get a much more expensive project than if we had done it right and properly and taken it in its entirety from the beginning.

The third is the regional expansion, probably the biggest thing we are now losing out on - that people and businesses in different locations get a larger geographical area available, that the business sector can flourish in Jönköping, that one can live in Gothenburg and at the same time work in Jönköping or live in Ödeshög and perhaps work in Borås. This we will not get to see now. Instead, it will continue to be small work regions that are not connected. This does not benefit Swedish growth.

The fourth is freight traffic. There is very heavy load into Gothenburg, as several debaters have reported here. Most of it goes onto the Western Main Line, and it must share space with commuter trains, long-distance trains, and regional trains. If we get new main lines in place, we also free up capacity for more freight so that we can get our exports out of the country at the Port of Gothenburg and also get freight into Sweden and further into the country.

The fifth is civil defense. It is well known that when one ends up in times of unrest, as we have now done in Sweden and Europe, the focus must increase on civil defense. Redundant and robust railway and rail traffic is one of the most important aspects for us to be able to have a strong civil defense. It must be able to transport both people and goods in a redundant and secure manner.

The sixth is maintenance, a question that has also been in great focus here this evening. It is right and correct as the government parties say that we have a huge maintenance debt. The problem is only that if we are to perform maintenance on overloaded railways, it is terribly difficult. How does one do it? One might need to close traffic between Gothenburg and Stockholm for half a year or a year. It becomes almost impossible without serious problems and shifts in Swedish public transport. If we have a redundant system, the maintenance also becomes much easier.

The seventh is also something that has been mentioned here this evening. When Europe invests in connecting cities and regions with each other by train and when the Fehmarn Belt connection is being built, which is to be completed in 2029 and where we connect regions in southern Denmark with regions in northern Germany, Sweden simultaneously says no. No, connecting towns in Sweden with trains is not what we shall do.

The eighth is that this is unfortunately not any policy for the whole country. One completely loses that perspective. What is Harald Hansson in Hökerum going to think when local party representatives fight for the region and to connect towns when the parliamentary politicians in the same party simultaneously say no to trunk lines and that one should stop focusing on the whole country?

The ninth, which I believe is a very important thing to remember and something we perhaps could have agreed on in the chamber, is that we could have spoken in a different way about the speed. Often we hear from the government parties that we say no to high-speed trains, but the question is whether we could not have agreed to build main lines where we lowered the speed from 320 to 250 kilometers per hour, just like for all the rail that is built in Sweden. Perhaps we would have found common ground then. There is at least an opening there. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the government is making a decision to stop.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to build a strong Sweden, we must manage both new investments and maintenance. New main lines are essential from an enormous number of perspectives. I have briefly presented nine of them.

I vote in favor of the joint reservation 40 under point 13 on new main lines.

In this speech, Ulrika Heie (C) agreed.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! It was an interesting enumeration of what new main lines could contribute.

For the Liberals, it is primarily about the enormous cost increase in the project. The Centre Party joined the Alliance when we made the decision to support building new main lines. At that time, they cost 120 billion. Today, they cost 360 billion, and even then, one has not recalculated all the stretches that go to Jönköping. It can therefore be expected to land well over 400 billion.

On three sections, there are reasons to continue the expansion. These are Järna-Linköping and Göteborg-Borås. One should also look at Lund-Hässleholm.

It fascinates me that the entire discussion here today has almost only concerned trunk lines. The Centre Party has a heart for the whole country to live. But we only hear discussions about the trunk lines, which are primarily intended to make it faster to travel between Gothenburg and Stockholm and between Stockholm and Malmö.

If one were to simply build these three lines, it would cost approximately 200 billion. With the decision to stop the lines to Jönköping, one gets 200 billion that could be spent on building out in the country. One could build the Norrbotniabanan and many stops between Gothenburg and Oslo.

How does the Centre Party reason when they do not want to allocate those funds to other parts of the country?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is not really about people traveling from Gothenburg to Stockholm in a new way, which I also spoke about in my speech. That is not the point. The point is that on that stretch, one should be able to travel from, for example, Borås to Jönköping or from Linköping to Ulricehamn.

Of the 100 percent who travel on the route, perhaps 20 percent would travel from terminus to terminus. That is not the idea with the new main lines. The idea is, just as I said in the speech, to link regions with one another. We are to link cities that are not linked today. If I am to get from Gothenburg, where I live, to Linköping, it cannot be done by train today. If one lives in Jönköping and works in Gothenburg, it is also completely impossible to find a sensible commute.

It is about connecting regions and towns with one another. It is a project for the whole country. I therefore do not agree with the member that it should not be about the whole country.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! The research that exists points clearly to it being the short-distance commuting, where there are many stops and many people are brought together within a limited region - for example, Gothenburg-Borås and the stretch around Gothenburg - that makes it so that one gets growth in the country. When people can have close proximity to meeting points, innovation is created. That is why we stand behind having more stops on the routes instead of just looking at the long, overall routes.

Hand on your heart - how many who live in Ödeshög will work in Gothenburg? How many who live in Jönköping will have jobs in Gothenburg? One can also look at how much a train ticket would cost and what it would cost to have a job in and commute to Gothenburg. These are things that have not been looked at.

Another point regarding this is that the Center Party also cares about climate issues. This new main line would be completed around 2045, maybe 2050. It is after 2045 that one would get the benefits of potentially expanding main lines. One could put the 200 billion on, for example, Göteborg-Alingsås instead and get the shift between shipping, railway, and truck started. One could also do other sections that would quickly provide climate benefits, perhaps not by 2030 but by 2035.

Even that prioritization from the Center Party surprises me. Why do they not want to spend the money on things that can quickly pay off when it comes to the climate?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Research regarding commuting to work shows, if I remember correctly, that people have always wanted to be around 45-50 minutes. Even when one lived off gathering firewood, a commute of about 45 minutes was just right. Then it became a bit too long. If we connect Jönköping with Göteborg with trunk lines, that distance, according to the plans that are in place, would take 50 minutes, and from Borås to Göteborg it would be 35 minutes. We would get a regional expansion.

Member of the Board Gellerman is right that strong innovation clusters are being formed in the larger cities and around the larger hubs. With a regional expansion, infinitely more people can gain access to those environments. If we do not expand with trunk lines, people will be forced to live near the towns.

That we, as a first step, prioritize Gothenburg-Borås may be correct now that the decision has been made. But in that case, we must absolutely, just as the regional representatives say, prepare to be able to build out to Ulricehamn and Jönköping. Our growth in Sweden is entirely dependent on having large regions and that people can live further away from the central hubs. It is simply how it is connected.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 8 March.)

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