Infrastructure issues

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin by welcoming the Minister for Infrastructure to the chamber for the debate. Welcome!

Madam Speaker! Infrastructure is the bloodstream of our country. Goods cannot be transported and people cannot move to and from work or in their spare time if the infrastructure does not function. We take it for granted that it should function, but many have lost confidence that the trains will run on time or, above all, arrive on time. Many also have to reduce their speed on roads because potholes are not being repaired. Shipping, in turn, is concerned about whether the icebreaking will function. Finally, many parts of the country are getting increasingly worse flight connections.

For the parties within the Tidö cooperation, it is a self-evident matter that Sweden needs a new direction for infrastructure policy. It has not been difficult to agree on the content of the infrastructure bill we are now going to discuss, as we have been in agreement on the direction from the beginning.

The existing plan has received much criticism, not least from the National Audit Office. Their criticism also clearly shows that a new approach is needed if we are to achieve the infrastructure that Sweden needs. What the National Audit Office states is that the previous government hampered the Transport Administration, and that led to us now having a plan that only gives 70 öre back for every invested krona. It is not a responsible way to handle tax money.

Now there will be a retake with a record amount of money, which in itself is natural since four years have passed. But it is also a record-breaking increase even in real terms - a 27 percent increase of the framework for the bill. My experience is that the expectations among the stakeholders were high, but that the government has managed to live up to most of them.

Infrastructure issues

Madam Speaker! The four coalition parties in the Tidö Agreement have reached a principle agreement on infrastructure investments across the country. It specifies how the parties want to shape a robust and efficient transport infrastructure where the advantages of each mode of transport can be utilized in the best way and complement each other. We agree that all modes of transport are needed. This also applies to aviation and cars. We also highlight maritime transport, in contrast to the previous government which unilaterally focused on railways.

The railway is an important part of our transport system, but we need all four modes of transport for all of Sweden to live. An important principle that we agree on is to take care of what we have. The political debate often concerns the new projects which actually represent a few percent of the entire transport system. Maintenance has been neglected for many years. Cutting ribbons has had higher priority than ensuring that what is already in place functions.

With the investments that the government is now making in maintenance, the maintenance debt will be gone by the end of the planning period, and Trafikverket has received all the money they state is possible to spend when it comes to railway maintenance. They are also tasked with streamlining the maintenance work in order to reduce disruptions on both roads and railways.

Madam Speaker! Investing in maintenance contributes to increased availability and more competitive transport supply throughout the country and to a more efficient use of the existing system. Investing in maintenance is the most socio-economically effective thing we can do with the money, and it provides great benefit for every krona invested.

Madam Speaker! There are, of course, also funds for new investments. The Government prioritizes investments that are socio-economically profitable. Improved accessibility and capacity provide increased revenues and increased productivity. We simply need a better infrastructure to make Sweden richer.

Even when it comes to new investments, Trafikverket is tasked with working on cost control and efficiency. Our government has a great focus on an efficiency improvement of Trafikverket. There is much left to do, but the mandate to the agency is clear. We invest a lot of money in infrastructure, but we want to ensure that we also get more infrastructure for the money.

Trafikverket also receives a clear mandate to work together with industry actors to develop methods and more purposeful and efficient contracts for both maintenance and new construction.

Madam Speaker! The previous government received criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office for prioritizing the implementation of ERTMS lower. Now the pace is to be increased. This secures the railway's future functionality and contributes to more capacity, safety, and punctuality.

Another principle that we in the Tidösamarbetet agree on is to test alternative forms of financing on the condition that they can lead to a faster and more cost-effective implementation or that more can be implemented within a certain timeframe than would otherwise have been the case. New production arrangements and operating models, for example implementation in corporate form which has been tested with success, should also be considered. Procurement through so-called public-private partnership or implementation in corporate form should also be tested. There are private stakeholders who have expressed interest in investing in Swedish infrastructure, and with the large needs we have for new investments, we need to look at all possibilities.

Madam Speaker! In the infrastructure bill, a change is now being made regarding projects that are counted as named. The limit is raised from 100 to 150 million, which gives Trafikverket greater freedom to prioritize within the framework without waiting for a new plan. The limit for trimming and environmental measures is also raised. The infrastructure bill contains large investments in our infrastructure, and the next step is to task Trafikverket with developing a proposal for action planning that shall form the basis for the next national plan - a plan that provides the conditions to build a strong and directed Sweden.

With that, I move for the proposal in the report to be approved.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden must work. It sounds almost like the name the government has given its infrastructure bill, but it is about what we from the Center Party presented this spring. We called it the Sweden Lift and said: Sweden must work.

Why did we do that then? Well, we did it because as much as possible must be done as quickly as possible. It is about Sweden's competitiveness.

It is about commuters' opportunities to get to and from work and about being able to rely on both that one will arrive and that one will get home again after the workday is over. One must be able to rely on getting home in time to be able to pick up from preschool, make it to meetings and so on - to make life work.

One must also be able to rely on the goods arriving on time by both road and rail. The long-distance goods should also be able to be moved from truck to boat or train to a much greater extent. The transport links need to work better together.

We also presented Sverigelyftet because Sweden has an enormous maintenance debt, both on roads and on railways, which needs to be addressed as soon as possible. Resources for infrastructure must be secured as we move from surplus to balance targets, and more financing models need to be worked out. Yes, the list can obviously be made very long.

Since then, an infrastructure bill for the whole of Sweden to function has been presented. I want to say already now that from the Center Party's side, we think there is very much that is good in this infrastructure bill, but that the debate will nevertheless be such that we stay largely with what distinguishes the Center Party's view from the view in the proposal that the government has put forward.

In many ways, we need to ensure that we get more infrastructure for the money and that we get more money for infrastructure, which is roughly what the minister usually says and will surely say today as well. The government has presented a bill that provides more money for infrastructure, but the question is how much it will be enough for.

Much has been said about how large this investment is. If we look at it historically, and not just look at the time since the end of the Cold War but actually look back to the middle of the last century, the truth is that one was able to invest a significantly larger share of GDP in Swedish infrastructure. It is a pity that we are not able to take those steps in Sweden even now, that is to say, use a larger part of our GDP to invest in infrastructure. We will have to see how it goes with that matter in the future – this is something that is being worked on – but I think it is important to point out those parts.

Madam Speaker! I want to raise a number of areas that concern me regarding how we in the future will achieve a more robust system for all modes of transport together. As part of what some have surely heard before, I would then like to also include the fifth mode of transport, namely the digital one, and its infrastructure.

If we look outward, we see a world that has changed very much over the last ten years. Since Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, we have witnessed receiving many people who fled for their lives from war and death with a hope of obtaining a better life and a better future for their children here in Sweden. There has also been a pandemic, which provided a whole range of insights - not least regarding the importance of own food supply and the power to quickly adapt.

Hardly had the pandemic passed before Russia carried out its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and we joined Nato without much discussion; it was rather other countries that delayed our entry. During these years, we have also made decisions to slow down the climate transition and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector by 70 percent by 2030. The Draghir report also struck with a gloomy future forecast regarding Europe's competitiveness.

To directly counter with something more positive, the government's AI commission, which presented its work a couple of weeks ago, gave many positive proposals for the future. However, they also pointed out a large number of risks with the situation we find ourselves in today and which is a major problem, as well as the importance of politics strengthening its leadership over the development.

International companies that are here in Sweden say that they cannot invest more here until the infrastructure has been improved in the form of better railways. It will take far too long. But if other decisions had been made from 2017 onwards, we could have been halfway through new main lines now, and with that lesson in the rearview mirror, we see it as important that we today do everything we can to really put the spade in the ground - if I may put it that way - and begin the planning of infrastructure projects in a significantly better way. It was done before; we have previously talked about the Western Main Line and what happened with pick and shovel in the 1800s. It is incredibly important that we continue.

How then is Sweden to get a functioning infrastructure that promotes Swedish competitiveness? When meeting small and large companies, there are often two areas that the entrepreneurs highlight, and that is skills supply and infrastructure. What is primarily requested are powerful, broad and long-term agreements. For the entrepreneurs to be able to participate and contribute to a strengthened competitiveness, they want to know that their investment plans work with the investment plans that the country Sweden has.

At this stage, I would say that we need an infrastructure preparation. I hope that Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson sees that today's model has actually reached its end and that it is time for new ways of working. I also believe I hear that there are thoughts on new ways of working ahead, so we shall see.

Madam Speaker! From the Center Party's side, we are very critical of the government's various decisions regarding the Swedish railway. As a Member of Parliament, Carlson motioned for new main lines, but as a minister, he had to back down - there would be nothing beyond a number of quite expensive sections connected to our three largest cities.

When the infrastructure bill arrives, much-awaited as it is, there are admittedly parts and investments that are good - but the railway must wait. That during the entire planning period only 10-15 percent of the maintenance debt is to be addressed, at best, is an all too low ambition. The Government lacks a vision for the Swedish railway.

Trafikverket produces a forecast showing that trains are the mode of transport that will increase the most during the coming years. At the same time, the capacity ceiling has been reached on very many tracks. Previous forecasts also show that the increases in railway traffic are often underestimated.

Last year was truly a bottom year when it comes to punctuality on the railway, which is a sign of the enormous maintenance debt that exists in the railway. From the Center Party's side, we propose that the government should return with an action plan to reset the maintenance debt on the railway as soon as possible. The industry points out that the maintenance of the railway could be managed at a higher pace with new technology, innovative methods, and procurements that promote this. It must be possible to have higher ambitions in a plan that extends twelve years into the future.

I am a bit surprised that the member who spoke earlier and who often criticizes Trafikverket has nevertheless made this into a truth. Time and again, it is said that Trafikverket cannot handle more than 10-15 percent, as if it implied some kind of positive picture that we therefore do not need to invest more during the upcoming planning period. I think that is very unfortunate.

In this context, I would like to move for approval of reservation 3 in the committee report, Madam Speaker.

I also want to say a few words about the county plans. They are of great importance for the regional and local infrastructure. An ever smaller proportion of the infrastructure plans have, during the recent parliamentary terms, been allocated to the county plans.

All of Sweden needs to be developed, and here both more resources must be invested and the more sparsely populated parts of Sweden, which have a lot of roads that must be built and maintained, must receive a larger share of the resources. Jämtland is just one example where the county plans are by no means sufficient for the needs that exist, not least when it comes to maintenance and investments in reinforcement and improvements.

With the Nat membership that we now have, we also see that many sections in an east-west direction have a very great need for maintenance and reinforcements of various kinds. Here, the different parts of Trafikverket's layout for how resources are invested need to have the opportunity to cooperate better with each other.

Then we come to the transport needs of the business sector. Here again, the government's focus on roads is strange, as more and more companies want to transport their goods by rail. We are talking about the importance of intermodality and about the green transition. The main line is obviously extremely important, and we believe it should be built as soon as possible. But there is a stretch that is extremely important for all of Sweden's business sector, namely additional tracks from Alingsås to Gothenburg to reach the Port of Gothenburg with goods.

If I interpreted the Liberal representative correctly in the previous debate, this stretch was mentioned. I must say that I was almost surprised and perhaps also somewhat provoked that in the infrastructure bill, a stretch in northern Sweden, one in eastern Sweden, and one in southern Sweden were mentioned, but none in western Sweden, even though it still provided an opportunity to think anew. I do not understand why this stretch did not come along then.

Here is the opportunity for the minister to communicate positive news for the railway before Christmas this year - not as it was two years ago, when there were some more negative news for the railway. The announcement needs to come now, because Trafikverket needs to start working now for the possibility of reinforcing the railway in that way. There is not a day to lose.

The Sweden Democrats have really toned themselves down on infrastructure issues now that they are part of the Tidö Agreement. What they, on the other hand, highlight in their reservation regarding the business sector's transport needs is the importance of the tourism industry, and I naturally agree with that. In that case, it is all the more strange that the contracted transport was treated so stingily in the budget for next year and that one did not receive the increase that was needed. It is one thing to say one thing but then do something completely different.

Madam Speaker! We are talking more and more about intermodal transport and about shifting freight to rail and maritime transport. Here, the government needs to take the lead to keep infrastructure planning together, not least from a total defense perspective. Many of our ports are owned by municipalities or companies. They want to develop their operations and in many places have plenty of capacity. But here, it must be coordinated, so that it is also seen that the planning of the infrastructure on land matches the planning being done linked to the port. There is significantly more to be desired here.

When it comes to long-term sustainable transport and Sweden's goal that emissions from the transport sector shall be reduced by 70 percent by 2030, the government's clumsiness and inability to make wise and long-term decisions is troubling. I hoped that some questions in this area would be clarified with the infrastructure bill, but that was not the case. To break the dependence on fossil fuels and reduce climate emissions, many different solutions are required. I am speaking of the technology with more energy-efficient vehicles, increased use of biofuels, zero-emission vehicles powered by green electricity, hydrogen or fuel cells, and many new practical solutions with car pools and smart digital mobility and sharing services.

This is also connected to the fact that the infrastructure regarding crisis and preparedness really must be strengthened. Also there, it has surprised me and the Center Party that these issues have such a small place in the infrastructure bill. I know that the minister is doing work together with the Ministry of Defence regarding these issues, but I also want to emphasize here the importance of this really being included in the planning work that will take place during 2025, so that we can see in what way we also need to make further investments to strengthen the entire Swedish road and railway system as well as airports and ports.

Madam Speaker! There is much more that I would like to speak about: the climate transition, cross-border traffic, individual roads and the financing of infrastructure. But all of this is included in our reservations in the committee report.

We must also step forward when it comes to research and innovation. I want to agree with how Member Stockhaus described the infrastructure system, namely as a circulatory system, and the importance of it functioning in different ways. We can see that in the parts of the circulatory system that consist of railways, there are far too many infarcts in the current situation. We really must do something about that.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! In the government's infrastructure bill, the appropriation for railway maintenance is 210 billion for the planning period, and it is as large as Trafikverket considers the agency can handle when it comes to maintaining the Swedish railway network without having to close train sections for maintenance work inconveniently and for long periods.

Centerpartiet thinks that this is too little money. I could think it would be fantastic if Trafikverket could manage with more money without having to close more sections for that part. But Centerpartiet wants to increase the expenditures by a corresponding amount of approximately 25 billion.

Then my question is: How does the Center Party intend for this to work? Which train routes are to be shut down for a long period, and how will Sweden be able to function if the Transport Administration is to manage to use all the money that the Center Party allocates beyond what the agency says it can manage?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Maria Stockhaus, for the questions! What we have said is that we want the government to return with a higher ambition and see what can be achieved with the funds available today, with new ways of procurement or with the help of new technologies.

We understand that for the next three or four years, it is already planned. The planning is fixed there, and one knows approximately how much will be required.

Then there are actually opportunities to strengthen the work with additional maintenance in different ways. There is also an opportunity to make new investments, and it can be seen that certain new sections will be able to facilitate the possibility of carrying out maintenance.

We are fully aware that there will be an impact. We already see this today, not least regarding the stretch Olskroken-Alingsås, where it is the replacement of lines and reinvestments that are creating difficulties.

One can also look at how other countries do it. On Railway Day, examples were highlighted of how it works in Germany and how they work there to facilitate for commuters and freight during the time they need to shut down a section.

I think it is important that Trafikverket is tasked with making maintenance faster and more efficient with the help of the new technology that exists. I expect the Tidö parties to do this and not just be content with saying that Trafikverket cannot handle more and that they therefore do not have higher ambitions for the next twelve years. To me, it sounds very strange that one suddenly accepts that part of Trafikverket as a truth when one is critical of so much else.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! There is a lot of speculation and wishful thinking. But it is also about giving Trafikverket the mandate to streamline its work with both maintenance and new investments. I included this in my speech. Trafikverket has several such mandates to streamline and do better. It is also about reducing the impact from the maintenance work that is already planned, as well as being able to carry out new maintenance more efficiently.

Madam Speaker! This time, as in all other speeches I have heard the member give, it is an eternal talk about this infrastructure preparation. Creating long-term conditions for the infrastructure is important. I can agree with that. In the Tidö agreement, we are indeed agreed on a direction, and we can compromise within reasonable limits. But in this assembly, there are two parties who think we should not drive cars and not fly. I find it difficult to see that it will be possible to compromise there and reach some kind of common position that would be good for the entire transport system in Sweden.

Furthermore, I still think it is remarkable that in opposition, one talks themselves into broad agreements and preparations, but when one is in power, one is not in the least interested in involving anyone else to discuss long-term conditions and the direction of infrastructure policy. I still have not heard any good answer as to why one chooses to totally change their stance on letting others to the table when sitting in opposition compared to how one acted when sitting in the majority.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Maria Stockhaus, for further questions! It is also about the importance of highlighting the different aspects that are linked to an infrastructure preparation and so on.

I regret the sting that probably remains because one was not invited to the department during the last mandate period. What has been done can never be undone, but one can do better moving forward. That is what I think is the most important part.

We can, for example, look at the Defence Preparation. The parties that Stockhaus means would not fit into an infrastructure preparation are indeed invited to that work. There, one manages to reach an agreement and provide a unified picture.

We have just before this debate had a debate on the budget. I have listened to direct questions from the members to the respective party representatives. It is shown that one sees aviation as a natural part of Sweden's transport also in the near future. It is both about the green transition and about the distances in Sweden making aviation have a great significance. Therefore, I understand less and less the resistance that the member displays when it comes to being able to make common agreements in this area.

One cannot undo what has been done, but one can do something better for the future.

One can look at how the planning conditions have been. In the situation we are in now, linked to defense, I believe we also need to be able to look at how we synchronize our planning processes in a Nordic perspective. We have EU funds. We have other parts that we have not touched upon so much in this debate so far. Here it becomes important to see: In what way can those resources create better conditions for a reinforced infrastructure? How can the cooperation between the Nordic countries – I know the member advocates for a Nordic council of ministers – become a sharp injection into this work?

I actually believe that an infrastructure preparation in various ways would strengthen Sweden's competitiveness, and I intend to continue to work for this.

(cont. § 15)

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