Infrastructure issues

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! This is the highlight of the year, at least for us in the Transport Committee. We are now going to debate overall infrastructure.

A worn-out concept in the debate is that infrastructure is the lifeblood of our country. Even though it is a worn-out expression, it is a pretty good description of what it is about. Without infrastructure, it is not possible to transport people and goods, and then society would come to a complete standstill.

There are 216,400 kilometers of road, 15,600 kilometers of railway, 44 instrument airports and 54 ports in Sweden. It is fascinating how we in the debate often focus on additional kilometers of railway but rarely on all the rail that is already in place.

We rarely talk about roads. We usually talk about airports when it comes to initiatives to shut down and reduce aviation, and the ports are rarely up for debate. It is the upcoming kilometers of rail that are most often the subject of discussion.

For us Moderates and the government, all types of transport are important. All four are needed for our country to function, and we must have a transport system that holds together so that people can get to and from work and goods arrive on time.

Our moderate-led government is now placing more focus on actually ensuring that what we already have in place functions. More money is being allocated to the maintenance of railways and roads, and we are ensuring that our regional airports can continue their operations by doubling the support to them.

Madam Speaker! Work on an infrastructure proposition is underway. Then, a new national plan is to be developed. It is challenging given the needs that exist, but it is also challenging due to the irresponsibility that characterized the previous government's and its supporting parties' work with the plan that applies now.

The economic analysis shows that the plan gives 70 öre back for every invested krona - to begin with. That is something that we as a country cannot afford. We must ensure that we invest the money where it is needed most and where it gives the best return.

Trafikverket is also clear that with the distribution of money that has been made, both road and railway will be in worse condition at the end of the planning period than they are today.

The National Audit Office is also completely devastating in its criticism of the previous government and the work with the plan. The National Audit Office states that the investments chosen by the previous government "do not effectively contribute to achieving the Parliament's transport policy goals. The deficiencies are due, among other things, to the fact that the government, through its management, did not provide the Swedish Transport Administration with the conditions to propose the most socio-economically profitable projects. Together with large cost increases, this has prevented planning that provides the most benefit for the money."

The previous government also chose to reduce the funding for the railway's new signaling system ERTMS, despite Trafikverket having warned that it would be directly system-threatening. ERTMS will therefore, according to Trafikverket, not be implemented until after 2070, which leads to significantly increased maintenance costs for the old system. The absolute worst thing, according to Riksrevisionen, is that the result yields poorer transport opportunities and more deaths in traffic than would otherwise have been possible.

In addition to this, during the previous government, there were eleven different reports from the Swedish National Audit Office regarding deficiencies at Trafikverket - deficiencies that the previous government simply ignored and did nothing about.

Madam Speaker! The challenges ahead are great, but important steps have already been taken, such as more money for the maintenance of both road and railway and more assignments for Trafikverket to improve its operations, increase efficiency, and keep costs down. We can also see that Trafikverket, thanks to tough demands from the government, has conducted a review and developed a plan for extensive internal changes.

The infrastructure simply must be put in order. We do not have unlimited money and must ensure that we do the right things with the money we invest. Socio-economic profitability must have higher priority. We have invested and will invest more in maintenance, which is what will make the biggest difference in people's everyday lives in the short term. There will be fewer potholes, and the trains will have better chances of keeping to the timetable.

Madam Speaker! I believe we can all agree that changes are needed at Trafikverket. A well-functioning and efficiently operating transport authority is the prerequisite for us to achieve the maintenance and new construction we need in our country. As I said earlier, the problems at Trafikverket have been known for a long time. The reports from the National Audit Office and a steady stream of anecdotal evidence could not have escaped anyone, except possibly the previous government.

Thanks to the requirements that our government is now placing on Trafikverket, things are finally starting to happen, and changes are underway. It will take time to change an agency with over 10,000 employees, but it is something that must be done.

What is the opposition doing? Well, it is engaging in a political game to create division within the government base. To propose a massive reorganization in this situation just to try to sabotage the Tidö agreement is irresponsible. Thanks to the government setting requirements for Trafikverket, both through concrete assignments and through dialogue, we see that crisis awareness exists and that change work has begun. To give signals in that situation about dividing Trafikverket risks laying a wet blanket over that work.

Madam Speaker! Transport and infrastructure are linked to our climate work. Emissions from our transport must decrease if we are to reach our goals. I am pleased to see that all types of transport are today working hard to reduce their emissions. Four and a half years ago, when I moved over to the Transport Committee, no one believed that heavy trucks would be able to run on electricity. Now, heavy trucks that run on electricity are rolling on our roads. I look forward with eager anticipation to seeing how the technical development continues.

The great challenge will be to plan for a transport system in rapid change, but we can still assume that all types of transport will become completely fossil-free and that technological development continues.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all motions.

(Applause)

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member Stockhaus, for the speech, which I think was mostly about the opposition! It was not so much about what the government wants to do, but more about what the previous government, according to Maria Stockhaus, failed to do.

I would like to pause for a moment at what Maria Stockhaus said about the current government focusing on what we have and not on the kilometers, I believe the member said, that we do not have. Then one must still wonder if the member Maria Stockhaus does not see what is happening up north. Does the member not see the concern that actually exists that investments in Sweden will disappear from our country just because the capacity is not there?

Last week, the CEOs of all Swedish freight companies in Sweden sent a letter to the Minister for Infrastructure in which they pointed out exactly that there is a huge risk that investments will disappear. We see that LKAB is forced to shut down because the capacity is insufficient, and Maria Stockhaus stands and talks about that we should maintain what we have. Obviously, it is not enough.

Another question concerns what the member raised regarding the cost development. I would like the member to reflect a little bit on the system we nevertheless have in Sweden, which is so deregulated. Do you believe that it could also have some impact on the cost development?

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! One can choose to place one's focus in slightly different ways. I thought I was touching upon much of what the government wants to do, not least that we are in the process of preparing a new infrastructure bill.

There have been quite a few joint meetings with all stakeholders, for example in the railway industry, to discuss how we can carry out maintenance in an efficient way and so that it affects those who operate trains - whether it is freight or passenger traffic - as little as possible. Trafikverket had a follow-up meeting last week, and it has shown that these types of dialogues have opened up completely new possibilities to streamline maintenance and reduce the impact on capacity when maintenance must be performed.

The government has also tasked Trafikverket with accelerating – we call it the acceleration mandate – in northern Sweden. There, they are looking at how we can accelerate the necessary investments in northern Sweden and how we can find opportunities for alternative financing, which, for example, the Social Democrats are very skeptical about. It would be an important way to get this moving faster.

If the previous government, instead of investing in the extremely unprofitable high-speed railway, had listened to Trafikverket, which actually wanted a larger share of the money for maintenance, the Malmbanan might not have been in this condition. For eight years, maintenance was ignored and the focus was on cutting as many ribbons as possible for new projects instead of ensuring that what we already have in place functions. It is one of the reasons why the Malmbanan looks the way it does today.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It is actually a pure lie by the member. During the previous parliamentary term, more was added to maintenance than had been done previously. The claim that maintenance was completely ignored is therefore a pure lie, which I think we are too good to engage in. We can have different opinions, but we do not need to be dishonest.

The Minister says that common meeting places have finally arrived. I recall that during the previous parliamentary term, we had a freight transport council where surely all actors around the freight terminal gathered. What has happened with that? It is somewhat the case that one does not get an answer when one asks the Minister what has happened with the freight transport council.

When we meet the industry, which we have to do ourselves, they do, however, demand more of what was produced. At that time, objectives were produced. We said: Here is where we want to go. Now it seems more to be a meeting place. But what happens with the meeting place? One must also have objectives in order to get anywhere.

I believe it is terribly important that the government does not just continue to investigate, appoint new investigations, and look at things. One must also point out the direction. That is what the industry is demanding: Where are we going? What will happen with the climate transition? Will something happen, or will you let the Sverigedemokraterna decide that question?

We were still seven parties that agreed on the climate goals, and the climate goals remain fixed. But where are the incentives for us to achieve the goals of reduced emissions? Talk is cheap, but one must also do something.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! In its preparatory document for the previous plan, the Transport Administration clearly stated that the infrastructure with this distribution of funds will be in worse condition at the end of the planning period than it was at the beginning. One can also look at the National Audit Office's criticism of how the previous government carried out its planning work.

I would say that it is a matter of judgment whether one thinks it is ignoring the maintenance, but I definitely think it is underfunding the maintenance and prioritizing ribbon-cutting in election campaigns over ensuring that what we actually have in place functions.

What was important with these meetings was that they did not only cover freight traffic or passenger traffic but included all actors, even those actors who maintain the tracks. Trafikverket was naturally also included. Everyone who runs trains on the tracks was in the same meeting. What happened there was that many very good solutions were reached that can be practically implemented to reduce the time when traffic must be stopped when maintenance work is performed. This is a fairly important issue for both passenger traffic and freight traffic.

I move on to the question of the cost development and whether the deregulation has led to a cost increase. When Alexandersson looked at this issue, he noted that the maintenance has become both better performed and more cost-effective thanks to the deregulation of railway maintenance that was carried out by the previous Alliance government. I think this quite clearly shows that the cost development is not related to the deregulation.

(Applause)

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! I think it is obvious that this government is both visionless and very authority-driven. The government is visionless in the sense that one is actually very satisfied that the infrastructure in Sweden looks as bad as it does today. One is very satisfied that LKAB's iron ore trains do not arrive due to derailments. One is satisfied that it is not possible to plow on the E22. It is quite lovely to remain without a vision, even though one went to the election on electrification of transport. It was the commuters and the freight transport that was to be invested in, but this has not happened.

One is also quite satisfied to have a transport authority that bases its forecasts on the fact that the railway will never become socio-economically sustainable. One is quite satisfied to avoid building railways and to avoid building together Sweden, even though above all Svenskt Näringsliv has repeatedly pressured the government and said that the transports must function. Regardless of how many electrified heavy and long trucks we have in Sweden, the heavy freight can only be driven on the already electrified railway, but the government does not want that.

The government is betraying heavy industry in Sweden. It is betraying Svenskt Näringsliv. It is betraying the green transition and the development of the Sweden of the future. We could have the iron ore from the north go down through Denmark and Fehmarn Bält. We will have enormous traffic through Europe very soon, but the government has no plan for how we are to build a large and strong Sweden. It is time to redo the infrastructure planning.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I was under the impression that the replies in an exchange of remarks should contain some form of question, but I perceived that the member's reply was more of an address.

I wonder if the member has switched off and not listened to us in this debate or to the Minister for Infrastructure when he spoke. Would we in any way be satisfied with the state of affairs? There is a mandate to speed up the investments and maintenance in northern Sweden so that what happened on the Malmbanan does not happen again. An enormous amount of dialogue is being conducted with Trafikverket to put pressure on Trafikverket to improve its work. One also has a concrete mandate to streamline and keep down its costs.

We are also looking at revising the conditions for national planning so that we ensure that the infrastructure already in place functions. It demonstrably does not today.

There is much that this government is satisfied with, but the government is not satisfied with how the infrastructure works in Sweden. This is something, Madam Speaker, that I can think the Left Party has a great responsibility for. For eight years, you supported a government that basically sat on its hands and focused on ribbon-cutting rather than on maintaining what we have.

That is why we have large potholes in our roads. That is also why we have a railway that does not function. One simply has not invested in the maintenance that the infrastructure needs.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! I naturally have many questions for Member Stockhaus.

One question is whether you, Maria Stockhaus, are satisfied with your repetitions about cutting ribbons and that high-speed rail is a prestige project. You have said that for about two years now when we have debated infrastructure.

What the government has not done is to take responsibility for being a government. Stop blaming the previous government! Stop blaming the Social Democrats! My party has never sat in a ministry. Place the blame where it belongs!

What is interesting is that the member and the government are unable to keep their government base together. It is the Sverigedemokraterna who understand the seriousness when it comes to the infrastructure. It is the Sverigedemokraterna who have pushed for a division of Trafikverket, which is an agency that is not managing its mission. It is also the Sverigedemokraterna who want to re-nationalize the railway maintenance.

But Member of Parliament Stockhaus blames the opposition, Madam Speaker - as if it were the opposition's responsibility to hold together a minority government that cannot pass its proposals if it does not have the Sweden Democrats with it. The Sweden Democrats are the only party in the Tidö cooperation that actually can handle the railway issue and understands the importance of building new railways.

You think it is the opposition's responsibility to hold the government cooperation together. After meetings in the Transport Committee, the Tidö parties need to go and ban the Sverigedemokraterna because they do not hold the line. It is very interesting to ask oneself what the Tidö parties give the Sverigedemokraterna so that they will back down from their own policy.

When will you in the Moderates, who should drive the business community's issues regarding transitioning Sweden and the heavy transports, begin to understand the importance of this issue? You should listen more to the Sweden Democrats here instead of overriding them.

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind you of the rules of conduct in the chamber. One always speaks through the Speaker, and it is not acceptable to use "you" and "you" (informal).

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! This government has taken many initiatives to change the order of things. Investing in the maintenance of infrastructure is extremely important. Building new rails, or for the most part new roads, takes a very long time and is very costly. What can provide results here and now for those who stand and freeze on platforms is that we ensure the railway maintenance starts to function. An intensive discussion is ongoing with Trafikverket to truly get this in order.

The strange thing, Madam Speaker, is that the opposition is constantly pushing that it is better if the state takes care of this. Trafikverket, which everyone is so critical of, should take responsibility for the railway maintenance - then we solve all problems. There are investigations that clearly show that we get more value for money when it comes to railway maintenance if we have the model we have today with professional operators who perform this.

When it comes to the division of Trafikverket, I see that one is indulging in wishful thinking, Madam Speaker. Everything was better before – if only the clock were turned back, the trains would run on time, and then there would be no potholes in the roads.

It is not that simple, however. We have a gigantic work that has grown over a long period. That one wants to divide Trafikverket suggests an over-reliance on the idea that all problems will be solved if we just turn back the clock.

We see the problems with Trafikverket and are putting hard pressure on the agency. This government has given clear mandates to Trafikverket to change. The dialogue that we have had with Trafikverket is what has led to this review and the efficiency journey that it is now on to reduce costs by 5 percent. A major internal reorganization is also taking place. This is thanks to the fact that this government has seen the problems with Trafikverket and taken action on them.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! The previous speaker began by saying that this is a bit of a solemn moment, or whatever word she used now. I look at this document, which is quite thick, and want to extend a big thank you for the work to the Chancellery and to Christer Åström, who is here today. It is an incredibly solid piece of work that has been done in compiling all the proposals from the political parties with the history and the current situation that exists. If I may address those listening to this debate, I would like to say that this is a very good read for the summer if one wants to feel well-informed about both the infrastructure challenges we face and much of the current situation being debated here today.

There is an enormous amount to say in this area, so there must be some cuts. I naturally stand behind all of the Center Party's reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 3.

When it comes to the national plan for the transport infrastructure, we are in a waiting period, and the government promises that much will come out of the work currently underway. In its report, the Swedish National Audit Office states that the transport policy goals are being met but not in an efficient way, and regardless of which party one represents, I believe that people are looking quite closely at previous audits and reflecting on what needs to be done to ensure a better order of things moving forward.

Historically, several bourgeois governments have taken quite powerful steps regarding how they intend to develop infrastructure work. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that the current Tidö Government so easily rejects the proposal for better long-term perspective in the work with transport infrastructure through an approach similar to the long-term working method of defense policy with a defense preparation, something that has benefited Sweden in many different ways. A fundamental preparation work is an important prerequisite for both crisis preparedness and rapid NATO entry. I would wish that the Tidö Government were a bit more receptive here and reflected on how the planning process can be ensured in a good way.

Member of the Board Stockhaus said in his introduction that one sometimes compares the infrastructure to a blood circulation. One then soon comes to where clots, infarcts, and arteriosclerosis are located and that one sometimes needs to perform maintenance in the form of a bypass operation or other to remedy this. There is also a lot of talk about new kilometers.

The opposition is banding together in a way that I do not feel is entirely certain. The Center Party, for example, does not support a nationalization of the under-maintenance and nor a division of Trafikverket. I would therefore wish that we had a slightly more precise debate.

This blood circulation is not healthy, and we must also talk about the smallest roads, the capillaries. We know that 1 million people start their journey to work, preschool, or elsewhere on a single road. It is important that the support for these roads continues to be developed, because the roads must be both passable and sustainable. This winter we have seen frightening examples regarding both roads maintained by road associations and state gravel roads, etc., maintained by Trafikverket. There have been extreme pressures, but also a great challenge to do something about this in a sensible way. Everyone in the transport committee has been out in our elongated country and looked at potholes and frightfully poor repairs where road sections were replaced with too small road sections, and then it does not work.

We need to work further in different ways so that the people who can actually perform maintenance, and they are often in the private sector, are given the opportunity to improve the maintenance. Centerpartiet argues that Sweden has an infrastructure debt of 300 billion, and it is constantly increasing. But there is also a maintenance debt of over 100 billion, and just as a previous member pointed out, it is incredibly important that one is resource-efficient when working with issues regarding maintenance. All those companies all around Sweden that work with maintenance must be given the opportunity to do this in a sensible way.

It is therefore required of the government to do quite a lot to create confidence that one will solve this. It is said that in the past, ribbons have rather been cut, but that now one is going to invest in maintenance, so now it is required that, a couple of years into the mandate period, one shows that it makes a difference and that one is investing in sustainable maintenance.

We need to build so much more. We are not going to have a fiscal policy debate here and now, but most parties probably see that we must release further resources for the investments that need to be made. It is about looking at the state's own finances, and right now work is underway linked to surplus targets, balance targets, and deficit targets. Just by moving from a surplus target to a balance target, there is a possibility to release quite a lot of resources that could be used in the infrastructure area. A broad agreement is needed here that this is how we shall do it.

A Swedish lift for the infrastructure is needed, and during the upcoming planning period, the maintenance debt needs to be paid off. It will require a great deal, and I hope to hear from the upcoming representatives for the Tidöregeringen that they will not only say they will invest more in maintenance but also be able to show a plan. What is the timeline? Within what timeframe does one intend to pay off the maintenance debt? Otherwise, one can promise a great deal for a very long time without it becoming a reality.

The consideration also takes up infrastructure in crisis and preparedness. In a changed world situation, we really need to do quite a lot, and we have heard from both the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Infrastructure that they are working together on these issues regarding NATO membership and other matters. It is important that it does not just become talk, and therefore we wait with anticipation for how the east-west perspective will be highlighted to strengthen the infrastructure and how transport will be ensured.

Gunilla Svantorp has previously criticized the government for the lack of a plan and a vision, and I agree with her criticism. I would really like to see in what way it is intended to develop this. In the 1800s, it did not require so many analyses of the underlying material to build main lines, but today it is up to the government to prove it when it comes to the visions for railway and road so that we can see where we are headed.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I shall address research and innovation. ERTMS has been presented as an important part, and we know that much technology needs to be developed. I would wish that the government were a bit bolder here and spoke more about innovation procurement. We know that the new technology needs to be included, and then one must not be as single-minded as the government often is and only speak about electrification. There is much that needs to be developed technically, also so that we can be robust in times of crisis.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the report on infrastructure. I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Madam Speaker! Every day, hundreds of thousands of Swedes travel to and from work or other activities with the help of the infrastructure in our country, and they expect it to function.

That all of Sweden should function is not just a good slogan used perhaps every fourth year, but it is what the government works on every day. That roads are drivable and traffic-safe and that we have a well-functioning railway that passengers and companies can rely on to arrive on time is absolutely crucial for people to be able to live and operate in the entire country. We need to develop and strengthen the transport infrastructure. Transport flows need to be efficient and resilient.

I am glad that we have a government that does not pit the four modes of transport—road, rail, air, and shipping—against each other. On the contrary: If these modes of transport function well in a country, we achieve more efficient transport and Sweden becomes more competitive compared to other countries.

Madam Speaker! Sweden - we have heard this before - has a maintenance backlog. Large parts of the road network were built before 1970 - it is therefore of the same age as myself - and has a technical lifespan of between 40 and 60 years. The maintenance debt on both the road and railway networks is large and has unfortunately been allowed to grow by the governments in the past. According to Trafikverket's latest assessment, the maintenance debt amounts to approximately 35 billion kronor for roads and approximately 91 billion kronor for the railway. That is an enormous amount of money, but there are no shortcuts here. It must be paid off in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker! If a bridge has reduced load-bearing capacity or if a stretch of road is closed, it leads to detours. Longer travel times in turn cause both higher emissions and costs for our companies, all entirely unnecessarily because the maintenance has not been handled in a sustainable way.

Maintenance will be clearly considered in the national plan for the new planning period 2026-2037. The maintenance of the Swedish road and railway network will be strengthened.

Madam Speaker! Much strong criticism has been directed at Trafikverket regarding the maintenance of our winter roads, and it is entirely justified.

Road users must feel secure that the road surface is maintained. It is good that Trafikverket has taken note and is now talking about dialogue meetings with professional road users, but also about increased safety on the roads ahead of the 2024 season.

Madam Speaker! Today we are a NATO country. That in itself is very important given the world around us and Russia's horrific war of invasion against Ukraine, which affects us all. That we are a NATO member and that strengthening the needs of total defense will be important parts of the new national plan for 2026-2037.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats see that the infrastructure needs are very large and the resources are limited. Therefore, alternative financing will be important to secure more resources for infrastructure. I know that this government is working on developing proposals on how this could look.

(Applause)

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! I take up what Member Oscarsson said about Sweden now being a NATO member. Tomorrow we will also debate the DCA agreement and vote on it. A lot is happening now within the defense area.

Even though my party is against Nato membership - and DCA, I should say; because there are many pressures right now - it is still interesting how Nato will affect our country. Nato places great demands on the Swedish infrastructure.

This government is clear that it is maintenance that they are investing in. I have many critical views on that. I believe that we need more capacity and maintenance and that we can afford it with the alternative financing that both V and Kristdemokraterna are pushing for.

I have learned that the equipment required for a single NATO soldier is approximately one container – that is, an entire container for just one NATO soldier. The only way to sustainably transport the enormous and heavy amount of goods that a NATO unit requires is by rail. We will need more north-south railway, and we may eventually need more crossings over the Öresund. We will, for example, need to build a tunnel between Helsingborg and Helsingör because a tunnel is harder to bomb than a bridge.

I believe this is something that would be very good, but we also need a review of the infrastructure from Norway and Sweden to Finland.

So, there is a lot that needs to be done. But what the member Oscarsson says in his speech is that nothing will be built. The infrastructure will be maintained.

It probably will not be enough for what Nato wants and what the future Sweden needs. How is the government going to meet that requirement?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Linda W Snecker for the questions.

Just as the member pointed out, Sweden is a member of Nato, and as I said in my speech, I think that is very positive. We know that it is important, given Russia's information warfare and what they are capable of doing.

The member mentions things that the member says NATO will want to have. I have not been involved in the negotiations and have no idea exactly what NATO will demand.

What I know, Member Linda W Snecker, is that Nato will naturally want there to be secure ports, and we will certainly have to ensure that these are upgraded.

The chairman was also involved in the connection to Norway and over to the other side, and we must certainly ensure that the railway along Sweden's coast exists and is repaired.

Just as I and others have pointed out today, the maintenance debt has become worse and worse, and now we have to bite the sour apple. We cannot escape the fact that we must resolve this.

As I said, I have not been involved and do not know exactly what NATO will demand. Perhaps the member has more reliable sources than I do. But until then, we will hear what the member has to say in the other halves, I was about to say.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! I hear from Member Oscarsson, who nevertheless belongs to the same party as the Minister for Infrastructure, that there is no dialogue either with the Riksdag, the Tidö parties in the committee, or between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Infrastructure. It seems there is no dialogue because there is no knowledge of what Nato actually requires. When one has pushed so hard to join Nato, all departments should be standing at attention to fulfill the requirements.

I have read up because I am a bit over-interested in what this will entail. It is not rocket science to read reports on what a NATO unit needs. I am not talking about any secrets, but completely ordinary reports. I am definitely not involved in any NATO negotiations, but I demand of a government and of the Kristdemokraterna as a party that they have a better grasp of what this NATO membership actually entails.

I am positive about everything that makes this government build more, above all railways. It is good if Nato pushes. If we are to transport units, it is only the railway that can take both materiel for soldiers and the large – I can't even remember the names – defense machines that are used. It can certainly be done enormously much better, but I do not have that competence. I do, however, understand that this is heavy and will take up an enormous amount of space.

In order for the government to solve this issue, I have a tip, and that is alternative financing. There is a lot of talk about alternative financing that might be needed at some point and that might be investigated, but where is the alternative financing if all the money – more than 799 billion – is earmarked and will be used for the national plan? Where then is the government's plan for alternative financing, among other things, to be able to achieve what Nato requires Sweden to fulfill now that Sweden is a member?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Just as Member Linda W Snecker is pointing out, we agree that the need is great and that much more will be required. We also know that, as a result of the NATO membership, dialogues will be conducted. I also think that the Chamber may perhaps not be the right arena to talk about every single road and port that needs to be fixed; instead, that is done at the Ministry of Defence and in the Committee on Defence. I can imagine that these dialogues are held there, and they will, of course, come to us in the future.

I think that what the member concluded their speech with is important, namely the alternative financing. I also highlighted that in my speech. It is something that I am convinced will happen because we in the cooperation between the Tidö parties think it is important. There is much more to do. We see that it is necessary to repair but actually perhaps also ensure that we get new stretches regarding both road and railway. I really look forward to alternative financing as a very important part. Maintenance costs, as said, an enormous amount, and there are serious deficiencies. We will need to do much more, but this is an alternative that is very positive.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I have two questions for Member Oscarsson, not least from the perspective that the department responsible for infrastructure issues is the Ministry of Rural Affairs. These are issues that concern all of Sweden, and it is important to highlight them.

We can read in the report that the committee assumes that the distribution of resources between the counties occurs in a well-balanced manner. The committee emphasizes that infrastructure planning needs to interact well with physical community planning. If one compares city and country and makes comparisons between the counties, one can see that on the whole, the county plans have received an increasingly smaller share of the whole cake in the infrastructure propositions ever since the 00s. It was a significantly larger share during the first Alliance government.

I would like to ask Magnus Oscarsson in what way it has been assumed that a well-balanced distribution between the counties takes place. One can see, for example, that Jämtland County and Stockholm County have very different pots for this. Is the government satisfied with the basis that exists linked to population and so on? Would it not be important to also look at the standard of the road and railway network and the needs of the business sector to an even greater extent than today?

My second question has already been touched upon by the member. It concerns what was discussed in the previous exchange of remarks, namely alternative financing. I want to ask a very straightforward question: Does the member believe that there will be a number of identified projects, perhaps five or six? The member said that new roads might be needed, but I hope that it will soon be stated with certainty that they are needed. Will there be identified projects where alternative financing is the way that the work is intended to be structured?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are now discussing the county plans and how they have looked in the past. If I understood correctly, the member was suggesting that previous governments have not prioritized them. It is interesting in itself, considering that the member's own party was a coalition partner to the previous government. But I still think it is a very important issue that the member raises, because in the county plans, it is the bottom-up perspective that is important. What is it that is needed in each county?

The chairman took up Jämtland as an example. There we know that it is extremely poor roads. I believe it is Svenskt Näringsliv that produces those figures, and they show that very many of Trafikverket's roads are beyond all criticism. It is therefore clear that if we mean business - and we do - there must naturally be a difference. Otherwise we are just talking, and that is not what I think belongs here. If one has promised things, it must also be noticeable.

Now I only have a few seconds of speaking time left, but the second question is also important. One must ensure that the roads, and for that matter also the railways, in different parts of the country are put in order. I will continue with the answer later.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I intend to dwell on both issues for a while longer. The member said now that there are extremely poor roads in, for example, Jämtland, but we also see in southern Sweden that Dalsland is an area where one can see at a map level that there is extremely poor load-bearing capacity on everything from state roads to county roads and municipal roads. One really needs to consider in what way to create a basis that provides the possibility to give the county plans increased support.

I want to ask one more question. The member says that everything we promise will be noticed. I am curious about that, because if one does the same thing as before, it will not be noticed. Then it will decrease once again in the county plans for the counties that today receive an ever smaller share. Does the member mean that there will now be an opportunity to notice that more resources will be in the county plans in the work that is being prepared?

When it comes to the question of alternative financing, quite a few reports are presented where one sees that there are examples of very good solutions all around the Nordics, which I experience that we in Sweden have not tested in the same way. A number of very interesting reports have come out recently. I know that the Christian Democrats and the member's minister are looking at this. Does the member believe that there will be a number of projects where it is actually already being pointed out that alternative financing is the way that must be taken? We know, of course, that a relatively large amount of new capacity will be needed to achieve a robust infrastructure. In what way will this be able to be seen moving forward?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Heie, for the continued questions! It is essentially the same questions again.

Regarding alternative financing, that was exactly what I was trying to say. Exactly which train or road sections it will apply to will certainly be determined, but today it is not said that it will be just this one or that one. There are very many sections that are being discussed. I am convinced that in due course it will emerge which ones it shall apply to. It is important.

We are actually in some agreement here today! The Centre Party also highlights alternative financing as a viable path. It is positive when the Riksdag is to make a decision that there are parties in the chamber who say that this is important and that we can see if a deal can be made.

Between the lines of the member's first question, I heard criticism of the previous government. The member was pointing out that regarding the county plans, one has not listened sufficiently but allowed them to be raised and then still done as one saw fit. Unfortunately, what was done was not noticed in, for example, either Jämtland or Dalsland, as the member himself mentioned.

I have been around, just as the member also surely has been, and met people who experience that the difference between city and country is very clear. We know that in reality, it is noticeable. It is important, and the government is putting a lot of effort into securing funding and making a difference for people who live and work in the countryside.

(Applause)

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! During the 20th century, when our welfare society was being built, human dignity was very much in focus. It was about justice and about this of strengthening the human being. That was what was in focus in all the reforms that we saw then. It was about everyone having a right to education regardless of wallet, about insurance systems so that one would avoid poorhouses and so on. It was also very much about building the infrastructure, that is, strengthening the body of society.

Some of you here have just spoken about when the railway and the main lines arrived. They actually arrived thanks to a national plan, which had been developed by Nils Ericson. That plan had two focus areas. The first was that one should avoid the coasts - that had to do with military reasons. The second was that one wanted to break the countryside, as it was said. One wanted, therefore, to go a different way than where the waterways had gone in order to use the whole country. All of Sweden was important.

What was already seen as a result back when the main lines were built was that an increased availability of transport stimulated demand and affected the labor market regions. These are factors that emerged in the 1800s but have persisted over time, also today.

Today we have an infrastructure that does not quite function as it should. In my speech, I intend to problematize precisely that the infrastructure has become a market and how the market affects the infrastructure that we have.

Today, every actor, for example in the railway system, is a competitor to another actor. That is something one must consider. How does it actually affect things? We also see that the transaction costs for the procurement system are skyrocketing. We see that the system for infrastructure and, above all, for the railway would need more cohesion. It is about tracks, stations, and signals. One can list as many as one likes. What do we have? Well, we have the opposite. We have a fragmentation. Anyone can operate, in principle, on any stretch. The right to public assets, we have actually distributed due to marketization.

Just as when the strong society was built in the 20th century, I mean, we must today consider people and social utility. It must take precedence over corporate profits, but it does not today. We need to problematize that.

To this system error, we have a transport authority that did not quite turn out as perhaps was intended. Therefore, we think that it should be evaluated. It should have been included in the decision from the beginning: In x years, this shall be evaluated. That was not the case, and we think that it really should have been.

As several others have mentioned, we have a new security policy situation that requires a lot of things from us, not least that we are to build new things. It also requires that we have a command over our infrastructure, which marketization actually does not give us. It requires that we have a redundancy, and it requires that we cooperate regarding the infrastructure. In that direction, we are not really going today.

Then we have what is perhaps most important: the climate challenge. We know that the transport system is in the process of transitioning. I am thinking of all our visits. All of us, regardless of which party we belong to, who are out meeting actors from the transport industry see this. They are in the process of transitioning. The signals have been clear, at least until the election. We are going to transition. There have been incentives so that one can switch from the fossil to the renewable.

As I said before, the CEOs of the country's freight companies are concerned. Otherwise, they would not have sent a joint letter to the Minister for Infrastructure. It is stated, among other things, that factors today cause freight to be moved in the wrong direction. Freight is being moved from the railway to the road, which will not favor the climate transition.

We know that we must reduce emissions. We must transition away from the fossil. We must also contribute to behavioral changes. We need to contribute to this in politics through incentives and through sharp goals. We already have the sharp goals. We have a climate law. We have seven parties that said yes to the climate law. But we must show direction. We must talk about where we are going. We know that the most climate-effective way to travel is by rail, but we talk very little about the railway. Yes, not us on our side, but the Tidö parties talk very little about the railway, and when they do talk about the railway, they say: We have a lot of railway. Why don't we do anything with the one we already have? But we see that it is not enough.

Madam Speaker! We have a number of reservations in this thick bundle. They concern climate, new main lines, the business sector's transport needs and the cross-border, which will become particularly important in the new security policy situation. We have reservations about maintenance. We have reservations about almost everything in this thick bundle. But for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation no. 9.

In conclusion, I want to say that infrastructure is something that requires long-term thinking, because it takes many years before it is finished. Therefore, it is very regrettable that the Tidö parties do not stand behind the idea that we should have a common grouping—call it an infrastructure commission or whatever. It would be a commission where, just as in the Defense Commission, we acquire knowledge. That is the big thing in the Defense Commission. One acquires common knowledge, sits around the same table, and can ask questions and listen when others ask questions. That is the big thing. This is what the Tidö parties are saying no to, and I think that is regrettable.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! This with an infrastructure preparation has come up in a number of debates. It is quite interesting. It is easy in opposition to say: Now we are no longer involved in deciding. Then we still want to sit at the table and decide.

The interesting thing is this: Despite eight years with a Social Democratic government and two national plans that were developed, the opposition was not invited to a single meeting to discuss the infrastructure. I can think it is a bit bold that one now, while sitting in opposition, begins to talk about how it is important that we talk to each other about the infrastructure. It was, moreover, a minority government, but they still made no attempts whatsoever to invite the opposition.

I have another question that I would like to take up with Gunilla Svantorp, Madam Speaker. It concerns an investigation that Gunnar Alexandersson conducted ten years ago. It is called Koll på anläggningen. In it, there were 19 proposals for better railway maintenance. It was about better oversight of the status of the facilities. It was about developing a maintenance plan. It was about a better dialogue with the train operators. Additionally, it contained proposals for a review of Trafikverket's management and leadership.

Madam Speaker! My question is: How can Member Svantorp defend the fact that the investigation was thrown in the wastebasket by the previous government? It did not lead to any concrete proposals at all to improve the maintenance. It has been ten years. Had those measures been made then, had a review of Trafikverket been conducted then, had a maintenance plan been drawn up then, had we had better control over the status of the facilities then, would we not be in the situation we are in today with major train delays and large potholes in our roads?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It will be very interesting to go back after this exchange of remarks and look at all the investigations that existed before 2006-2014 and see which ones were thrown in the wastebasket when the Reinfeldt government came to power.

Member of the Board Stockhaus also knows that it is the directives for investigations that are important. That is when one speaks about what one wants for something. Then an investigation comes back, and it might be a new government.

Then perhaps one does a supplementary investigation, because one feels that one wants to investigate it further. Or one thinks: This was not our investigation, and then one does nothing with it. It is nothing strange.

Furthermore, I cannot take any responsibility. I have not been a minister, and I did not work with transport issues at that time. It is a very strange question.

But if we are to stand and ask each other about investigations that have been stopped in the wastebasket, I am completely convinced that I can list a number of them, provided I get to read up a bit more.

When I have the chance here, I must nevertheless continue to ask the question that I asked before. It concerns this matter of everything being so brilliantly good if there are several actors involved in the infrastructure. It is obvious that the Moderaterna think so. I do not think so.

When one is out and meets people who have worked primarily within the railway sector, they say that a lot of competence has been lost. You go out to do one thing. You see that it is broken in another place. But you do not fix what is broken, because you have not procured that, so you go back. Then you have to do it all over again.

Does the member really not think that there is anything wrong with the market that we have within the infrastructure area?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I am reflecting a bit on this matter of investigations. One can look at the proposals. In this case, there were 19 of them. Some of them were perhaps more politically charged.

But that Trafikverket should have better control over the status of installations, that there should be a maintenance plan, that there should be a better dialogue with the train operators, and that a review of Trafikverket should be conducted, I would say are issues that the Socialdemokraterna have on their agenda today.

It is very difficult to understand that ten years ago it was decided to throw the investigation in the wastebasket. I believe it was because what he did not suggest was that one should re-nationalize the railway maintenance.

The reason for that was that in his investigation he concluded that it was more efficient to procure the maintenance than for Trafikverket to handle it on its own. That was the reason. There are figures on that. He looked at it and saw that it became better.

Maintenance today is not being carried out in an optimal way. The National Audit Office has also noted this on several occasions. This applies to both roads and railways. But it is also about how Trafikverket conducts its procurements. If one looks at the internal review that Trafikverket has conducted, it is rather about internal deficiencies within Trafikverket. Then one can wonder what the Socialdemokraterna believe.

Madam Speaker! Reading through the review, which I assume Gunilla Svantorp has conducted, one can observe that there are very many central functions and central routines in Trafikverket that are not functioning as they should today. It is not delivering efficient services to our infrastructure.

Madam Speaker! How can Gunilla Svantorp believe that if Trafikverket took over the maintenance of the railway, everything would suddenly function brilliantly? One might wonder if Gunilla Svantorp has read the internal review that Trafikverket itself has conducted of its operations.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I can reassure the members that I read most of what concerns infrastructure, so I have read it.

If it were to receive a mandate, which we think it should receive, to take over more of the maintenance in its own capacity, it is based on building up the competence. That is what is lacking today. That is what everyone says when we are out and meeting the people who previously worked for the state.

It is that competence that has been lost. The people who could achieve something have disappeared. It is not about the people who today sit and order procurements having to go out and work on the railway.

It is, of course, about building on one's competence. Now it is not relevant, because it is obviously the Moderaterna who are in power. I cannot ask any more questions, so I do not do so.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate TU18 Infrastructure Issues. Today's report is, as some of the members have said here before, one of the most important we debate in the Transport Committee, not least this year, because the government is now presenting a new infrastructure plan.

The Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) has submitted a proposal on how we should distribute the state's funds during the years 2026-2037. The country's various counties, different organizations, and companies submitted their consultation responses to the proposal in April. This autumn, the government plans to submit a proposition to the Riksdag.

Overall, it is about how much money we are to spend on maintenance and how much is to go to investments in road and railway. Here, alternative financing is very important in parallel with the state's appropriations for infrastructure to meet the large needs that exist all around Sweden.

Let me first state that the Liberals view the country's various modes of transport as parts of a system where all types of transport are needed. It is the effective use of each mode of transport's advantages that builds a strong transport system in Sweden. Therefore, we need an increased focus on how the modes of transport interact. It is the door-to-door time that is important, not the time for a single segment. Therefore, we need to think in terms of corridors and coherent journeys in a completely different way.

An effective transport system affects the possibilities to choose jobs and school. 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 and seek work throughout the country are very strongly dependent on functioning transport.

Therefore, an increased focus on maintenance of infrastructure is required. It is simultaneously the most socio-economically efficient use of our common tax funds. We also need to invest in new capacity. A holistic perspective at the national level is also required here.

We need to build away bottlenecks on our roads and in the railway corridors, invest in smooth transitions when we travel, and have functioning hubs for loading and unloading of goods. Two important examples are that we need good public transport to our airports and transshipment from trains and trucks to maritime transport in our ports.

In this way, we can facilitate meeting Swedish companies' great need for foreign labor and increase their export opportunities. To increase cross-border transport, greater coordination is required between Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. We must also exert influence within the EU and also on a global level.

There are very large needs for both maintenance and new infrastructure. The money is not enough. Therefore, very tough prioritization is required.

That is why we Liberals said no to the expansion of new high-speed railways in southern Sweden before the 2022 election. It was a project that would have cost well over 400 billion. Those are funds that can do significantly greater good elsewhere in Sweden, something that we have now made possible. This applies not least in the new geopolitical situation we are in with increased infrastructure needs for defense.

Here I want to highlight Sweden's largest bottleneck for both passenger and freight transport. It is the railway section Göteborg-Alingsås, which is of very great importance for the defense. That it is not included in the current national infrastructure plan is a complete mystery to me and a symptom that the prioritization process is not working. It needs to be addressed in the next plan.

Even though the new high-speed lines have been halted, it is important to see that the three sub-sections that have been identified cover a need to build away bottlenecks. The sub-sections should therefore be built.

In order for us politicians to be able to prioritize correctly from the start, the socio-economic calculations for the projects are extremely important as a basis for decision-making. The high-speed railways are an example where the costs tripled compared to the initial calculations. So we cannot continue this.

The Liberals want to see significantly higher accuracy in the initial calculations, which determine whether a project is prioritized by the politicians or not. The calculations also need to prioritize the importance of the property for Sweden's development.

The Government has now tasked Trafikverket with both reviewing the cost developments generally and providing information on the reasons why certain projects have exceeded their initial cost by more than 10 percent.

The Liberals consider this to be a significantly more efficient way to access the infrastructure's cost development than, as in the Social Democrats' and Green Party's proposal, dividing Trafikverket into two new old agencies, Vägverket and Banverket. It is something we Liberals strongly oppose.

Investments in the road network also need to increase. The area has been deprioritized for a number of years, which has primarily affected the road network in rural areas. This hits hard because the car is often the only option for passenger transport in rural areas. It also reduces the possibility for longer and heavier trucks, which are better for the climate and provide more efficient transport.

Madam Speaker! The transport sector accounts for a third of Sweden's carbon dioxide emissions, and over 90 percent come from road traffic. The Swedish vehicle fleet must therefore be replaced with electric vehicles.

The charging infrastructure is today a limiting factor, and it is pleasing that the expansion is now starting to gain momentum along our roads. At the same time, people hesitate to buy an electric car because there are not enough charging points near the home, not least when it comes to multi-family buildings.

The Government is reviewing the regulations to facilitate the expansion, sets requirements for an increased number of charging points in parking lots, and takes other support measures.

The transition to electric vehicles started later for heavy transport. Continued support was needed for both truck premiums and charging infrastructure during a transition period. During the technological transition to electric vehicles, biofuels are important to quickly reduce the climate emissions of road transport.

It is not only road transport - aviation and shipping also need to transition and get rid of their dependence on fossil fuels.

Among other things, the EU's decided Fuel EU Maritime and Refuel EU Aviation set requirements for a successive transition to electricity and biofuels within shipping and aviation.

The government is now processing the investigation on the country's aviation infrastructure. Great focus lies on the future aviation infrastructure, where charging infrastructure, new fuels, and electric aviation's possibilities to more efficiently connect Sweden are included.

It is good that these requirements come at the EU level because the Swedish companies are very well positioned in the transition. This increases their competitiveness.

Sweden is very 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.

Here I want to highlight the Port of Gothenburg, Scandinavia's largest port, for its goal-oriented work in eliminating climate emissions by bringing together the actors not only in Sweden but also in Europe, those who are active in the port's entire transport chain, around the green vision that the Port of Gothenburg has.

Finally, Madam Speaker: If we are to meet our climate goals and streamline our transport, research, innovation, and technological development are required. We need to develop self-driving, electric vehicles that are connected and that facilitate a sharing economy in society. We need legislation that enables us to take advantage of the rapid technological development as long as it meets safety requirements and the requirements for personal privacy. Digitalization offers great opportunities, where access to data is included as part of the infrastructure and provides a traffic-safe and cost-effective transport system - and actually also reduces the need for new infrastructure.

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

(Applause)

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 32 on cross-border infrastructure. But of course, we in the Sweden Democrats stand behind our other reservations and the two special statements that we have in the report.

For us Sweden Democrats in the Transport Committee, it is important that one sees the entire transport system and understands how it functions. This applies to all forms of logistics that we have today with flight, boat, road and railway, but also future mobility, where new innovative modes of transport will take place in our everyday lives.

Believing that one can remove or make it more difficult for certain types of transport does not lead to success. We must instead ensure that we try to optimize and streamline the transports to create options so that passengers and goods can take the most efficient route - or the least efficient if so desired - as long as the need exists.

This government, together with the Sweden Democrats, will not place the primary focus on cutting ribbons on new projects. We will invest in maintaining and building up the infrastructure, which has been broken down for decades.

It is painful to see how the decay has been allowed to continue for so long, and we know that it will continue if we do not take decisive action to reverse this downward spiral. Numerous people have had their cars damaged by potholes and stone chips on the roads, not to mention those who stand on the platforms waiting for trains that are late or cancelled.

Madam Speaker! A question I often ask myself is whether people in general know how important infrastructure is. It affects us every day and can make our daily lives easier or more difficult depending on its condition. Where am I going, how do I get there and when should I be there? Is there what I need when I finally arrive? I am thinking of goods that have been delivered to the store but also our jobs.

It has gone so far that our industries at this moment are wondering if they can stay in Sweden or if they are forced to leave the country to make the economy work - especially considering that transport and deliveries are functioning worse and worse.

That the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, will invest in maintenance is a given. We will also invest in optimizing today's infrastructure, that is to say, making it more efficient so that traffic flows can be increased in existing infrastructure.

Not maintaining existing infrastructure as soon as possible costs taxpayers much more the longer we wait. It is clear that it would have been more fun to cut ribbons on a new railway or road, but without massive maintenance and trimming measures, jobs will guaranteed disappear abroad.

Madam Speaker! It is not just about pumping money into the system to make it work. Money is, of course, an important factor when the maintenance need is as great as it is right now. Furthermore, the Swedish National Audit Office has pointed out that if large investments are not made in maintenance, the infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. But is it enough to pump in money to get the maintenance we need? No, we also need a more efficient organization that works with the maintenance and the future. It is not reasonable for things to continue as they are today when Trafikverket repeatedly receives harsh criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office.

We Sweden Democrats have long advocated for the issue of changing Trafikverket through a split into the old Banverket and Vägverket. We are not satisfied with how it currently functions, and we have not seen a positive development. Costs are skyrocketing for both maintenance and new constructions. We Sweden Democrats are actively working with politics to achieve changes that will lead to improvements.

Through hard work and dialogue, Trafikverket has begun a process where system responsibility for road and railway respectively is being created. We assume that this work is prioritized and that Trafikverket does what they can to cut down on unnecessary activities and that they put all focus on the core business. Tax money shall go to the infrastructure and nothing else. Work shall proceed quickly, and disruptions to existing infrastructure shall be minimized as much as possible.

We will give Trafikverket this chance to change the work themselves, and we will expect results. The point is that they do not drag their feet. If changes that provide the effect we hope for do not occur, we will act to achieve changes. It is up to proof now, Roberto, Francisca and Anna.

Madam Speaker! That is enough said about Trafikverket; I guess I will have to continue speaking about it in the replies.

Madam Speaker! Aviation and shipping receive almost no space in the debate on infrastructure. One major reason is that the needs of both modes of transport are not so great for them to manage. However, one must not forget that it is important to build infrastructure to and from ports and airports. This applies to both road and railway connections. We live in a large country with many ports and airports. But unfortunately, there are often not satisfactory possibilities to get to them. Railways are missing or are so heavily loaded that it is difficult to transport goods or travel by public transport there.

When it comes to shipping, there are great opportunities to relieve roads and railways through both inland shipping and coastal shipping. It is infrastructure that already exists but which unfortunately is not utilized to any significant extent. The most tragic thing is that not much was needed to get a competitive shipping industry started since the infrastructure is already in place.

Why is shipping not utilized more, Madam Speaker? Disadvantageous regulations and costs prevent shipping from flourishing. We must remedy this as soon as possible. Trafikverket should be tasked with conducting a review of the traffic flows to and from ports and airports to see how infrastructure and accessibility can be improved.

Regarding accessibility, we should also look at how we can increase and secure our cross-border transports. There are dialogues about various new cross-border transport routes. One that has been discussed for a long time is between Oslo and Copenhagen. It is also being discussed to build a railway between Oslo and Stockholm. Connecting the Nordic countries with infrastructure is positive for commuting but also for freight transport. Gothenburg harbor is today Norway's largest port, and with such a solution, much of the cargo could have been diverted to rail.

Another important link is a new connection to Denmark. Now that the Fehmarn Bält tunnel is being built between Rödby and Puttgarden, completely new opportunities are being created to transport goods to Sweden by rail. Europaspåret has a very creative solution for transport between Landskrona and Copenhagen, further down towards Europe. Europaspåret is a train and road tunnel between Landskrona and Copenhagen where everything from regional trains to long-distance trains, freight trains, and road transport can run. This connection can also, to its advantage, be built with immersed tunnel elements similar to those currently used in the construction of the Fehmarn Bält tunnel.

(Applause)

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that we must discuss Trafikverket. We actually held the same opinion for quite a long time. Actually, the Sweden Democrats have pushed that issue right up until the last parliamentary term. When one reads the minutes and such, one sees that it was an important issue for you. You must, therefore, really feel quite certain that things will happen rather quickly.

We have not seen that much has happened during the two years the Tidö parties have governed. It has mostly been about appointing inquiries and about major talking points, which I see that the Sverigedemokraterna have now also joined, about how the previous S-government mostly devoted itself to cutting ribbons. Such things are a bit ridiculous. I had hoped to avoid hearing it from the Sverigedemokraterna.

I want to ask a few questions. Why do you think you will see results quite soon? When is quite soon? When do you want to see results from Trafikverket? The member spoke directly to the director-general and the communications manager in the statement about what you expect. When do you expect delivery?

My other questions concern what I have also perceived the Sweden Democrats have been very critical of. Perhaps not in recent years, but until a few years ago, you were critical of the market and said that the market would still not solve most of it, but would actually worsen a great deal.

In his speech, Jimmy Ståhl said that tax money should go to infrastructure. Does Jimmy Ståhl not see a danger with marketization and that it consumes much of the tax money?

(Applause)

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the questions, Gunilla Svantorp! I will be quite precise and answer them quite quickly.

We want action now, preferably yesterday. We have made a decision and want to give Trafikverket the opportunity to sort out its own mess. Roberto is fairly new as Director General. He needs the right tools to fulfill his mission. If Roberto, Francisca and Anna do not succeed in their mission, I promise that we will take action.

We hope to be able to see major changes already at the turn of the year. But if it takes too long and if it does not happen, we will act. Then it will become a proposal for a committee initiative, and I hope that we can get others on board with it. We want to give them a chance, and we sincerely hope that they will succeed. This is because this is not working. We have not changed our opinion, but we have changed our tactics.

Regarding the market, we are not for privatizing the entire market, and we are not for the entire market being state-owned. We think it is a good balance. Today we have, as Gunilla Svantorp knows, Infranord, which is a state-owned company, and we have Svevia, which is also a state-owned company. We think the balance is quite good.

However, Trafikverket has failed with the procurements. We want to see better procurements, innovative procurements, and fast procurements. They must be procurements that work. Today, the problem is that the procurements are so difficult and so small that even Thomas Morell and I could take a tractor and change overhead contact lines, even though we actually don't know how to do it. It is not really good.

We must get more bang for the buck. That is where we will meet you halfway.

(Applause)

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! This is not about individuals at Trafikverket, it is about the system. I mean that the deregulation within this area and within other areas is a failure, if one is to base it on what strengthens the body of society and the human being. The deregulation within the infrastructure has really not led to a strengthening of the body of society. That can be said calmly.

A deregulated market also requires more rules and more control. Then Jimmy Ståhl should also be a bit afraid that the tax money that he says will go to infrastructure instead will go to more controls and administration. That is not a good thing.

Instead of, as today, spending a lot of money on remedial maintenance, one should spend significantly more on preventive maintenance. As I said before: When you go out to fix one thing, you should of course also fix other things that you see are broken. However, that is not what is done today, because one has not received an order for it. This is the downside of the entire marketization, and I think it is strange that the Sverigedemokraterna no longer consider this to be a problem.

The forest industry, the forest, the paper industry - one can list as many as one likes - are dependent on the railway. We cannot get the heavy items we need out on the road. There, I think I miss a discussion on how we are to increase the capacity, so that the industries that contribute the most to our GDP do not move to other countries because we maintain what we have but do not expand what we need - and we do not even maintain what we have. What are Jimmy Ståhl's thoughts on this?

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gunilla Svantorp, for further questions! Regarding the deregulation, I can say that very much has happened very quickly in Sweden. The EU intervened with various railway packages. We have today the fourth railway package. Sweden has also implemented this, which means that we have received enormously large traffic on our railways. This has led to demands that the railway must function. Unfortunately, it has also resulted in insufficient maintenance.

Of course, one should perform preventive maintenance before things break. I agree. That is how it should be, and that is where we must get to.

Regarding the industry, I hope that people there also begin to rethink.

The railway does not go inside the forest. Why don't you take the truck out to the nearest quay - often the quay is nearby - and transport the large forest products by ship? I believe we must learn to rethink. The railway is super important. We are going to rebuild what is broken. We are going to trim so that we can increase the efficiency of the railway. We will also build new, but not as much as one would have liked.

Having a broken railway is much more expensive than building a new railway. Therefore, it is important that we recover the maintenance so that we catch up. There is nothing worse than standing and waiting on a platform and being told that the train is delayed, first 5 minutes, then 10 minutes, then 20 minutes, and finally it doesn't come at all. We cannot have such a society. Sweden is richer than that.

But I promise you one thing, Gunilla: If the Swedish Transport Administration does not deliver, we will return.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! Things are not going very well for Sweden's infrastructure. The trains are derailing, the roads are getting snowed in, commuters are arriving late to work, and the iron ore is remaining up there at the Malmbanan. The procurement of night trains and icebreakers is not turning out well.

Infrastructure, like everything else, is about political prioritization. It is about a government and an infrastructure minister who actively stop the construction of new railways, which makes Svenskt Näringsliv furious. How we plan for infrastructure in Sweden is incredibly inefficient, where large projects such as new main lines have been planned and invested in for decades in our municipalities and regions, and then a newly elected government can completely cancel those plans.

The National Audit Office has looked at how infrastructure planning can function better, and they are very critical but without seeing the whole picture. If the Riksdag were to follow how the National Audit Office wants the infrastructure to be planned, Sweden's climate goals will never be achieved. Especially the railway will be pushed aside in favor of investments in road transport.

The way Trafikverket calculates the socio-economic profitability for different projects will lead to Sweden never getting a new railway, but instead quite a few short stretches of road for cars. We must be careful with our economic resources. But Trafikverket's way of calculating and what they base their models on is just as stingy as it can be.

The academic model being used does not lead to a transport-efficient and sustainable future. The model is suitable for highways, but not for railways. The combination of a distorted analysis model from the responsible authority, together with a government that has no ambitions whatsoever to build a transport-efficient society, is an extremely poor combination.

The criticism comes from many, from Naturvårdsverket, Tillväxtverket, Energimyndigheten to Klimatpolitiska rådet, who all want to see a model with a clearer connection to the climate goals. And it is clear that the criticism against Trafikverket and the need for a potential division of the agency has never been clearer.

Sweden is worth more than abrupt shifts in infrastructure planning. It needs long-term conditions. Therefore, the planning needs to change and the politics need to reach an agreement even after the color of the government has changed.

The Defense Preparation Committee has submitted its total defense report, a report that all parties support in its entirety. It gives the Armed Forces and a long line of agencies long-term perspective and security in building Sweden robust and strong. I want to give my praise to the Defense Minister's way of working. He has, through dialogue with all parties, united both the committee and the Riksdag.

I want to compare this with the Infrastructure Minister's completely non-existent dialogue with the Riksdag. It is clear that 51 percent of the Riksdag's votes are more important than dialogue and consensus.

I also want to remind that Sweden has almost never had a majority government and that the Tidö parties have obviously had to pull Sverigedemokraterna by the ears both once and four times when it comes to issues regarding the division of Trafikverket, procurement of night trains, and the nationalization of railway maintenance. These are issues that Sverigedemokraterna have actively, forcefully, and repeatedly driven both before and during the Tidö Agreement.

We in the Transport Committee have been close to reaching an agreement on a parliamentary majority in important issues, where the Sweden Democrats have then backed away from their own policy. It is interesting to find out what they have received for it. Is it just a tug on the ear, or is it something else, within another political area where infrastructure is perhaps used as some kind of buying and selling argument within the Tidö Government?

I am also concerned by what I hear from the Sweden Democrats in the speaker's chair. They repeatedly address the management of the Transport Administration by their first names and say: If you do not behave, you will find out something else!

This resembles ministerial rule from the Sverigedemokraterna's side, and one can ask who it is that is driving the government. Is it the Minister for Infrastructure with the Tidö parties, or is it Sverigedemokraterna? I am quite sure who I think it is that is driving.

Sweden deserves more than abrupt shifts. Sweden deserves long-term perspective. Our green transition and the industry deserve for there to be a plan. Therefore, we in the opposition in the Riksdag propose that an infrastructure preparation be introduced where we in politics can reach an agreement on infrastructure investments. Long-term perspective and consensus across party lines is important.

In an infrastructure preparation, the parties in the Riksdag should work together, meet with industry actors, and take part in challenges and opportunities, just as the Defence Preparation does. It would give the Transport Administration and a number of other agencies clarity and the transport industry long-term perspective. That is what Sweden needs.

Throw away the prestige, stop basing national planning on an unsustainable model that pits modes of transport against each other. Ensure that there is long-term thinking. That is what the transport industry needs, what the transition needs, and what Sweden's future needs. That is why we must change the way we plan the infrastructure. With this, I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! I requested a reply to Linda W Snecker to discuss a bit of the Transport Administration.

When one is in the committee for dialogue with the Tidö parties and Trafikverket, new openings can be seen. We want to give Trafikverket the opportunity to change.

In my previous meeting in the speaker's chair with Gunilla Svantorp, I forgot to mention that Trafikverket has already made system changes on its website. They are clearly trying to demonstrate that the agency should have a railway page and a road page.

I am not a minister, and I cannot rule the Transport Administration. But I can issue a warning. I am driving a policy, and I want to speak clearly to the Transport Administration that if the agency does not deliver, we will act in the chamber - this time with full force. Sweden must function.

I know that all parties have expressed criticism. The difficult question is how we are to achieve success. We are prepared to give Trafikverket a chance. But if one is not prepared to do so, how does Linda W Snecker think we should proceed? Should we not allow Trafikverket to make changes? Should we force Trafikverket to do something that might turn out well, or might not turn out well? The proposed investigation has been withdrawn.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! If I were a legislator from Sweden's second-largest party, I would not tell my voters and the legislative assembly that I have abandoned huge parts of my policy, that I have abandoned the criticism of the procurement of night trains, which this authority is not managing, that I have backed down from the nationalization of railway maintenance and that I no longer think the division of one of Sweden's largest authorities is relevant - because I have read on the authority's website that they are going to change their minds. I would not think it was a good answer to my voters, that it is for that reason I am backing down from my policy.

It is interesting with the address from the chamber to a government authority's leadership, to act in that way, as if that is how we legislators dribble. I understand what you mean by announcement, with committee initiatives, with the fact that one can go back, negotiate and change one's mind. But as soon as the Sverigedemokraterna do anything in the transport committee, it is at the last moment. It is at the last moment that you negotiate with the Tidöregeringen. It is at the last moment that the Moderaterna, KD and Liberalerna realize: Oh shit! We are about to be overridden.

It is at the last moment that something happens in the cooperation. It is interesting how you work, or rather how you do not work, and who it is that actually decides.

Much needs to be done at Trafikverket. I have myself worked for eight years with the Swedish Police Authority. It is also a very large agency, and I can see parallels in the difficulty of politically governing an agency. But the way the Sverigedemokraterna work is not good and serious.

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

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Madam Speaker! I think we are working very responsibly. The thing is that there is an ongoing procurement of the night trains. There we chose to step back, and we are awaiting the procurement. If the procurement results in something we are not satisfied with, we will act there as well.

In the question of nationalization, we have never been convinced that the state should take 100 percent of the maintenance. We have always thought that one should incorporate Infranord and Svevia into Trafikverket to bring in knowledge. We are not completely opposed to it going that way.

Madam Speaker! I think Linda W Snecker should look at the Transport Agency's website. We want to give them the opportunity. If they do not deliver, we must act, and there is a big difference. We will never betray the voters, and we will keep our word. Then we will see if Member of Parliament Linda W Snecker and the Social Democrats will come along next time. We will act. Nothing can stop us, except for the Transport Agency turning around and acting so that it becomes a world-class railway.

We are aware that some parts will take longer than others. But we expect that one should start by reforming and restructuring one's own house and then deliver.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! I hear that the Sweden Democrats' way of working in the Committee on Transport is to threaten and back down, threaten and back down, threaten and back down. That is how you work. You threaten to do something, but then you back down, you threaten to do something, but then you back down.

I am not surprised given how we have seen that the Sweden Democrats' party is built, with troll factories, with different forms of aggressiveness. We also saw how much you lost from that aggressiveness in the EU election. But I am not surprised that that way of working has such a profound capacity within the Sweden Democrats' party. Even though Member of Parliament Jimmy Ståhl has a completely different manner of address, the way of working is the same.

What would we need to do, instead of sharing Trafikverket, if the Sweden Democrats are still not going to pursue that policy? It is to take a holistic approach. We must take back control over the Swedish railway, take back control over the maintenance, which is broken-privatized, take back control over things like stations, Jernhusen, how we conduct procurements. Vänsterpartiet has a completely different view than the current government regarding what we want to do. We know that more will be controlled in a better way if we take it back into the state's embrace again. It did not work perfectly last time, but it will work better than today. We see that different procurements drive up administrative costs, and one wins by consistently awarding the lowest bids. In that way, we do not get a robust, strong, and good railway.

But we do not threaten, and we do not back down, as the Sweden Democrats do, but we have a policy that we stand up for. In today's democratic society, that is the absolute most important thing.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have reached a new chapter in Swedish railway history. It has become painfully clear to the Swedish people what poor condition our railway is in. In December and January alone, we saw 11,000 cancelled train departures, and over the last three years, we have seen a sharp decline in trains arriving on time. During the winter, Sweden has had worse punctuality on trains than Ukraine, which is in a state of war. To address the problems, we need to implement several important reforms.

Madam Speaker! A longer perspective is required when it comes to such long-term issues and such decisive decisions as investments in infrastructure, especially regarding the planning of our railways. In an infrastructure preparation, the parties in the Riksdag can work together, meet with industry actors, and take part in challenges and opportunities in the same way that the Defence Preparation Committee does today. It would provide better conditions for long-term perspective.

Madam Speaker! National transport policy needs to clearly prioritize climate and environmental issues over measures that increase road traffic. It is unreasonable that infrastructure planning is based on forecasts of increased road traffic instead of being guided by the climate goals that the Riksdag has adopted. Therefore, Trafikverket should work goal-oriented instead of forecast-based. The socio-economic model used today needs to be reformed and focus on the transport sector's climate transition and on how Sweden's population actually wants to travel.

Madam Speaker! We also need functioning authorities with appropriate structures. Trafikverket was formed in 2010 through a merger of primarily Banverket and Vägverket. Since its inception, Trafikverket has received recurring criticism, and a number of reports from Riksrevisionen during recent years have highlighted the problems from many aspects. It has concerned poor procurement, poor cost control, a swelling organization, poor planning, poor foresight, and poor forecasts.

We can observe that the problems within Trafikverket affect both travelers and those who depend on freight transport, with delayed and cancelled trains, large costs, and many troubles as a result. In light of the strong criticism, one should at least want to investigate whether we really have an optimal agency structure in this case.

Madam Speaker! Last but not least, and perhaps absolutely the most obvious: We need to succeed in both catching up on overdue maintenance and building new railways based on the needs of the future. For that, an investment budget for the climate is required, and therefore it is welcome that several parties stand behind the Miljöpartiets line that loan financing is required. We need, in fact, to build new main lines for a better railway system with higher capacity and faster trains.

Not least for freight traffic, an investment in new main lines is important. The green re-industrialization requires a heavily expanded railway, and in southern Sweden, freight traffic is expected to increase significantly when the Fehmarn Bält connection is completed in 2029. Therefore, the government's stance on the new main lines is very unfortunate. It risks giving Sweden an outdated transport system instead of a world-class infrastructure.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 2 and - since I halved the Green Party's speaking time in the debate - reservation 49.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Welcome to the infrastructure issues, Jacob Risberg! I understand that Linus Lakso is ill - I wish him a speedy recovery.

I reacted to two things in the speech, and one was the question regarding, among other things, maintenance and the poor condition that our railway is in. The fact is that Miljöpartiet either sat in government or was a supporting party to the government when the previous plan and the plan before that were developed. Above all, in the later plan, Trafikverket was very clear that the amount of money invested in maintenance means that the railway and road will be in poorer condition at the end of the planning period. There is, therefore, a reason why it looks the way it does, and it is simply that one has not invested in maintenance of the railway.

The second thing I reacted to is the question of preparation, which comes up at regular intervals. Miljöpartiet was, as mentioned, in the government and sat as a supporting party to the government when the previous and the one before that plan were developed. In none of those contexts has the opposition ever been invited to any conversation at all to find the long-term agreements for Swedish infrastructure that the opposition is now speaking so warmly about. It is very interesting: When you change sides in politics and end up in opposition, you suddenly are supposed to be involved in the decision-making, but when you are involved in the decision-making, you do not want to let the opposition in.

I suspect that we will have several seminars on that discussion in Almedalen as well. I think it is starting to become a bit tiresome that one does not take any responsibility for one's actions when one has oneself sat in a government position.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Maria Stockhaus!

I can only agree that the maintenance has been neglected. But it has not been neglected only during the previous government, but also during governments before that; we see several decades of neglected maintenance. The strange thing now is that we do not see any increased investment from the current government either. Enormous investments are required to deal with the problems we have. Constantly just looking back and blaming previous governments does not work, but we must see a proper investment in the infrastructure - and above all in the track maintenance - in the current situation.

Regarding the preparations, I must say that things have arisen that I question. A completely different long-term perspective is needed today. We don't really believe that the Moderaterna, when they come into government, will suddenly block the investments that the EU wants to make regarding new main lines in Sweden. The Moderaterna simply scrap the lines that are included in the TEN-T in the EU. If such adjustments are to occur as soon as a new government arrives, it is required that we have a more coherent view on this so that we can prepare together and achieve this long-term perspective.

I could never have dreamed that we would see such large shifts regarding the view on the need for new main lines - and neither that one would also make it impossible for future governments to build with the help of EU support in this country.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! If a new government goes against what one thinks should be the case, we should have a consultation and suddenly come to an agreement, but as long as one is allowed to run their own race and decide for themselves, there are no problems. It is a somewhat exciting attitude towards democracy, I might think.

What this government has done is to increase the budget for maintenance of both road and railway - quite a lot, even - in the two budgets that have been presented. We have also been clear about tasking Trafikverket to become more efficient in its procurement of maintenance, as well as more efficient in its execution of the maintenance measures that are carried out.

We have also been very clear during the work on the infrastructure bill and the new infrastructure plan that maintenance will have a significantly larger share of the total cake than historically, precisely so that we can address the problems we have with the growing maintenance debt.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is good that governments may invest more in maintenance, but to manage maintenance, it is also required that one invests in new main lines. We know that train traffic must go somewhere while we perform maintenance; we cannot constantly stop the traffic to attempt point-specific maintenance, as we have done during the recent period. We simply must get new main lines to meet the needs that exist.

Regarding the shifts between governments: What I am talking about is to see the entire European rail network as a single system. Miljöpartiet was in agreement with previous governments that Sweden should be included where the EU wants us to invest in new main lines. To then come in and, from the government's side, say "No, we do not want the EU's support for these packages" is a waste of taxpayers' money. We are going to need the main lines, and why should we spend all our money when the EU has been willing to participate and co-finance them? It is a waste of taxpayers' money. That money could have gone towards more maintenance of the railway.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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