Infrastructure issues

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal and the rejection of all reservations.

Mr. Speaker! A well-functioning infrastructure is necessary in our modern society. Both freight and passenger transport depend on roads, railways, aviation, and shipping functioning well.

Sweden is an elongated country, and it naturally means that goods are transported long distances to be exported to the rest of the world. There is no opposition between the different modes of transport, but rather they are dependent on each other. No mode of transport should be pitted against another. It is an important principle.

Mr. Speaker! A parliamentary term goes by quickly, and there is a lot of work behind the extensive changes we Sverigedemokrater have made together with the government in the infrastructure area. In the plan presented on April 28, we significantly changed the course regarding our infrastructure. Now the focus is placed on maintenance and on building away bottlenecks that hinder efficient transport.

We Sweden Democrats have been clear about the value of a well-functioning freight transport. Freight is the foundation of our welfare, something that has not been in focus for many years. Freight transport creates jobs and is a prerequisite for the entire country to live. That is not to say that passenger transport is not important, for both are needed and must function regardless of the season.

Mr. Speaker! We have settled the issue of flight shame and are ensuring that aviation functions throughout the country. Let me briefly mention a few things that have been done for aviation.

The aviation tax was abolished as of July 1, 2025. We have more than doubled the state operating support to regional airports. There has been a significant increase in the funds for the emergency airports.

Our domestic aviation is important for people and companies to be able to live and establish themselves throughout the country. A well-functioning infrastructure is also important for ambulance flights, police flights, and fire flights, and not least for the country's ability to mobilize. Aviation is therefore of utmost importance for the entire country.

We have also implemented important changes for shipping. This concerns changed tonnage taxation, abolished stamp duty, and the introduction of a bareboat register.

Maritime transport also has an important role for our country. Maritime transport is fundamental when it comes to import and export. Even from a preparedness point of view, maritime transport is an important part of our total defense.

The examples above are just some of the measures that we within the Tidösamarbetet have ensured are implemented. Our focus has been on a well-functioning infrastructure, regardless of the type of traffic.

Mr. Speaker! In the work with the plan, our preparedness has also been a fundamental part. We must have a different perspective when it comes to our infrastructure. Here, it is important that we create a robust facility that functions even when something serious occurs.

When the rain washed away the railway in Västernorrland, focus was truly placed on our vulnerability. Norrbotten's only connection by railway was, for a period, the Inlandsbanan. This, if anything, shows the importance of changing focus when we plan our infrastructure. We must ask ourselves: What do we do when it is not as usual?

Mr. Speaker! During the rains in Västernorrland, the Inlandsbanan played an important role in keeping the important railway transports to and from Norrbotten running. That event truly highlighted the importance of having a holistic approach when it comes to infrastructure.

We do not know what awaits around the corner – war, high alert, or something else that affects our country – but in any case, we must be able to transport personnel, equipment, fuel, and other supplies.

Everyone surely remembers E22 and the chaos that arose there when winter hit. E22 is by no means the only road affected by prolonged stoppages during the winter half-year. In recent years, we have had countless examples of substandard maintenance of our winter roads. Plow and salt resources are sent out too late. Consequently, traffic comes to a standstill – often for several hours, up to a full day.

It is not reasonable that important infrastructure stops just because it is winter. Of course, weather situations can arise that are difficult to manage, but they are, after all, quite few. That measures arrive too late because of a procurement system that rather holds back resources is not acceptable. It is an unacceptable situation, and we have pointed out this sharply to Trafikverket. Measures must be introduced before the next winter season.

Mr. Speaker! Another palpable problem for the country's professional drivers is the lack of functioning rest areas. Professional drivers are required by law to take breaks and have rest periods. Otherwise, they risk heavy fines. The situation has become increasingly worse in recent years as rest areas have been closed. Many sites, especially at the country's roadside restaurants, are being rebuilt into charging stations for electric cars. We have also focused on the rest area issue, and we expect action from Trafikverket.

Mr. Speaker! After the previous government's inability to create a functioning infrastructure, the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have changed course. Regardless of which mode of transport you choose, it shall function across the entire country. It will take a few years to restore after the damage from the previous government, but the course is set and the citizens will notice a great difference in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government are setting tough requirements for the Transport Administration to reduce its administration and achieve more operations in the construction. We are also setting requirements that the Transport Administration shall improve cost control. In short: the Sweden Democrats and the government are doing what the previous government failed to do.

Mr. Speaker! The previous government was happy to talk about measures but achieved very little. The focus was on high-speed trains and on stopping aviation, but they had no grasp of how the infrastructure in the rest of the country was faring. The maintenance debt for both roads and railways grew, which resulted in major deficiencies. The imbalance is clearly evident when one sees that existing roads and railways were allowed to decay during the previous parliamentary term.

Money for necessary maintenance was omitted when the money was instead directed to a system with high-speed trains. We have all experienced the consequence – snow chaos on the roads and delayed and cancelled trains. In December 2023, the National Audit Office's report was released, and in it, extremely sharp criticism was directed at both the government and the Transport Administration.

Let me read a quote:

"The government mortgaged the future economic space through the assignment long after the planning period's end. This was largely due to the fact that the government pointed out the new main lines, which were largely unfunded."

Mr. Speaker! For us in the Tidösamarbetet, it is important to develop the vital infrastructure throughout the country. We want to create an environmentally friendly, efficient, and well-functioning transport market where road transport, railway, aviation, and shipping can develop a sound and sustainable transport industry. Therefore, one must also see the strength and efficiency in every mode of transport. It is important that we make necessary investments in road, railway, aviation, and shipping so that we can have a well-functioning transport system regardless of whether it is urban or rural. The prerequisite for being able to live and work in the entire country is a well-functioning infrastructure. We have begun that work, and we intend to continue our endeavor to develop all modes of transport after the election.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! At the beginning of this parliamentary term, the Sweden Democrats did not join the Tidö cooperation, specifically regarding infrastructure. This meant that it sometimes became a bit complicated when the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals were not larger than the Social Democrats, and there was a first priority and a second priority and so on. It was also the case that the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats had a number of similar proposals, including regarding the nationalization of maintenance and so on.

I do not know how much the Sweden Democrats have given up their own policy in the Tidö cooperation, but previously they pushed strongly, among other things, for this division of the Transport Administration – back to a road authority and a rail authority.

When it comes to the plans, Member Morell accounted for many things that he perceived the Sweden Democrats had worked hard for and were able to include in the plans. But I would say that the surprise was probably great for many when the thoroughly investigated proposal for a state-owned company that could provide the Swedish Transport Administration with some institutional competition was not included. The rumor or information says that the Sweden Democrats did not prioritize this and that one perhaps even counteracted it. I would like to hear about the member's view on the possibility of competing out the Swedish Transport Administration's work in this way so that we get more infrastructure in the country.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions.

We can start with the division of Trafikverket. We have been very clear that it does not work. It is not only us Sverigedemokrater who think so, but Riksrevisionen does as well. They were extremely clear in their report which came in December.

What happened during the process was that we received a promise to be included in the dialogue with Trafikverket and to develop the operations there. We have had regular meetings with the Director General regarding, among other things, the road issue and the railway issue, as those have been the two issues that have been fundamental in this. We have seen the enormous deficiencies that have existed on both the railway side and the road side. It is not acceptable that the infrastructure does not work just because it snows a little. Therefore, we have been extremely critical of how this has been handled.

We have during this period, even since we entered into the Tidö agreement, had frequent dialogues with Trafikverket to resolve this. Now there is nevertheless an agenda and a plan forward for how maintenance should be improved on both the railway side and the road side. It has also been divided into two different areas of responsibility. It is thus a halfway solution regarding what we demanded from the beginning. Let this take effect now! We will see where it leads. But we have seen a clear improvement in certain parts. It bodes well for the future. And the requirement lies on Trafikverket. They must deliver, because the situation that has existed cannot be accepted.

There is reason to investigate that company. But one must also say that it is extremely important that Trafikverket is exposed to competition, so that it does not happen that they, so to speak, do not deliver what one can expect from them. We can look at how it has been in Denmark and Norway. It is not possible to copy directly, but there is reason to investigate this so that we get a truly good tool.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Member Morell, for the answers to my questions! I have then two additional questions.

I would like to delve deeper into the issue that the member raised at the end of their answer, namely the one regarding a state-owned company that can provide this competition. It is blamed on the Road Act, but in what way have the Sverigedemokraterna pushed for this company to be established?

Then it is my second question. I tried to listen very attentively. I may not have noticed everything, but I did not perceive any commitment to the procured transport. I did not hear the member mention the night train traffic, which is part of the infrastructure, and how it functions. It is also about the Gotland transport and the possibility of getting to the mainland. It concerns not only private individuals but also the freight, which the member spoke warmly about. Not least Gotland's farmers know what difficulties it involves when it comes to the ferry traffic. It concerns costs but also the number of departures and so on. I would very much like to hear a bit more from the Sverigedemokraterna about how they view the night train traffic, the Gotland transport, and the rest of the procured transport, and if they are prepared to allocate additional resources for it.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We begin with the first question. There is reason to look at the state-owned company and develop it further, but let us return to that when we have sat down and truly investigated how Trafikverket can be put out to tender so that we get as much as possible for every invested krona.

Previously, there was no cost control, as the Swedish National Audit Office has pointed out. One did not get what can be expected for the money that was invested. It was an unsustainable situation. Then one must see what can be done to get the maximum out of every krona that is put into the system. A state-owned company that puts Trafikverket out to tender may be an entirely extraordinary solution, but let us investigate that first.

Regarding the transport agreements, work is underway to provide more resources. In the current situation, I cannot say what it will result in. Regarding the night train traffic, I am a great supporter of that specific form of transport because I travel by night train a lot myself. It also provides good transport for a whole part of the country. That is not to say that aviation cannot also deliver good transport solutions for northern Sweden, but there are, despite everything, people who prefer to travel by night train. Then that possibility must also exist.

We will have to see what the negotiations lead to. Now, Trafikverket has a plan to replace the night trains, so perhaps it will be so that one can travel in train carriages that are not as dirty as they are today, when at times it is almost impossible to stay inside the compartment.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to continue on the track that the previous exchange was about.

Thomas Morell has been one of Trafikverket's harshest critics. He has described the agency's inability as monumental. He has criticized the procurement model. He has wanted to split up Trafikverket.

In the previous exchange, we heard Thomas Morell describe that during his term he had close contact with the Director General of the Transport Administration and that there is a plan forward. What I am asking for is what improvements Thomas Morell, who represents the largest party in the government base, has actually achieved regarding the Transport Administration, based on what Thomas Morell himself has criticized.

My question is: Which of the problems that Thomas Morell has pointed out does he believe have been solved during the four years that the Sverigedemokraterna have had influence over the infrastructure?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The answer is actually in the plan that was submitted on 28 April. There, we have participated in influencing and have secured the requests we have had regarding the large parts of this.

I have been extremely critical of the procurement model, which was also asked about. It has meant that the longer one lets the resources remain inside the garage when it is snowing outside, the greater the risk is that traffic stops, because by the time one finally comes out, it is too late. By then, the ice has set in, and the snow has started to drift.

The procurement model was created by the previous government and is completely messed up, to put it in plain Swedish. It creates an incentive to withhold the resources needed to ensure that the road is passable. It is not acceptable that important infrastructure stops just because it becomes winter. It is incredibly poorly managed, in plain Swedish.

I have been extremely critical of this, and I have conveyed it several times to the Director General and said: This is not sustainable, but you must ensure that there is a different model for the procurement so that you obtain the resources that remove the ice and snow out on the roads.

There will be changes in connection with the procurements next year, in order to get the resources out in good time and prepare the way for a weather change. That way, an ice film is not built up on the roadway right from the start, which causes you to suddenly become a victim.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! We agree that Trafikverket needs to be reformed. We Social Democrats are very clear that the state needs to strengthen democratic control over the infrastructure, which is the foundation for society's functionality. Then, Trafikverket's competence needs to be strengthened. Then, Trafikverket's accountability needs to be strengthened. Then we need to deal with the procurement circus that prevails. Then we need to ensure that it is not the lowest price that is the motto, but the greatest efficiency.

We welcome, for example, reforms for strengthened institutional competition and what Thomas Morell spoke about in his reply, namely to review the procurement models. The truth is, however, that nothing has happened during the last four years. The truth is also that Thomas Morell defends the government's national plan, where there are no proposals that strengthen Trafikverket's competence or control over the infrastructure and the procurements.

I therefore ask Thomas Morell once again: What concrete initiatives have you in the Sweden Democrats delivered during the four years you had influence over the infrastructure to strengthen Trafikverket's capacity when it comes to procurement and control over critical infrastructure?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We have contributed a lot. We have had long discussions with the Director General.

Then the members should be aware that agreements run from the moment they are signed. Some changes cannot be made until the next phase, when the agreements can be rewritten. That will be done on January 1, 2027, regarding the procurement of winter road maintenance. So there will be changes, and they will be implemented at the pace that is actually possible given that agreements were signed earlier. There, we have an effect of the work that we have put in.

We have also had an extremely close dialogue with Trafikverket regarding the fact that they are not managing the tasks they are assigned to do. In the plan, money has also been allocated for maintenance, to ensure that the railway functions, that malfunctioning switches are replaced, that overhead lines are replaced so that they do not fall down, that the signals work, and that the roads get a new layer of asphalt. These are enormous investments that lie ahead in time. They do not occur at the same moment the plan is handed over, but it will take several years.

I personally have a black belt in train delays. It is enough that I show up at a train and I will be delayed. I have on several occasions conveyed to the Director General of Trafikverket that they must ensure there is stability in the system. It is not acceptable that it stops, because the passengers expect the train to arrive at the time stated in the timetable. That it differs by a few minutes, everyone can accept, but that it differs by one, two or three hours or that the train is simply cancelled is not acceptable.

It was this inheritance we received after the previous government, but we have changed that now. You can see the whole plan!

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is the final debate for this year on the entire infrastructure plan and an additional number of proposals in the infrastructure area. The report contains 49 reservations, a lot of committee text, and so on. I am pleased that the committee has done a solid job in preparing the report, and I would especially like to thank our office which has worked on it purely administratively.

The infrastructure – that we can get from home to work and to friends and that goods can be transported – is the very lifeblood of our entire society.

Everyone has probably sat in biology lessons where one learned about the aorta and the great body pulse artery and all the way down to the capillaries where the blood reaches all the way out to the fingertips, to the little toe and so on, and then about how it goes back. If we think about the biology with mitochondria, ribosomes and everything that exists in the cells that need oxygen, we understand how extremely important it is that the blood circulation functions and that infarcts are prevented by maintaining the whole thing in the very best way.

Infrastructure provides our entire society with nutrients of various kinds.

Infarcts we have seen during the years that have passed. E20 was mentioned earlier. When the rains in Västernorrland cut off both railways and roads, it was perhaps a form of infarct. When the Malmbanan broke down because a train derailed and tore up large parts of the rails is another example of the various damages that have been inflicted on this bloodstream.

Today we are going to look at the whole, and I am glad that we get the opportunity to do so. I am also glad that the Minister is participating in the debate. It is important. These questions are important for Sweden, and it is important that we can highlight them from both a majority perspective and an opposition role.

It is easy to lose oneself in the details when one begins to list individual examples, but what is at stake here is something larger. We see a number of systemic failures that we want to point out.

Even though the Minister wears a high-visibility vest and is out on many visits, it is easy to get lost in the details, which I regret. It is clear that every detail must work. Every switch and every signal in the railway system must work. But the task of politics must be greater than that. The task must be to set the direction and tell our entire country, whether we are individuals or business owners, how we view the infrastructure of the future.

An example of a lack of judgment or a self-goal in an important final match is the decision made in December 2022 when it was chosen to remove the new main tracks. It has sometimes been said that all people must understand that one cannot build a luxury patio when the house itself risks falling apart. But new main tracks have nothing to do with a patio.

New main lines are possibly about which beams and what basic premise the house has to be able to continue developing. That is what it is about when we need to build new capacity. It is not a luxury question. This is important for AB Sverige.

The Minister had the kindness to invite [us] to EU conferences during the half-year that Sweden was the chairing country. In these EU contexts, one was met with dismay, surprise, and skepticism over that the Swedish government took the decision to decline EU funding when it was known that there was a great need for increased capacity.

We were already heading into Nato at that time, not so that their transports would take place on the new main lines, but we saw major deficiencies in our entire railway system.

Climate-smart transport, such as the railway, is an important part of Sweden's and Europe's competitiveness.

In just a few years, the Fehmarn Bält tunnel will be completed. In one of the first exchanges we had regarding capacity in southern Sweden, it was said that the Fehmarn Bält tunnel will not be any major problem, because it already gets stuck in Denmark. That is where they have not built out.

Now, expansions have been made in Denmark so that the increased capacity can be received. The Minister has identified some smaller projects in southern Sweden, at bridge piers, at Malmö central and so on, which can facilitate things, but only to a very small extent.

Sweden needs to become much faster. I really hope that the acceleration office's various inputs have also reached the Minister for Infrastructure regarding in what way one ensures that we become much better and much faster at driving infrastructure projects in Sweden.

There is a lack of a political vision for the infrastructure. It is lacking to such a mild degree that the industries have developed their own vision, which is good and which they are proud of. But they have been very clear that it happened due to a lack of political leadership. Such a vision should have been developed by the government.

The majority parties say many times that one does not pit transport modes against each other. But that is not enough. It is about in what way the transport modes interact with each other and what capacity increases one needs to make in order to be able to have more transport of both people and goods on our roads.

But it is also about making climate-smart technological shifts in this country. The electrification and expansion of our infrastructure in that part is an issue that we perhaps may have to have a separate seminar on. It is tragic to see how Sweden repeatedly falls behind and that we do not reach our climate goals.

It feels as if politics has stepped into a drapery and is rather standing against the curtain when one yields a walkover and lets others take on the leadership jersey.

In our neighboring countries, efficiency is ensured and it is seen to that the decisions apply over time. We in the committee have visited both Denmark and Norway. In Denmark, we could see how Sund & Bælt facilitates the construction of infrastructure. In Norway, we saw how the proposal for a company, similar to the one we have now investigated in Sweden, was first presented and pushed through by a Høyreregering. Since then, a social democratic government has continued to manage it.

I think it is a pity that Sweden, or we here, cannot say that an infrastructure preparation would be the best. There we could broadly agree on how this should look. One must be able to trust the state. One must be able to trust the nation Sweden. Some municipalities and regions have bitterly experienced that one cannot, and so we cannot have that.

In this context, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for approval of reservation 3. An infrastructure preparation was needed, and a substantial investment in the infrastructure in this country was needed.

Now the minister says that the government has invested more than ever. Yes, that is true, but it is not enough. It is not enough at all, because it does not provide much increased capacity during the upcoming planning period. One will manage with the road maintenance, but perhaps 10 percent of the railway maintenance will not be managed.

There is much more to say about this, but I will leave the question shortly. But it is important for the future of the whole of Sweden that the infrastructure also receives a long-term sustainability, and it does not have that today.

I have a small list of points, Mr. Speaker, which will be a bit faster to go through than the introductory part.

First, I want to address the individual roads. In Västernorrland, one does not receive compensation for rebuilding roads after damage that has occurred due to rain and the climate. The government must come back and improve that compensation.

The demolition of the lighting has been stopped. But what will happen? We do not know.

Then we have the role of the bicycle in our society. How should it be accounted for in the infrastructure? When electric bicycles become more numerous and more and more people, for public health reasons, consider cycling to work, we are building away cycling opportunities. There are no cycle paths left at home where I live in Skaraborg. Or yes, one can cycle on a cycle path of ten centimeters, otherwise one has to be on the roadway. There are very important parts here to address.

I mentioned both the night trains and the Gotland ferry in an exchange of remarks. We must be able to address the procured transport in another way.

It sometimes feels as if one is in the movie Back to the Future. When we began our term, we made study visits and saw how the aviation of the future could look. We looked at the electrification of aviation. Many different forward-looking questions were on our agenda. But then everything became a question of maintenance. There is nothing wrong with maintenance, but where is the spearhead towards the future? We must agree that Sweden can do more.

Up to 1,300 billion are now being invested, that is, an incredible amount of money, in infrastructure. At the same time, the grant for research is being halved, from 7.4 billion to 4 billion, and it is truly completely the wrong way to go. When more money is given to infrastructure, more money must also be given to research, because that is where one can develop new technology and build competence. By making this misprioritization, it can instead lead to a competence shortage, reduced technological development, and incorrect investments. This is not sufficient when we are in a decisive situation for Sweden's development.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party naturally stands behind all its 19 reservations, but I move for approval only of reservation 48.

In order for there to be more jobs, emissions to decrease and the whole country to function, Sweden needs a different government.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I will take the ball on new main lines, because neither the Christian Democrats nor the government are opposed to building new main lines. The decision the Christian Democrats made once upon a time at a national meeting was to say no to a specific project. This project was then estimated to cost 100–150 billion, but according to the latest figures, it is now up to 350–400 billion, which is a third of the entire infrastructure budget. Of course, one can have such visions, but it is unreasonable to let a single project consume such a large part of the total budget.

Mr. Speaker! Of all the investments that are made, 80 percent go to railways. At the same time, 80–85 percent of all transports, whether they are passenger transports or freight transports, go by road. Both the Christian Democrats and the rest of the government have been very clear that we must solve the road maintenance because it is by road that most transports go. The corridors shall be strengthened, which also happens in this plan, and we shall include all types of traffic.

So to my question. I appreciate the member's commitment, knowledge, and speech in many respects. In normal cases, the Center Party usually speaks about five types of transport and that they are passionate about all of them. The Center Party wants a different government, after all. But how is the Center Party to realize its visions in that government? This concerns above all aviation, which is truly important for those who live outside the large cities.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Jacobsson for the encouraging words.

When it comes to new trunk lines, the government has spent almost four years defending why it was necessary to stop them but has failed to show how the increased capacity needed for the future will be achieved relatively quickly. It is not included in the plan we are now debating, and I regret that.

It must absolutely be five traffic types.

It is frustrating to register for ten minutes of speaking time, speak for twelve minutes, and feel that most of it remains unsaid, because infrastructure is so important. That is not the time to speculate about any government negotiations.

This autumn, the Swedish people will decide who gets to form a government. I naturally hope for strong support for the Center Party, because with the Center Party in the government or as a coalition partner to the government, Sweden will get exactly Center Party politics. All parties go to the election on their own politics.

As far as I know, there is no finalized proposal from the Tidö parties either. They say they are going to stick together, and they say they agree on a lot of things, but they show time and again that they do not, most recently when it concerned imprisonment for 13-year-olds.

Sweden thankfully has a multi-party system, and every party in Sweden's Riksdag stands for election on its own policy. Then, the support from the voters determines which collaborations become relevant after the election.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In the presentation, it is suggested that the entire project with high-speed trains is cancelled. Yes, that is the case in the part that concerns completely insane costs and completely insane visions of high speeds on a stretch where every stop would mean that one will never ever reach the high speeds.

Many forget that the high-speed trains were never funded by the previous government; they were never in the budget. It was only talk. They waved around fake money with no value because the high-speed trains were not in the budget.

What the government is now doing together with Västra Götaland and Gothenburg is to build Göteborg–Borås and from Stockholm down to Norrköping and Linköping, and we are reviewing the station locations to avoid unrealistic costs. I am extremely pleased that we have also managed to get Göteborg–Alingsås into the plans. I would obviously like there to be even more money so that it moved forward faster. But we are finally getting Göteborg–Alingsås. With all due respect, this is about new main lines. Now we are connecting the Port of Gothenburg with northern Sweden, because we think in corridors.

Mr. Speaker! It is no secret that I am happy to cooperate with the Centre Party. I have cooperated with Centre Party members in Uddevalla and in the region, yes, everywhere. It surprises me that you absolutely want a Social Democratic Prime Minister, because it will mean that you will not get your bourgeois policy through, which is deeply tragic. How does the Centre Party make that hang together?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I may have been a bit ungenerous in my speech, because there are certainly things in the plans that are good. For example, it is excellent that Göteborg–Alingsås is included in the plans, and when it comes to Göteborg–Borås, for which a decision has been made previously, we now see that the spade is to be set in the ground. These are two examples in Western Sweden, but things are also happening in other parts of the country.

But the needs are very great, and in that case it is a pity that the company that could have made some of the necessary infrastructure investments does not show up. It is a pity that one does not take advantage of the opportunity to, together with other actors, contribute to a strengthened infrastructure in Sweden.

There is an investigation from Trafikverket which shows that Sweden needs as much rail as that which was stopped, but we see no plans for how it is to be built forward.

We see how they "snuttify" and do a little here and a little there. Sometimes it is even the case that a small "snutt" remains. It is silly to call something that costs a number of billions a "snutt", but on the Västkustbanan, perhaps five kilometers of double track are missing between Maria and Helsingborg. It is completely insane to delay more and for it not to be built. It is a pity that such things are picked out of the plan.

I know that there is a broad consensus on how infrastructure planning and infrastructure construction should be conducted moving forward. I look forward to broad agreements in the area of infrastructure, so that it is ensured that as much as possible is built for the money that is allocated. Centerpartiet is prepared to invest more.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! Ulrika Heie spoke a lot in her speech about the infarction in the Swedish infrastructure system. But the Center Party has indeed been involved in influencing infrastructure policy and the previous plan together with the previous government. At that time, maintenance was deliberately deprioritized.

When the previous plan was adopted, Trafikverket were extremely clear that with the money invested in maintenance, both rail and road would be in poorer condition at the end of the planning period than they were at the beginning of it.

Does Ulrika Heie not feel any responsibility whatsoever for the problems that the lack of maintenance has led to?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Maria Stockhaus, for the question!

During my 20 years in the Riksdag, the Center Party has participated in or partially participated in three plans. Two of them were with the Alliance government in 2006–2010 and 2010–2014. Then we were also part of the January cooperation from 2019 until the summer of 2023. We were, therefore, not involved in laying out the plan that was subsequently handled in the Riksdag, but that was backed by the Social Democrats themselves.

It is unfortunate that more was not invested in maintenance earlier. There is no excuse for that. But it is not possible to turn back time and blame various things that have happened, instead, it is about focusing on the future and learning from what has been.

We see a number of deficiencies in today's system with four-year plans where projects move in and out. You put a little more money here and take away a little money there. It eventually becomes a kind of zero-sum game regarding how much one allocates and how much one should try to get something for.

It is incredibly serious that our infrastructure does not hold up better than it does. The Riksdag and the incoming government would need to take joint responsibility for how to solve it in a credible way.

If I feel any responsibility at all? I think it is important that politics takes responsibility for what has been done, but it can never be undone. It is only forward that we can make an impact. Therefore, it is important with broad agreements on both maintaining what we have and daring to invest in the new that comes in the form of new technology – I regret again the reduction of research grants – and new capacity. A government must manage that.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! Learning from what has been, is that exactly what the government has done? The maintenance needs have been neglected for many years. We have addressed that now. We are prioritizing the maintenance.

We must really ensure that what we have functions. We will, of course, build new, which the government also does by investing very much in new investments in both roads and railways. But the fundamental thing is that what we have must function. Everything else is capital destruction.

We Moderates have reflections ahead of the next mandate period about trying to find a framework, an agreement, that locks money for maintenance.

Mr. Speaker! Ulrika Heie often speaks of broad agreements. I would like to extend a hand to the Center Party. Are you prepared to contribute to a framework where we bind future politicians so that money that should go to maintenance cannot be used for fantasy projects such as, for example, high-speed rail?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party is prepared to invest significantly more in infrastructure than has been done so far. This is part of the parliamentary parties' agreement to move from surplus targets to balance targets.

We are prepared to invest in various ways so that Sweden takes the position it needs to take. Preparedness needs to be built in the form of capacity created through both maintenance and new construction.

It is clear that we can learn from what has been, but I don't really know what I think about the Moderate view that it is an ideal to lock future governments. Something happens with political ideologies over time. What is it that makes one not trust the future? What is it that makes one not trust coming generations and what they could do? One is prepared to indebt coming generations, for example, when it comes to nuclear power. It is another way to shackle politicians and tie up resources that someone must be involved in paying for. It seems to have become a Moderate melody.

We can learn from what has been, and we are prepared to contribute to ensuring that both maintenance and new capacity are invested in moving forward. For us, it is incredibly important to do everything we can to meet the climate challenge so that emissions go down, so that jobs increase, and so that Sweden is a country that welcomes people who in different ways want to create a future here. We want to ensure that the whole country lives. If the Moderaterna are on board with those premises, they are warmly welcome.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has renamed high-speed trains to new trunk lines and is trying to promote that message. But the basis of what you planned with the previous government was high-speed trains. It was an enormously expensive project that would paralyze other railway traffic in a quite dramatic way.

We need money for maintenance, and in the previous exchange of remarks, the member spoke about this issue of a climate challenge. The best way to protect the climate is surely to ensure that the trains run so that we avoid running a lot of extra buses that replace the train traffic? That is the situation we have had for several years because the maintenance required for the railway to be operationally reliable has not been carried out.

The change we have made is to put money into maintenance and ensure that the railway functions and offers the transport service that both companies and private individuals can actually expect. We are not against building new main lines – on the contrary. We want to build more railway, because it is needed – but no luxury projects like the one with high-speed trains. That would have eaten up the money for other important projects in Sweden. The focus was on Stockholm–Malmö and Stockholm–Göteborg, but there is actually something north of Stockholm that also needs investments on the railway side.

The whole idea of high-speed trains was backwards from the beginning. I ask the member if C intends to contribute to resuming such a crazy project.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party rarely contributes to insane projects, so we will probably not do that now either. However, we are prepared to support important future projects in various ways.

The government says that they want to build more railway – but it is only a little here and there, a few bits. What needs to be done is to connect the system. That was the most important thing with the main lines, namely to connect Sweden.

Of course – one can pit regions against each other, but that which is to come out of northern Sweden must go through southern Sweden. We need an infrastructure that holds up the entire country.

When we are now to meet the traffic coming from other countries via the Öresund Bridge or the upcoming Fehmarn Bält tunnel, it is clear that new capacity should have been built in southern Sweden. I regret that one was not faster that time in the 2010s so that we could have had new main lines ready relatively soon.

Things are done very slowly when you put them into the process that Sweden has with plans that are constantly to be revised.

Let us find new, significantly better ways to both plan for infrastructure and build infrastructure! We will not contribute to any insane project. We will contribute to making it possible to build new main lines, because that is what we need in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One of the effects of the high-speed trains was that the Göteborg–Alingsås line was scrapped, one of the absolutely most important investments one can see in the railway system. In Göteborg, there is the largest port in the Nordics. Enormous amounts of freight go to and from that port, and it is to increase its capacity. The new main lines for high-speed trains would not have helped to, so to speak, compensate for that supply.

Now, in this plan, we have included funds to start up Göteborg–Alingsås, one of the absolutely most important investments we can make, and the member stands there and calls it a snippet. I would like to hear what the industry's perception is of that. This is, therefore, a very important project that is coming along far too late. But we did not come to power until 2022. Now we have changed that.

Then the question is: Will the member be willing to contribute to the project not being realized just so that one can travel quickly between Stockholm and Malmö or between Stockholm and Gothenburg on the other side of Vättern? In that case, a large part of the transport possibilities that the industry needs for goods from northern Sweden and from Norway that are to go down to the port of Gothenburg will be destroyed.

It is quite obvious that you do not have a grasp of what flows are in the system and how large volumes we are talking about to supply the cargo flows to and from the port of Gothenburg. It is time for you to read up and understand how the system works.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I will give Member Morell a right. It was a bit clumsy of me to use words like "snuttified" and say that one is building a snutt.

It is clear that every part is significant where it lies. But it is only when one builds together systems that it becomes something real.

Now they say it was only for Gothenburg and Borås that Gothenburg–Alingsås disappeared. I do not know what the member bases that on. Gothenburg–Alingsås is extremely important for all of Sweden. Every time we have talked about the plans, we from Centerpartiet have put forward the importance of it having to exist.

The member does not need to tell me that I must understand which flows exist in different places. I understand that perfectly well. But I do not understand why this government does not ensure that it becomes significantly more planned and more built, because it is clear that more is needed. Just as the member says, more is needed.

I do not know what it is in the cooperation between the Tidö parties that has caused more of it not to have come out than what we can see here, we who are not part of that cooperation. For that very reason, it would be good if it were ensured that we have a system for how we plan for infrastructure in this country that holds over time, so that one does not get this jerkiness and has to ski slalom.

I apologize for saying that it was a snippet. It can certainly be valuable where it lies. All new rail is valuable in some way, but it is only when you build the entire system together that you get the effect from it. We should be happy with every part, but I do not think the member can really lead in evidence that one would increase the capacity with any fantastic opportunity ahead of the upcoming twelve-year period when it comes to the railway, whether for maintenance or new capacity. I hope that there will be a new government after the election that can take hold of it.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! Early this morning, a train driver set the clock to begin the morning's first trip. She sat in the driver's cabin and hoped that the rails would hold so that she could get her train there on time, that the signaling system worked, and that the maintenance that had been carried out during the night had made the railway better than it was yesterday. Hundreds of commuters sat in the train behind her and hoped that they would arrive at work on time.

Tonight, a truck driver drove your goods, your food and your clothes and the machines that Swedish companies need to compete on the world market. He drove through the darkness on roads that must hold, because if they do not hold – if they are worn and cracked and full of potholes – it is not only the truck that stops. Then Sweden stops.

Quite late in the morning, the maintenance worker came home from the night's work. He had been out repairing the railway, fixing what was broken and making it possible for the trains to run on time.

These people, of whom there are many in our country, are the ones who carry our infrastructure. We very rarely talk about them. We talk billions of kronor, planning periods and socio-economic calculation models. But if we do not have these people all around our country, Sweden does not function.

What we are talking about when we talk about infrastructure is the circulatory system in this country. The possibility of getting to and from work, the possibility for companies to transport their goods, and also the possibility for new experiences on vacation are largely dependent on functioning infrastructure.

For as long as I have been involved with infrastructure issues, that is to say the last six years, I have always wondered why the voters never include infrastructure as one of the most important election issues. It may be because I and some others here in the assembly are a bit of nerds on the subject.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a long country, and the opportunities to live in the whole country depend on it being possible to travel to and from all parts in an efficient way. It can be about getting to and from Stockholm on the same day or that carrots from Gotland can quickly reach stores in the whole country.

When we politicians discuss infrastructure, it is easy to talk about all the new, fine projects that we want to invest money in. But even though the Moderate-led government has done a lot to speed up the processes, it takes a long time to get new infrastructure in place. If we seriously want to make a difference in people's everyday lives in the short term, we must ensure that the infrastructure we already have in place actually works. The 5,700 kilometers of railway and 610,500 kilometers of road that already exist in our country need to function better and be used more efficiently.

The government has made a significant turn in infrastructure policy. These are important fundamental changes that have been established with the new national plan.

The first is that we must ensure that what we have functions. The maintenance debt that has built up over decades must be eliminated. The maintenance debt that causes trains to be delayed due to switch or overhead line faults, and that causes speeds to have to be lowered on our roads because the potholes are large and the surface is unsafe, needs to be worked away as soon as possible. It is actually a shame for a country as wealthy as Sweden that we have allowed this to happen – that we have allowed our infrastructure to decay.

We Moderates have, as I mentioned in my exchange with Ulrika Heie, discussed for the next parliamentary term introducing some form of framework that would make it impossible to neglect maintenance. We cannot accept that the maintenance debt begins to grow again.

The price for this type of behavior has been paid by many commuters and companies when the focus has been on cutting ribbons for new projects instead of allocating necessary funds for maintenance.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government allocates 210 billion kronor to railway maintenance during the planning period 2026–2037. It is not just a political promise. It is the highest level that Trafikverket assesses they can manage to convert into actual work.

During 2025, 1,700 major maintenance works were carried out on the state railway, and even more are planned for 2026. Trafikverket assesses that all maintenance that has been deferred will be possible to carry out so that the railway is free from deferred maintenance by 2050. But we are now doing a powerful job, which was needed to reverse this development. We hope that Trafikverket can speed up its processes so that we can achieve even more efficient maintenance.

This is what we do for the train driver who wants to be able to rely on the tracks and for the truck driver to be able to rely on that it is possible to get through on the roads. We work with increased load-bearing capacity in the Swedish road network with BK4 status for more roads, we expand the charging infrastructure along our roads and we ensure that the fine-meshed road network in the countryside – which carries the forest, agriculture and the everyday life of rural areas – also receives the maintenance it needs. The roads are the base; over 80 percent of the transports in Sweden roll on them, and that applies even if the cars run on electricity.

It has been said many times, not least by the Minister for Infrastructure, that we are putting more money into maintenance, but we must also get more maintenance for the money. It is no easy task when it comes to managing a state agency with approximately 12,000 employees.

There are many positive signals that things are moving in the right direction. Better cooperation with the industry and those who travel on roads and railways is an important example. The number of maintenance measures carried out per year has also increased steadily. For example, the number of switch replacements increased by 77 percent between 2023 and 2025, the number of rail replacements by 31 percent, and the number of overhead line replacements by 35 percent. These are fantastic figures, and there is continued pressure on Trafikverket to further streamline its operations.

Mr. Speaker! Another important principled change is the limitations in the state's responsibility when we build infrastructure. It is an important step to keep costs down and be able to afford several infrastructure projects. Until now, it has been possible for municipalities and regions to include various additional investments in existing projects that are more focused on local urban development. There has not been any kind of limiting mechanism, but now that is over. The state finances what is needed from a national perspective, and any additional requests that are more about urban development must be financed by the municipality or region requesting it.

It is fair to the whole country that we, from a national level, focus on what is of benefit to us all and not just locally.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has an important basic principle: that all modes of transport are needed in our transport system. Aviation, shipping, road transport, and the railway are equally important for it to be possible to live and reside in the entire country and for companies to be able to grow and develop. That is where we and at least parts of the opposition differ.

I am truly worried about what a government where Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet are included would mean for Swedish domestic aviation. Would there be continued support for our regional airports and more funds for contracted air traffic? I doubt it, not least considering the total lack of interest I have experienced from these parties when it comes to seeing opportunities for the aviation transition. The motto that the best trip is the one that doesn't happen, I have heard and read many times from these opposition parties, and it is frightening given the conditions for growth and development in the entire country.

Mr. Speaker! Infrastructure is not just about commuters and trucks. As a country, we have recently joined Nato, and that places entirely new demands on us. We need to ensure military mobility and the possibility to transit units and store materiel. A well-maintained and robust transport infrastructure increases resilience during high alert and in the event of war.

The government is allocating an additional 30 billion during 2026–2034 for investments in transport infrastructure. This includes, among other things, the Inlandsbanan. It is prioritized by the military defense. The circulation in Sweden must be maintained even in times of war.

Mr. Speaker! Let me make some points regarding concrete initiatives in concrete places for people. In Gothenburg, we are upgrading the Western Main Line, which is the country's absolutely most important freight route. As Thomas Morell highlighted in previous exchanges, it is about access to the Port of Gothenburg. This section was deprioritized by the previous government, which the industry even up in northern Sweden was extremely concerned about. The Port of Gothenburg is expanding, but the infrastructure there does not function.

We are building double tracks all the way to Alingsås. In Stockholm, we are building Tvärförbindelse Södertörn to relieve a region that has long been stifled by capacity shortages. Finally, the government is also moving forward with the next step to get Östlig förbindelse in place, i.e., the last piece of the ring road around Stockholm. When it is completed, it will relieve Stockholm's inner city by 50,000 cars per day.

In Skåne, we are building four tracks between Lund and Hässleholm, which is the most important individual capacity measure on the Södra stambanan, and we are preparing for the increased freight pressure when the Fehmarn Bält tunnel opens. In Norrbotten, we are strengthening the Malmbanan so that LKAB can transport the iron ore efficiently and so that the growth of the green industry in the north is supported by a railway network that actually holds up. These are a few examples.

It is a total of over 100 named investments across the entire country, from Ystad in the south to Kiruna in the north. It is a combined investment of 1,262 billion, which is the largest infrastructure investment in Swedish history.

Mr. Speaker! The government is making a historic investment, not only because the number of kronor in the plan is higher than in the previous one – which is normally the case – but also because the percentage increase is actually historic. Just as important as the money is the shift we have made with this plan and the work the government has done to ensure that we will get more value for the money we invest.

Mr. Speaker! We do this for the person who takes the train to work every morning and for the person who drives the car along a country road that must hold all the way through, for the person who transports Sweden's competitiveness along motorways and railways and for everyone who builds Sweden every day. Infrastructure is the bloodstream in Sweden, and we ensure that it flows again.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates often speak about cost control of the infrastructure. This is important. I usually say that every wasted tax krona is a theft from the Swedish people and that it is unacceptable that infrastructure projects can spiral so in cost without control.

Until now, however, the government's response regarding cost control has not been to introduce such control. It has not been reforms that have ensured that we build smarter, but rather it has been cuts and the state backing out of projects that it had previously given promises about.

This is the difference between our parties. We Social Democrats believe that we need more capacity – but with strong cost control. We need to build more, but we need to build much smarter.

My question to the Member of Parliament from the Moderates is therefore: What reforms has the government implemented to increase productivity, strengthen innovation, and reduce costs in infrastructure construction?

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know where to begin. This is quite shocking, considering how the previous government handled the cost developments in our infrastructure projects. If a project had simply entered the planning phase, the costs could increase by any amount, and then it still went through and received a construction start.

What this government has introduced is that all projects that go to construction start and that have exceeded 10 percent in cost increase can be taken back to the drawing board so that everything can be reviewed again and attempts can be made to find cost savings.

That there have been problems with cost increases at Trafikverket has been commonly known for a very long time. A number of Swedish National Audit Office reports have pointed it out. I swear the previous Social Democratic government did absolutely nothing when it comes to tackling the cost development. This government has truly done that now.

A clear example of when one gave Trafikverket carte blanche to just run up costs however they pleased was when the maintenance grants and administration grants were merged. At that time, the number of employees at Trafikverket increased by approximately 4,000 people. This meant that money that should actually have gone to rail and asphalt went towards increasing the workforce without Trafikverket delivering particularly much more infrastructure.

This is something that this government has really put its finger on and made demands on Trafikverket regarding – and where Trafikverket has also delivered. Some figures were given regarding how much more infrastructure is delivered in terms of maintenance compared to 2023. Those were quite remarkably high increases, and yet Trafikverket has received much smaller appropriations, so it is definitely an efficiency and being careful with the taxpayers' money.

(Applause)

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! I tried to listen carefully to Maria Stockhaus, but I actually heard no answer to my question. No concrete information was given on how to increase productivity in the sector.

Mr. Speaker! I do not defend yesterday's solutions or all the decisions that governments have made in modern times. I think there is much to learn from recent years. It has been understood that it is inevitable to build more capacity, but there are also – in any case from our side – proposals on how productivity can be increased and innovation strengthened in the sector.

Maria Stockhaus speaks about moving appropriations, and it is good if more money is circulated in practice. But that is not the same thing as increasing productivity in the sector. My question is therefore still not answered, and therefore I ask it once again: Which proposals to increase productivity and innovation in the sector have the Moderaterna pushed through during this mandate period?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can repeat the figures again: There are 77 percent more power exchanges, 31 percent more track changes and 35 percent more overhead line changes. This has occurred in two years thanks to the government having put pressure on Trafikverket – a pressure that the previous government never ever put on Trafikverket.

It is precisely this it is about, that is to say, to ensure that we get better cooperation with those who drive on our roads and on the rails and to ensure that we get innovation in how maintenance projects can be carried out. And the figures speak for themselves; it is through innovation, through new ways of working and by becoming more efficient that Trafikverket has been able to deliver more.

It is interesting to hear Aylin Nouri. I must say that the only thing I have seen in the Social Democrats' motions regarding changed ways of working is that Trafikverket itself should take care of more of the maintenance, even though there is an investigation showing that it will result in 9 percent less maintenance if it is done in that way. It is a very strange way to increase productivity and innovation, I can think.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Maria Stockhaus! I have two questions.

I know that the member is both very knowledgeable and strongly engaged in everything related to infrastructure, not least when it comes to new technology, the way one tackles future challenges, and so on. This also applies to aviation's climate transition, new fuels, and so on.

I would still like to ask what it is that makes it justified to almost halve the research funds. One goes from 7.4 billion to 4 billion. It is an incredibly large number of projects that will not be able to be carried out, even though we know that we need to invest even more in competence development of various kinds and in getting new technology closer to the market. We need to enable companies to participate in joint research projects.

For me, it sits very poorly that the Moderaterna and Maria Stockhaus think this is a good proposal for potentially making other priorities. I would therefore like to ask what one wants to achieve by cutting the research grant so significantly.

I will content myself with that question, Mr. Speaker.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! The state is fortunately not the only financier of research in this area.

In the end, it is about priorities. We see that the need for new infrastructure and the need for maintenance is very great after the recent years' deprioritization of, above all, maintenance, and that is a reason why we saw that in this situation we need to use more money for, not least, the maintenance.

Then there are completely different mechanisms when it comes to new technology, for example EU regulations such as ReFuelEU Aviation and FuelEU Maritime, which put pressure on the sectors to develop fuels and new technology themselves. The state, as mentioned, is not the only research funder, and it is important that clear goals are set and that there are good ambitions when it comes to technological development and embracing the new technology that arrives. I do not believe the small portion of research funds that the government has now cut is decisive for the technological transformation we are seeing.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! It becomes difficult when we talk about billions and millions. One calls 3.4 billion "the small part" that is being cut, but it is indeed an enormous number of research projects that do not get the opportunity to continue or that perhaps have to rethink and think anew.

I would say that it becomes very strange. I assume that the member also has good contacts, not least with the industry that works with maintenance, and there they say that this is a strategic misprioritization in the national plan. It risks leading to incorrect investments and reduced technological development, and it leads to a growing competence shortage.

What will be Maria Stockhaus's answer when the industry demands sensible answers as to why it is becoming like this? Is the message that the industry has to solve this itself? I still thought I heard the member partially regret that one had to prioritize in this way to succeed in getting the plan through. It is still a critical situation, and I share the member's great commitment to ensuring that we address the maintenance debt.

Sometimes it can sound simple with maintenance debts – one talks about filling potholes or repaving once more – but we see that at least the railway's maintenance is dependent on technological development, just as the member mentioned, with the large number of new switches. I think it is very good that it has been possible to raise this in different ways from the government's side.

I find it astonishing that the member speaks of "the small part" that has been cut. It is not quite half, as there are 4 billion remaining. But 3.4 billion is quite close to 4 billion, so it is still almost a halving of the entire research grant. It is a very large amount of money. What does the member answer regarding the claim that it would be a strategic misprioritization?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! I also hear the industries saying that we have made very many strategic and good prioritizations in this plan. Not least, we are finally addressing the maintenance debt.

When it comes to new technology and specifically maintenance work, I believe it is more about Trafikverket using the technology that actually already exists and not so much about us needing revolutionary new technology. It is actually one of the basic problems, that is to say that Trafikverket has not adopted new technology. Now that they are starting to do so, one sees these fantastic figures regarding the efficiency of maintenance, and I assume that it will continue.

The state, as has been said, is not the only research funder in this area. It is important that the industry also takes its responsibility. For us Moderates, it has been important that we take the strategic responsibility and ensure that the infrastructure we have in place functions, because if it does not, Sweden does not function. Then people cannot get to work, and goods cannot be transported from factories and out to markets both in Sweden and around the world. That is where our priority lies this time, and it is absolutely necessary for our infrastructure to function.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs functioning roads. Sweden needs functioning railways. Sweden needs strong shipping and competitive aviation.

All modes of transport are needed, because infrastructure is the foundation for a functioning society. It determines whether people can get to work, whether companies can transport their goods, whether students get to school, and whether healthcare functions when it is needed. But infrastructure is also much more than that. It is a prerequisite for growth, jobs, and competitiveness. It is a prerequisite for Sweden to hold together. In the time we live in, infrastructure has also become a security policy issue.

Therefore, the national plan is more than a question of investments. It is about what kind of Sweden we want to build.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in a completely different situation than just a few years ago. We have war in Europe. Sweden is a member of Nato. The investments within the industry are enormous. The competition for jobs and business establishments is intensifying. In that situation, we in Sweden should discuss how we strengthen the capacity, robustness, and competitiveness in the transport system and thereby build a stronger Sweden. Unfortunately, however, that is not the narrative that characterizes the government's national plan.

Let me be clear: the railway's maintenance debt must be repaid faster than the government plans for. The government is happy to describe investments as historic, but the government's own plan means that the majority of the maintenance debt will remain when the planning period is over. It is a level of ambition that does not match the needs that Sweden faces.

The business community demands better capacity. Travelers demand punctuality. Defense demands robustness. Still, the government plans for large parts of the problems to remain after the planning period has expired. It is not enough – Sweden's challenge is greater than that. We do not only need to reclaim the maintenance debt, but we also need to build the capacity that tomorrow's Sweden requires. That is where the government's plan falls short.

Mr. Speaker! Capacity is preparedness – it applies to industry, to total defense, and to Sweden's resilience. When the railway network is already heavily burdened and small disruptions lead to major consequences, we need to build away the bottlenecks instead of getting used to constant train delays. The government has, however, not presented any credible answer on how the major capacity shortages shall be solved.

The problems did not disappear when new main lines were halted. The needs did not disappear, and the bottlenecks did not disappear either – on the contrary, they remain. At the same time, we see how important capacity-enhancing measures are pushed into the future, reduced, or removed. Maria–Helsingborg, the West Coast Line's largest bottleneck, is left without a solution. Tomteboda yard in Stockholm is removed from the plan despite the investment being assessed as one of the most socially and economically profitable in the country. This is particularly noteworthy because the capacity problems in Stockholm affect train traffic far outside the capital.

Linköping and Jönköping have invested hundreds of millions based on state decisions that are now being overturned. On the Norrbotniabanan, the government chooses to save 150 million kronor by removing double tracks in a project that covers over 60 billion. It is not long-term thinking, but rather short-term austerity policy.

Mr. Speaker! This leads to something else that I think has received too little attention, namely the state's credibility.

Infrastructure policy is ultimately about trust. Municipalities build housing, regions plan public transport, and companies invest based on the state's decisions. Therefore, the state must be a partner that can be relied upon. This mandate period has, however, instead been characterized by reassessments, postponed investments, and changed decisions. This creates uncertainty. Municipalities and companies hesitate. Investments risk being lost, and trust in the state is eroded. That is why we Social Democrats want to see broader and more long-term agreements in infrastructure policy. Sweden needs more cross-bloc accountability and less volatility.

Mr. Speaker! There is another conflict in this debate. The Government is happy to talk about historical investments, but the big question is not how large the plan is, but what it achieves. Which capacity shortages are being built away? Which bottlenecks disappear? How is Sweden's competitiveness strengthened? How is Sweden's preparedness strengthened? How does Sweden become wealthier? Those are the questions that people, companies, and municipalities want answers to.

Sweden is an export-dependent country. Our prosperity is built on the fact that Swedish companies can sell their goods to the rest of the world, and therefore the infrastructure must be seen in a larger context. When the Fehmarn Bält connection opens, transport patterns in Europe will change. When investments increase in northern Sweden, the importance of the Malmbanan, Norrbotniabanan, and strong freight routes through the country increases. When the security situation deteriorates, the need for Nordic coordination and robust transport corridors increases. But also here, a clear direction is lacking. Sweden must think more about coherent corridors and less about individual objects.

Mr. Speaker! We must also talk about the costs. Everyone knows that Sweden builds too expensively. Everyone knows that projects take too long. Everyone knows that we get too little infrastructure for the money. I must say that the government's response is strangely passive. Where are the reforms for increased productivity? Where are the reforms for better procurement? Where are the investments in research and innovation? Where is the strategy to build smarter?

On the contrary, we see how the government almost halves Trafikverket's resources for research and innovation. It is the wrong way to go. When costs increase, the conclusion should be that one should develop new ways of working, strengthen competence and increase efficiency – not that one should lower the ambitions.

Mr. Speaker! For a long time, the state has lost its own competence within parts of the critical infrastructure. Responsibility has been fragmented, knowledge has disappeared, and far too much focus has fallen on procurement rather than on results.

We Social Democrats believe that the state needs to regain more control over critical infrastructure. This does not mean that the state should do everything, but the state should be able to take greater responsibility for the costs, for the expertise, for the preparedness, and for the implementation. Therefore, we want a larger part of the railway maintenance to be able to be carried out under Trafikverket's own management, while the state strengthens its ability to plan, order, and follow up on investments and maintenance. Critical infrastructure must ultimately be governed by the public interest, and the social responsibility can never be outsourced.

Mr. Speaker! At its core, this debate is about which direction Sweden should take. For us Social Democrats, infrastructure is not just a matter of transport. It is an investment in Sweden's future – in growth, in jobs, in competitiveness, in preparedness, and in cohesion.

Sweden needs greater capacity. Sweden needs stronger railways. Sweden needs better cost control. Sweden needs more long-term perspective. Sweden needs a state that is a reliable partner when the future is being built. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 41 regarding the need for new railway capacity, also in the form of new main lines, and reservation 29 regarding strengthened cost control within the infrastructure area.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The railway today has approximately 80 percent of all new investments and about 50 percent of all maintenance. I understand that the Social Democrats want to reduce the resources for the roads by 45 billion to increase the resources for the railway. It is far more than what Trafikverket thinks it can manage.

It is still the case that 80–85 percent of all transports occur by road, regardless of whether it is freight or passenger traffic. But we are already allocating funds for 80 percent of all new investments and 50 percent of all maintenance to the railway.

The exciting question is actually: Where is the holy grail? What is that key figure that makes the Social Democrats feel that one has invested sufficiently much in railways? Is it 85 percent of the investments? Is it 90 percent? Is it 100 percent? And when it comes to maintenance, Mr. Speaker – is 50 percent enough? Should it be 55, 60, 70, 80 or perhaps 90? Where is that line that makes the Social Democrats think that one has found the perfect balance?

In the debate, it sounds roughly as if this government is not investing in railways. But it is quite the opposite. We are investing almost too much, I would say if I were being a little mean. It is still the case that most transports occur by road, and so it will be even in the future. In the infrastructure as a system, the car is always the "last mile" in some form. That is why we Kristdemokrater invest as much as we do in upgrading our roads.

But where is the holy grail? What is the perfect percentage?

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now we have it in black and white from the Christian Democrats, the party responsible for infrastructure issues: We may be investing too much in the railway. It is precisely that view on the railway that has characterized the entries to the national plan. During the planning period, only 10 percent of the maintenance debt on the railway will be addressed.

We have war in Europe. Sweden has become a member of Nato. The growth in our country is very high, and so is the competition. In this situation, we should equip our railways. It is the foundation for a functioning society and for increasing growth and our resilience.

As I stated in my main speech, we need both functioning roads and functioning railways. It is not we, Mr. Speaker, who set the modes of transport against each other. It is rather the government that does so. In recent years, the government has pursued an incredibly erratic policy regarding the railway, with decisions that have been halted and announcements that have been contradictory.

Madam Speaker! What Sweden needs is more capacity, and that is what we Social Democrats stand for. We shall build a Sweden that is robust, that holds together, and that is strong both in times of peace and, should war break out, in times of war.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I repeat: 50 percent of the money for maintenance and 80 percent of the money for new investments is invested in the railway. I want to draw the attention of especially TV viewers and listeners to the small fact that this is done in addition to the agreements we have reached within Nato. A large investment is also being made in robustness on the Inlandsbanan outside of this system. We are, in fact, putting even more money into the railway.

Based on the work we have done, Trafikverket is purchasing new machines and improving capacity. They ensure that more bang for the buck is achieved, if that expression may be used.

Madam Speaker! I do not get an answer from the member. Where is the Holy Grail? Apparently, it is bad with 80 percent of the new investments and 50 percent of the maintenance. Apparently, it is bad that we invest in the Inlandsbanan.

Madam Speaker! What I think is bad is that people talk about the system hanging together but then they dismantle it. In the Social Democrats' budget, they remove 45 billion. Is it Gotland that is going to lose maintenance on the roads? Is it Jämtland? Is it the rest of Norrland? Is it Dalsland, where we have big problems? Should they cut back on BK4 or on individual roads? What is it that the Social Democrats want to remove?

You in the Social Democrats want to remove 45 billion. You do not want the maintenance debt on the roads to disappear. If your budget were to prevail, it would be like during the last parliamentary term, when Trafikverket stated that the maintenance debt would increase with the current budget. We have taken over a quagmire and are trying to manage it.

80–85 percent of all transports occur on roads. What is it that the Social Democrats want to remove? Which roads is it that you intend to give up?

(Applause)

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! Let us have a serious debate here. What this government has done is to prioritize the maintenance of Sweden's roads. It is good, Madam Speaker, that we maintain our roads more. But the government has done it at the expense of the railway.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats' path is more balanced. We need all modes of transport. We need functioning roads, but we also need a functioning railway. Swedish railway quality is at the bottom among comparable countries. Nato points at Sweden and says that the resilience in our total defense is insufficient. Passengers have been forced to get used to delays and repeated delays. That is not sufficient, Madam Speaker.

I miss a vision – what do KD and the Tidö parties want to do for Sweden? With these four years in the rearview mirror, I can say that Sweden's robustness will not be significantly strengthened for our travelers and companies.

We Social Democrats want much more than that. We want to carry out the maintenance at a much faster pace. We want more than that even in the issue that the Tidö parties have as a blind spot, namely the one regarding more capacity.

(Applause)

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is almost touching to listen to the member's great enthusiasm for infrastructure. Infrastructure is incredibly important, regardless of whether we fly, take a train, drive a car, or whatever else we do.

But let us step back a few years and look at the Swedish National Audit Office's observations on how it was when the member's party was in power: The agency has, among other things, been criticized for promising more than it can deliver in infrastructure planning. There are deficiencies in the management of the interregional transport agreements and insufficient efforts for bicycle traffic. It is unrealistic infrastructure planning. The national plan for transport infrastructure often promises more than the resources allow, which leads to projects being delayed or postponed. Regarding cost control: Trafikverket has, in repeated audits, had deficient routines for cost calculations and economic follow-up in large infrastructure projects.

It was exactly this that this government took over in 2022. The previous government and Trafikverket did not have a grip on the money. They blew up big headlines – that is what you in the Socialdemokraterna are very good at. I must actually admit that the Socialdemokraterna are world champions at creating press releases. But if you peer behind, you see that it is quite empty.

What has happened now is a total change of course. Now, the maintenance must be implemented so that we get a railway that works. We must be able to rely on that the trains run. The industry must be able to rely on that the trains run down to the Port of Gothenburg.

What is it that has happened with you in the Socialdemokraterna, because you have suddenly gained the insight that it is also supposed to work?

In this speech, Rashid Farivar and Patrik Jönsson (both SD) concurred.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! I am the first to criticize that governments on both the right and the left have not done enough for the infrastructure. This concerns both the maintenance debt and the way infrastructure is planned.

The difference between me and Thomas Morell from Sverigedemokraterna is that I do not lock myself into yesterday's solutions. I want something new moving forward.

Madam Speaker! That is why we wanted an infrastructure working group so that the parties could come together. Infrastructure is far too important to be characterized by instability and populism. But the Sweden Democrats and the Tidö parties have not wanted any such group. Should we have a different government, Madam Speaker, we are very clear that infrastructure needs cross-bloc cooperation.

Madam Speaker! The second point is that the Sweden Democrats are talking about a change of course. I can do nothing other than speak out. The change of course that they hold in such high regard is the change of course that the Social Democratic government introduced when we began to increase the appropriations for railway maintenance.

The government has continued with that change of course, but it is not enough. Something has happened in recent years that underlines the need to tackle the maintenance debt much faster and to expand capacity in our country.

I could ask the question to Thomas Morell: Are you satisfied with the national plan that is now being presented and which you have had a great influence over? Which major bottlenecks or problems with lack of capacity will you tackle?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is very simple. I am largely satisfied with the plan, even though one could naturally have done more or perhaps differently. Given the circumstances that have existed and the legacy we were handed, we have done the best possible.

If we are to look at investments, I am strongly in favor of the investment to expand the capacity between Göteborg and Alingsås. Why? Yes, because it ensures that industry across the entire country receives the transport capacity it needs, all the way up from Norrland, all the way down to Mellansverige, and also in Mälardalen. It is extremely important.

The possibility to increase the capacity to ensure the transports to the Port of Gothenburg was brushed aside by you during the previous government. We have now rectified that. It will take a few years to build. That is obvious. But the course is clear. We must get it in place so that we ensure the freight transports for the entire industry in Sweden.

I have spoken a lot with people out in the country. For the most part, I have spent the whole spring traveling around and talking with business organizations. They are satisfied with the proposals we have put forward, even though they could obviously have imagined more. But for the industry, it is a very important part that ensures the capacity increase that they demand.

It is not a hot air balloon, as it often becomes when the Social Democrats promise something. Here, it is a real investment that will ensure transport capacity for a long time to come.

(Applause)

In this speech, Patrik Jönsson and Rashid Farivar (both SD) agreed.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! That is not true. I do not know what reality the Sweden Democrats are in. Perhaps one should speak with Svenskt Näringsliv.

Svenskt Näringsliv is very clear that the capacity debt remains. What the government has done is to remove the plans for new main lines, but it has no alternative. No alternative has been presented, and the needs remain, Madam Speaker. That is what the business community is very clear about. That is what the Armed Forces is very clear about.

I remind that investments in more capacity are not just an expenditure item. It is about creating jobs, increasing our growth, and increasing our resilience. The direction that Thomas Morell speaks so warmly for does not exist. The major challenges facing Swedish infrastructure and in particular the railway have been pushed into the future.

Madam Speaker! I am not satisfied. I want something more. It is obvious that the Tidö parties are obsessed with the years when the Social Democrats ruled because they have nothing to present regarding their own policy that they have pursued over the last four years.

The Sweden Democrats almost sound as if they are in opposition. The truth is that every day that Andreas Carlson has been able to go to his department is because the Sweden Democrats have said okay to it.

The major reforms of Trafikverket to increase its innovation and efficiency have not materialized. No plan for the halted proposal regarding new main lines has either been presented. It is under all criticism, Madam Speaker!

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! There are many questions that could be asked. There is one thing that would be interesting to know. Member Nouri was very clear that the Social Democrats have many proposals regarding the streamlining of how maintenance is carried out and requested it after my speech.

I find it very difficult to see what concrete proposals the Social Democrats have beyond restoring the railway maintenance. The first question is: Are there any other proposals? I have not heard or seen anything of the sort.

The second question concerns capacity in our railway network. It is extremely important. More capacity is needed in the railway. The question is how to achieve this in a reasonably short term.

One way to increase capacity by 10–20 percent is to ensure that one invests in ERTMS. The previous government deprioritized the investments in ERTMS. The deadline for having ERTMS in our entire railway system was 2070.

The government has now made a major investment and has invested money. That date is now 30 years earlier, that is 2040. With the expansion rate that is now, we will be able to see capacity increases in the existing system.

The prioritized Socialdemokraterna removed. That rhymes very poorly with what Aylin Nouri has spoken about in her speech and also in the exchanges.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates are asking what ideas I have and what the Social Democrats want to do to get more for the money for the infrastructure and to simply strengthen the delivery. I am very pleased that the Moderates are asking about that, because our proposals are many.

Let me take some examples. We want to put a stop to the procurement circus that is allowed to characterize the infrastructure. It is bleeding money, and it leads to poor productivity in the sector.

It is about us stopping the detailed management that Trafikverket engages in in procurements. We must also have procurements that follow the principle of best use. Then one needs to see the procurements in a larger perspective. They need to be longer over time, such as it looks in Norway, for example, but also apply to larger geographical areas. That would enable better procurements.

We also want to see better state competition to get more for the money for the infrastructure but also to ensure that the implementation goes much faster. It is about, for example, what never came from the Tidö parties or the government, namely the equivalent of Nye Veier in Norway. It never came from the government.

In addition, the Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) needs to be strengthened as an authority. When we talk about that some maintenance needs to be performed by the Swedish Transport Administration itself, it is about strengthening the Swedish Transport Administration as a procurement actor.

An authority that does not carry out any of its own maintenance will also not understand how procurements should proceed. Therefore, we need to strengthen Trafikverket's ability to perform its own maintenance work but also its own competence.

There are some proposals for reforms that could have been useful for the efficiency of the infrastructure.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! It was a speech on the theme of closing open doors. The government has worked on Trafikverket's efficiency throughout this entire mandate period. The figures speak for themselves. It is 77 percent more gear changes, 31 percent more track changes, and 35 percent more contact signaling changes. This is because we have set exactly those requirements on Trafikverket that Aylin Nouri spoke about.

I think it is interesting that there is a constant return to the idea that we should have this state control and that Trafikverket itself should carry out maintenance. There are evaluations that show that we then get 9 percent less maintenance for the money. I do not understand how that aligns with the talk of more efficiencies. It is not we Moderates who have made this evaluation, but it is a researcher. The report is a few years old, but it nevertheless shows that it results in 9 percent less maintenance for the money. Those are very clear figures.

It is difficult to understand how Aylin Nouri, who speaks about efficiency, wants to take back maintenance and get 9 percent less for the money.

I completely miss an answer regarding ERTMS. It is actually a quite important issue, which flies under the radar a lot. Increasing the speed of the investments and ensuring that we get ERTMS in place 30 years earlier means a great deal for the capacity increase in our railway system.

I think it is a shame that the Social Democrats in their previous plan allowed themselves to fail to prioritize such an important technical reform as ERTMS. It is very important when it comes to ensuring that we get more capacity in the relatively short term in our railway system.

It takes a long time to build more tracks, and there was a way to get more capacity in a much shorter timeframe. But the Social Democratic government chose to reject that completely. It is actually quite sad.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me first say that it is good that the government is moving forward with ERTMS. It is welcome, so I have no other comments on that.

Regarding the second question, it is obvious that there is a clear ideological difference between us Social Democrats and the Moderates. Sweden has the world's most deregulated railway, and in Sweden, it is record-expensive to build new rails.

One must also be able to see the context. An agency that has no competence in performing maintenance will also not be an effective procurement agency. We must strengthen our own agency's capacity and its own competence; otherwise, we risk seeing what we now see in Sweden. It is far too expensive and it takes far too long to build new capacity or to maintain the railway.

I want something else, as I have noted in previous exchanges. Here, too, the Moderaterna are liable for the answer. They speak warmly about everything they do regarding the maintenance debt, but the truth is that it is not impressive when it comes to the railway. Only 10 percent of the maintenance debt is to be repaid during the coming planning period, which means that Swedish travelers, companies, and municipalities will have to live with delays and train trouble for a long time to come.

The second thing is that the government still has not presented any alternative for the plan forward when new main lines are stopped. The need for new capacity still exists. The only thing they succeeded in was to postpone the investments and create a larger bill because we lost out on EU funding.

That is why a new government was needed that can take infrastructure policy seriously for Sweden's cohesion, growth, and resilience.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I listened carefully when Member Aylin Nouri gave her speech, because the thoughts that the Social Democrats have are guiding in the second government alternative.

What I heard was that the Social Democrats are against this government reconsidering projects whose costs have doubled. I also heard that the Social Democrats are against us demanding that the budget be maintained until the start of construction for the various projects.

I wonder how the Social Democrats intend to solve the issue of cost control. It is easy to criticize the changes and consequences that arise when the screws are tightened, but how do the Social Democrats intend to manage the cost control if one is not prepared to re-examine the projects that are in the plans?

It means that one can submit a project that is very lowly valued and then, when one actually sees what it costs, let it continue. It becomes like what has happened with, for example, the new trunk lines, which are becoming three times as expensive as they were when they entered the plans. The Social Democrats just continue and say: It is okay, we continue like this! This eats up the entire space for new, more profitable projects.

My question to the Social Democrats is therefore: How do you intend to manage the cost control?

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! It is a bit of a stretch to claim that one has cost control when, in practice, it is cuts to the infrastructure we are seeing.

Take Stockholm as an example, where a project that has been judged as one of the most socio-economically profitable is being stopped. That is not cost control. To stick to bottlenecks in our national transport system that create delays and which hinder growth and expansion is not cost control; it is cuts. To halve the number of night trains in northern Sweden is not cost control, Madam Speaker. It is cuts.

If Member Gellerman had wanted to have a serious discussion about how we can achieve better cost control, I would have welcomed it. It could have been one of the issues that we discuss together in an infrastructure group. But the Liberals do not want to join such a group. The Liberals do not want us to have such a group.

I see another way ahead of me. I see a way where we can have cross-bloc conversations and make decisions regarding Swedish infrastructure, because it must not be characterized by the jerkiness and the uncertainty that we have seen over the last four years. It has not been cost control that we have seen, but rather it has been about withdrawing decisions that Sweden needs for a strengthened capacity.

Madam Speaker! I imagine that we could achieve very much. But it will not happen if the Liberals continue to let the Sweden Democrats dictate the infrastructure policy. We have seen the result of that over the last four years, and the Liberals should not be satisfied.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not know whether I should thank you for the answer to the question, for I actually received no answer at all.

What do the Social Democrats want to do to increase cost control? We received no answer to that, but the member only spoke about the improvements and efficiencies that our basis, the government, and our coalition party have achieved in the current plan.

We were early in saying that we should not have any high-speed networks with trunk lines in Sweden. On the other hand, we have retained three large sections that we see are needed to increase capacity in Sweden, which I think is good. These are the sections between Järna and Linköping, between Gothenburg and Borås, and between Lund and Hässleholm. These parts are good for increasing capacity.

I did not, therefore, receive any answer to the question of what the Social Democrats actually want to do regarding cost control. It is easy to just talk about the consequences of tightening up and having better cost control from the beginning. But if one has cost control and sets the requirement that it is only at the start of construction, then people will know if they will receive the project, and one will not receive these many submissions from municipalities and regions that make the projects more expensive. Then everyone knows that it applies from the start of construction, and then it is about keeping the costs down. It is one of the most effective ways.

We do not need any new preparation to review these matters, as it is part of the structure. But the Social Democrats have not worked according to the structure that exists in the current process for developing a new infrastructure plan, but one has simply stated: Now the project has become more expensive, but it can probably go through anyway.

How do the Social Democrats intend to work with cost control?

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! I have, in the many exchanges of words in this debate, but also during the year that I have been the transport policy spokesperson, been very clear that we must achieve better cost control. That is how we can build more capacity, smarter and cheaper.

Fundamentally, we need to review how socio-economic profitability is calculated so that defense needs, the climate transition, and growth are actually included. This is not currently included to a sufficient extent. When the national plan arrives, we will unfortunately see the result in skyrocketing project costs. The basic calculation therefore needs to be changed. We also need to overhaul the entire procurement system. It is a procurement circus that is ongoing.

Member of Parliament Gellerman requested concrete reforms, and they are coming here. One could have procurements that extend over longer periods and over larger geographical areas to promote more bids and thus better innovations and more efficient work.

We have also said that the responsible authority, Trafikverket, needs to become a better procurement authority and that the authority's own resources need to be strengthened. We were the first to demand that Trafikverket should have access to its own special machinery, which the government subsequently presented. We have also spoken about the need to build up competence, partly under its own management, but also the general procurement competence.

Let me also correct Member Helena Gellerman on one point. I did not speak about the improvements that this government has implemented, but I spoke about the cuts that the government calls cost control. They hit the industry, the climate transition that we must carry out, and the defense's needs incredibly hard. Cuts are not the way forward. The way forward is to build faster and cheaper.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! This is the last truly major debate on infrastructure during this parliamentary term. Even though I am running again, one must have great respect for the fact that an election is to be held. For my part, this is therefore a bit of a summary of eight years in politics, with four years in opposition and now four years in government.

If I look back, some of the issues that I raised in various contexts during the last parliamentary term were that new financing, alternative financing, changed reduction obligation, increased road maintenance, a stronger corridor thinking, new fuel and vehicle taxation, as well as youth driving licenses were needed.

When looking back to see what has happened during these four years, one sees that there is now a balance target. Personally, I even believe that one could have had a deficit target, since Sweden is the country in Europe that has the absolutely lowest public debt. If one had used the money correctly, that is to say invested in the future, one would have come further. Regardless, we have a new target that the Riksdag has stood behind and which allows us to invest in infrastructure.

When it comes to the question of alternative financing, we have a government that has worked on the issue. We have produced OPS thoughts and are working on an operating company. I believe that this will turn out very well.

One of the things that I myself have highlighted on several occasions is the Malmbanan. One could very well imagine a new situation where Sweden, Norway and Finland could cooperate regarding Malmbanan, roughly as with the Öresund connection. It is going to be incredibly exciting when the operating company is finally in place, and as mentioned, they are investigating further details regarding the legalities. That is what should be done before launching anything.

I want to mention the Kristdemokraternas shift. If one is to be honest, it was actually only the Sverigedemokraterna who said no to the legislation on the reduction obligation that was voted through in 2019. This was handled in the Agriculture Committee, but what happened, which is very exciting because one sometimes forgets how much "stuprör" (narrow-mindedness/tunnel vision) there is in politics, was that those who reached out directly after the decision had been made were primarily farmers and private individuals. If the plan from 2019 had been followed, the fuel price today would have been over 40 kronor per liter.

I am incredibly happy that I had the privilege, together with Johan Ingerö, to make the party leadership realize that it must take action on this. During the election campaign, the Moderaterna also shifted, and we were then able to negotiate a solution that allows us to stay at 20 kronor per liter despite the war – and I drive diesel, so that is what I am comparing it with. It is an incredible difference compared to the 28 kronor the price was at during the last election. Above all, it is a big difference compared to what the price otherwise would have been. This affects people, inflation, and agriculture, as well as all trade and every single transport that takes place.

If I have politically achieved anything in this chamber, I would personally dare to assert that this is the most important issue that I have been involved in driving and seeing implemented, if one looks at how individual people have saved money and received more money in their wallets.

Another important issue that we have raised is increased maintenance of roads. That is what is happening now. I am extremely pleased that the government chooses to dare to invest in building away the maintenance debt. Every pothole on state roads shall be gone in twelve years. The thought of corridors has already been debated in a number of exchanges, but it is incredibly important that one maintains the idea of corridors.

What I miss is a discussion on fuel and vehicle taxation, but the government has taken the initiative for an investigation, and I believe we will have to discuss this. Given the electric cars that are coming onto the market, we will sooner or later end up in a situation where we need to discuss how we should finance the infrastructure – one only has to compare with Norway.

I know that not all parties agree on that, and I respect that. Sometimes it takes time to see where a change in the world is occurring. It is also about how to handle the large transports from other countries. In Germany, there is today a significantly better solution with digital payment.

Regarding the issue of youth driving licenses, I am grateful for Andreas's work, as the situation has improved regarding attractors. It does not prevent the Christian Democrats from having previously actually said that one should do as Finland and France do and review the possibility of being able to obtain a driving license already at 16–17 years of age, especially for those who live in rural areas. That would have solved even more problems.

Madam Speaker! I have the privilege of having my party colleague Andreas with me in this debate, and he will take the floor a little later. I will therefore be so bold as to describe our national plan from a Västra Götaland perspective. In fact, an incredible amount has happened: road 40, road 45, the Gothenburg package, BK4 and individual roads. A fantastic development is occurring right now because there is a purposeful strategy.

We see the Göteborg–Borås railway, Göteborg–Alingsås, and the Kinnekullebanan, including the Inlandsbanan. Those who know their railways know that it is not far between the Inlandsbanan and the Kinnekullebanan. There is a stretch via Otterbäcken. I believe that moving forward, one should also look at that stretch. Then it would be possible to take the train all the way from Abisko to the port of Göteborg via an inland system. In the current plan, these things are included.

I am a bit surprised here, Madam Speaker, because both the Social Democrats and the Centre Party were involved during the last parliamentary term and established a national plan where Göteborg–Alingsås was not included. People talk about the whole, but the last time they were involved in implementing something, the whole was not included.

Madam Speaker! I am speaking about shipping, the tonnage tax, simpler rules for leasing and chartering ships, new icebreakers, the locks in Trollhättan, that it should be easier to change personnel – where both the police and the Coast Guard have actually listened – and that we shall facilitate flagging. We hear at least in some contexts that this will have effects for, for example, the Gotland traffic. It is fantastically good that we are implementing changes that strengthen Swedish shipping.

Madam Speaker! I am speaking about aviation and the increased support for the municipal airports. This affects us. There are actually two airports that are operational in Västra Götaland: Landvetter, which is state-owned, and the one in Trollhättan–Vänersborg, which is municipal. It is an incredible addition.

Another question, which I personally have worked a lot on together with an official named Saga and my colleague Hans Eklind, is air traffic control. The truth is that we had a financial problem, but by raising the issue, the government has handled it. That means we can fly now, because air traffic control is functioning, instead of it having become a stop.

We facilitate alternative fuels and support travel policies. Municipalities and state agencies own airports but have had a travel policy of not using them. It is a completely fascinating notion. Everyone would have thought it was crazy to purchase a car for a municipal administration and then tell the staff that they are not allowed to use the car. They have, in other words, financed municipal and regional airports and then said: Do not use them! It is totally nonsensical, now that we see a change that is positive.

All these changes have actually benefited Swedish aviation. They benefit a company like GKN. GKN is a fantastic company, formerly Volvo Flygmotor. 90–95 percent of everything they produce goes to export. They improve the climate in the whole world with their research, their investments, and their exports. When I last had the privilege of listening to them, they were working, among other things, on hydrogen engines in order to be able to handle hydrogen operation.

We are going to have a totally transformed aviation market. If I, as a simple fortune teller, dared to predict, I would say that in the future we will fly with electricity on short distances. We will fly with hydrogen in areas such as Europe, the USA's domestic market and Australia, and then we will have biofuels when we fly between continents.

We will have a completely new aviation market that will be extremely environmentally friendly. Why then are there those who fight against this environmentally friendly technology and the Swedish companies that improve it for everyone?

Madam Speaker! Am I satisfied? No. A politician who is satisfied could actually write that press release: Now we are finished. We are going home. I do not think that is going to happen.

What is it then that I might not be satisfied with? I think we should have come further with Oslo–Göteborg. I am glad that there are members in this chamber who on several occasions raise Oslo–Göteborg. I believe that we need to do it together.

Then we have the Bohusbanan. When I, as a resident of Uddevalla, look at the Bohusbanan and then at the tracks in the rest of Västra Götaland, I can state that my travel time from Uddevalla to Gothenburg is just as long as traveling from Mellerud, while from Trollhättan it is half the travel time. I don't care about taking the times, because people don't say that much. But of two municipalities that are located exactly the same distance from Gothenburg, one has twice as long a travel time as the other. It is clear that we should have done more there.

It will not happen any more if one does not cooperate. It is actually a message home to my own local politicians: It will not happen any more if one does not cooperate. Look at the 45! There, cooperation has occurred. It is included in the plan.

Madam Speaker! I will exceed my speaking time by a few minutes.

In the future, we must work with Nato. We are currently working on that. What I experience when I am out on study visits is that there is a problem that doesn't actually lie with us. The problem is that many municipalities, especially port municipalities, experience that when communicating with the Armed Forces, it is like communicating with a black hole. You send information in and get nothing back. It makes it very difficult to plan.

With all respect for security: At the same moment we begin to build a road, I promise you that everyone else has seen it. One can sometimes reflect on the security perspective and security thinking. If we are to produce what is needed for the host country agreement, we must have better cooperation between municipalities, regions, the Armed Forces, and the national level.

We also need – I believe I raised it when we had the large port debate – a new port investigation. Now I don't have the year in my head, but I believe the latest one came in 2009. Incredibly much has happened in the port area. We still have not resolved the connections between port, municipality, and Trafikverket. I can see nothing other than that one needs to work forward here.

I have already mentioned the new fuel and vehicle taxation. I believe it is absolutely necessary. If we are to manage the competition on the continent, our hauliers must have the same conditions as everyone else, and it is simply a matter of stating that the system we have today has actually been left by everyone else. It is only Sweden and Luxembourg that still have it.

We need to find a new way to collect payment when others drive on our roads. In the future, we will also need to find a way to collect payment when we also drive on our roads. Regardless: It is we who are involved in paying for the infrastructure we have.

However, it does not apply to the railway. It costs 40 billion per year and pays in 2 billion. It is perhaps one of the most subsidized modes of transport we have.

Then we have, of course, the great challenge with environment and technology – I take that last because it is the largest. Of course, we need to find new ways of working, but what is interesting to see in Sweden is that the companies are already there. All parties are also actually in agreement, even if we are not always in agreement on the pace.

I am very clear that I do not belong to those who believe in the idea that Sweden should go ahead, on the contrary. We shall negotiate within the EU, ensure that we have good agreements in the EU and then work within the EU. It is because it disadvantages our companies if we engage in a lot of special rules.

Unfortunately, we see the same phenomena in municipalities. Individual municipalities are moving ahead, and they have their own alternative environmental regulations that make it completely impossible for, for example, the construction industry to produce housing.

If we want to succeed with environmental policy, we must work in the large systems and realize that the environment is global and that we therefore must work globally.

With these simple words, Madam Speaker, I thank you for this parliamentary term. I also thank all my colleagues and move to approve the committee's proposal and reject all reservations.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report Infrastructure Issues, a report that deals with over 200 motions and the government's national plan. There is an enormous amount to say about the report, but today I choose to focus on the railway.

The national plan is submitted for a decision once every parliamentary term, and the government can then choose to revise the existing plan or to produce a new one. In this case, they have chosen to do the latter. This means, therefore, that there was an opportunity to do something new. The Tidö parties' national plan is, however, a missed opportunity to build a modern and sustainable transport system.

It is, in fact, a major reorganization of the transport infrastructure that is required precisely during the upcoming planning period. The transport sector's 2030 goals, that emissions should have decreased by 70 percent by then, are only four years away. The geopolitical situation adds an additional dimension and makes it urgent to break Sweden's fossil dependency as soon as possible.

Transitioning is therefore not just a climate issue but also a question of security of supply, stability, and security. The 2030 goal should therefore have been visible on every side of the plan, but that is not the case, Madam Speaker. Instead, the basic prerequisites are the same old ones, which we know lead astray.

The plan is based on forecasting and historical data where the development of road traffic is overestimated and the railway is underestimated. This has been done many times before over the years, and that is also why the sharp increase in travel on the railway that has occurred in recent decades has not been met with expanded capacity.

Sweden actually has all the prerequisites to have a world-class railway but today instead has an old, worn-out and underdimensioned railway, a railway where very many faults are reported every day – an average of 200 faults per day on a railway that consists of single tracks to 80 percent. It is clear that it becomes vulnerable.

In 2024, the lowest punctuality on the railway in ten years was recorded. The year before, 2023, punctuality was also down at record-low levels. The total delay time for passenger trains that year was 3.85 million minutes.

The outcome across the country also shows large geographical differences in the figures. In 2023, on average, every train from Luleå was delayed by twelve minutes. Converted to time over the whole year, it means that travelers to and from Luleå during 2023 spent a month waiting for delayed trains. I believe there are many who have stood and waited on a cold platform who would gladly like to have that month back.

Madam Speaker! The capacity shortage and the maintenance debt on the railway are two parts of the same problem that must be handled in parallel. But the government has chosen another path.

The Minister for Infrastructure has been clear that new railway projects must take a backseat in favor of maintenance – he has said this repeatedly. It could have been an interesting move if one actually did what they say they are going to do, but that is not what is happening. No major investment in the neglected maintenance is planned during the upcoming planning period. Only 10 percent of the maintenance debt is to be handled until 2037. The rest is pushed into the future.

This means, according to the Minister for Infrastructure's own reasoning, that new capacity has to take a backseat to – yes, to what? Well, to insufficient maintenance where 90 percent is pushed into the future.

The maintenance debt on the railway is also expected to be handled effectively in a deregulated market. There is nothing to suggest that it will succeed. On the contrary! After Banverket was abolished in 2010 and maintenance was put out to tender, the maintenance debt has surged from 36 billion a few years ago to today's 90 billion – that is, in a few years from 36 to 90 billion. This is a clear market failure that we need to resolve.

But the Tidö parties' solution is instead to dig even deeper into what we know does not work. One of the proposals that has circulated to achieve increased efficiency has been that Trafikverket should outsource its procurement. Chew on that for a moment.

Another solution that often recurs is that the railway's various actors should cooperate more. But what incentives do profit-driven actors have to cooperate, and is it not still the ultimate proof of a market failure when one expects that the railway's structural problems with fragmentation and lack of control should be solved by profit-driven actors cooperating? It is a rejection of competition and deregulation as a method and a clear argument that we must organize Swedish railways in a completely different way than we do today.

From Vänsterpartiet, the message is clear; the market reforms have reached their end. Let social utility, not profit interest, be the guiding principle for the railway and take back the maintenance in our own hands. Now we have left the maintenance to the market for 15 years, and the maintenance mountain has grown gigantically large during these years. It is high time to take back control, both the economic and the democratic.

Madam Speaker! I also want to take this opportunity, now that it concerns the railway, to strongly question the Tidö parties' way of calling Ostlänken, with its new station location in Linköping, a prestige project. It is not a prestige project, it is a completely necessary capacity enhancement that must be done. To call it a prestige project is both out of touch with reality and derogatory. It also raises the question of what would not have been built historically if previous generations of politicians had looked at new infrastructure projects in that way. Would we have had the subway in Stockholm? Would the Öresund Bridge have been built? Probably not. It would have been a great loss, in the same way as the cut Ostlänken also is a great loss.

From the Left Party's side, we also take a critical stance towards the government's priorities, where they have two large highway projects in Stockholm in the plans, one of which, Östlig förbindelse, has been classified as robustly unprofitable. Together, these highways cost 60 billion to build. It is therefore about 60 billion on a new highway in Stockholm, where public transport is well developed, while at the same time they remove Tomteboda rail yard from the plans and with it the possibility to build away the capacity shortage at Stockholm Central Station.

This does not build a sustainable transport system for the future, and it also does not build capacity on a railway where travel is expected to increase by 50 percent by 2045.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation number 15, which is a joint reservation where the entire opposition stands behind the transport sector's 2030 goals. It is an important message. And I also move for approval of the Left Party's reservation number 5.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! We are debating TU20 Infrastructure Issues. Every year we have a report called Infrastructure Issues, but this year the report covers the most important document that the Liberals have been involved in producing within the transport area during the mandate period, namely the national infrastructure plan 2026–2037 which the government decided on in April this year.

I am incredibly proud of this document. With the record-breaking total framework of 1,171 billion as the base, an increase of 27 percent compared to the previous infrastructure plan, we have created content that will improve infrastructure across the entire country, increase traffic safety on our roads and improve punctuality on the railway, lower climate emissions and at the same time improve the connection between the different modes of transport. It provides improvements for everyone who commutes to work, studies or goes on holiday around our country, and it provides better transport for our companies.

Sweden's competitiveness and the possibility of running businesses and creating new jobs throughout the country require functioning transport. The investment in our infrastructure is also necessary for our preparedness.

Madam Speaker! Actually, I could end my speech here and let the content of the infrastructure plan speak for itself. The document is well worth reading in its entirety with its many measures and improvements.

I choose, however, to provide an overview and make some points regarding the infrastructure plan.

The government's priorities are that the investments shall contribute to ensuring that people and companies can, as soon as possible, rely on the trains arriving on time, so that they do not have to stand in rain and cold, and that the roads shall hold up for the increasingly heavier vehicles. Cooperation between all modes of transport shall be in focus. Infrastructure in all of Sweden shall function and the transport systems must be developed in corridors, so that we, for example, can quickly derive the benefits of a new railway. Bottlenecks shall be removed. We must also develop the digitalization of the infrastructure to extract higher capacity from existing roads and railways. The transport system shall also facilitate the climate transition and Sweden's capability in crisis and war, also with a connection to the developments in our global environment and our membership in Nato.

As a basis for achieving this, we must maintain our current infrastructure. It is the measure that affects people's everyday journeys most and fastest, that is to say, providing for example the trains with the conditions to arrive on time.

Maintenance simultaneously provides the highest socio-economic benefit and the highest climate benefit. With 354 billion, all deferred maintenance on our roads can be caught up by 2037. This work can be followed on Trafikverket's website, where they now show annually the status of Sweden's road network and how the road network is being improved, road section by road section. It is a system that was developed on this government's initiative. It is important that one gets an overview and understands what is happening in one's own region.

With 210 billion for railway maintenance, Trafikverket can reduce the maintenance debt as much as is possible right now, without journeys and companies' transports suffering to a very high degree. All deferred maintenance on our railways shall be rectified by 2050. To increase the pace already during the planning period, the government has given several assignments to Trafikverket to streamline the maintenance. This has resulted in that new maintenance trains have already been ordered and that more efficient methods have been developed.

Innovations among subcontractors are increasing simultaneously, as in Vossloh's newly opened factory where switches are prefabricated, which reduces time on tracks and increases the pace of switch replacement.

Madam Speaker! Simultaneously with the maintenance, we are investing 607 billion in new capacity and removing bottlenecks. On the railway, for example, we are undertaking eleven measures on the Malmbanan in the north. We continue the construction of Norrbotniabanan, Nya Ostkustbanan, Göteborg–Borås, Lund–Hässleholm and Ostlänken, build new infrastructure to Arlanda as well as make investments around Malmö – all to increase capacity.

And finally, the largest capacity shortage on the entire railway network, Göteborg–Alingsås, has entered the plans – finally! Göteborgs Hamn, Green Cargo, and SJ all point to this section as one of the absolutely highest prioritized projects in Sweden. The section has a major impact on all of Sweden, both for passengers and on a number of freight routes, for example down from the Norrland coast and out through Göteborgs Hamn.

It is quite inconceivable that no governments have included it in the plan earlier. But we in the Liberals are, in this government and with our coalition partner, now building two new tracks on the Göteborg–Alingsås section. Of my eight years in the Riksdag, I am perhaps most proud of just this, two new tracks between Göteborg and Alingsås – finally!

Madam Speaker! We are also investing heavily in the ERTMS signaling system, so that we can pack the trains closer together and thereby significantly increase the capacity on Swedish railways.

A total of approximately 80 percent of the 607 billion goes to new capacity for the railway, and the total framework of 1,171 billion is distributed approximately 50–50 between road and railway.

In addition to roads and railways, I also want to mention our investment in new icebreakers, because icebreaking in the north is a prerequisite for many Swedish companies.

Madam Speaker! For Swedish infrastructure, cost control is by far the most important issue. There are many urgent infrastructure needs, and the money must suffice for a lot. The National Audit Office has, in nine reports since 2017, highlighted the problem of poor cost control, not least when it concerns the unfunded high-speed railway. The National Audit Office gave the previous S-MP government harsh criticism, without anything happening.

Our government has now tightened cost control at Trafikverket. We review all projects that exceed the budget by more than 10 percent at the start of construction and have given Trafikverket efficiency requirements of 900 million kronor per year. We have introduced a reserve fund of 38 billion, which, after supplementary applications, shall handle projects that, for acceptable reasons, exceed their budget.

In this plan, projects have been removed from the plan due to significantly increased costs. This has resulted in that three times as many more profitable projects have been able to be included in the plans. To that, we also add assignments for more efficient production methods. This government is turning the ship around together with Trafikverket. We increase cost control and get out more infrastructure for the money we invest.

What truly worries me about the future is not the new cost control that the government has introduced. What worries me is the opposition's criticism of the cost control and of the fact that the government is now introducing structures that ensure we get realistic bases for new projects and that dampen additions during the project's progress that lead to skyrocketing project costs. It is, in fact, the cost at the start of construction that applies if a project is to be built.

The answer I received from the Social Democrats in an exchange of remarks regarding how they instead want to create cost control did not impress. It will not create the systemic shift for cost control that is needed and that the government is now implementing.

Madam Speaker! To achieve cross-border roads and railways more quickly, however, an expanded cooperation across the borders to Norway, Denmark, and Finland is required.

With this infrastructure plan, we also get better functioning hubs for transshipment between trains and trucks to maritime transport in our ports and better public transport to larger airports.

Here I want to highlight the government's important support and development of the Swedish airport network. Our airports must have the conditions to function. Aviation pays incomparably the most for its infrastructure, and the support aviation receives is small in relation to what aviation contributes to Swedish growth. For the Liberals, it is clear that all modes of transport are needed and must be used effectively together.

Madam Speaker! The transport sector accounts for a third of Sweden's carbon dioxide emissions, and the largest part comes from road traffic. The Swedish vehicle fleet must be electrified. Politics' most important task is to ensure that the charging infrastructure does not become a bottleneck in the transition and to facilitate domestic fossil-free fuels.

Over three years, 2024–2026, we have invested over 12 billion on charging infrastructure, support for the purchase of trucks and work machines, and support for new fuels. We have introduced a new support for certain groups to be able to buy or lease a new or used electric car, so that more can participate in the transition already now. We have also introduced the right to get a charging pole for one's car at multi-family dwellings.

We Liberals are pushing for electrification, so that emissions are reduced and the biofuels that are available can go to aviation and shipping, which have a harder time transitioning.

If we are to meet our climate goals and streamline our transports, research, innovation, and technological development are required within all four modes of transport. A major technological challenge in the near term is the self-driving cars, which are now being introduced on a large scale in the USA. We are now developing legislation that enables the utilization of the technology while simultaneously meeting safety requirements and requirements for personal privacy.

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

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: This is the transport committee's last major report during this parliamentary term. And it will be the last for me during my eight years in the Riksdag, as I will henceforth focus on the Västra Götaland region.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank you for a fantastic parliamentary term. We coalition parties have together achieved so many improvements within the transport area. I want to thank the Minister Andreas Carlson for open and constructive meetings, which have been the foundation for everything we have done. And I want to thank the parties in the opposition, who have forced us to stay on our toes while we have had a good atmosphere in the transport committee.

Finally: A big thank you to the Traffic Committee's administrative staff for all your work and the professional support I have received during my eight years in the Riksdag. I would finally like to thank the speakers and the Chamber Office, who have kept us in order during our debates.

Thank you for having together created a very rewarding mandate period!

(Applause)

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! It is remarkable that the Liberal member speaks so warmly about cost control, but the only proposals we have seen concern re-evaluating or withdrawing already decided investments. Proposals to build smarter or build cheaper have been conspicuously absent during the last parliamentary term.

Madam Speaker! However, that is not what I want to focus on in this exchange, but I have another question.

The Liberals have for a long time spoken warmly about research, innovation, and the transport systems of the future. I noted that the Liberals' Gellerman said that she is incredibly proud of the national plan that has now been decided. But the same national plan involves a halving of the resources for research and innovation within the transport area.

Therefore, my question is: Are the Liberals incredibly proud that Sweden, in a situation of tough international competition, so significantly reduces ambitions when it comes to precisely research and innovation?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the questions!

When it comes to this matter of us building smarter, I believe one of the most important things to bring down the costs is to send a signal out to all of Sweden that we now must hold onto the money. I believe the most important measure we have taken during this mandate period is that we have said that it is the construction start that counts. What does the project cost in relation to when it was initiated? What does it cost when we are about to start building?

If one continues with this, one will not be able to submit projects where a low valuation is made from the start which then increases sharply, because then there is a risk that it will not be built. It also prevents regions, companies, and municipalities all over the country from submitting a huge number of measures that are certainly good but which actually were not what we included in the national plan. It sends the signal that it is now time to hold back the money all over Sweden. It is the most important measure to achieve cost control.

The chairman said in a previous exchange that the climate, for example, was not included in the underlying documents, but it has been included. During my term, it went from 1 krona per kilo to 7 kronor per kilo, so it is included when calculating what a project should cost.

We have taken very great consideration of defense in this plan.

When it comes to skills development, our party, Liberalerna, has put a lot into the university colleges – I believe it is 40,000 new places – so that one can create the competence required to be able to build everything we have in the new plan.

I do not agree at all that we have not done much to bring down the costs.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! My question was, therefore, how the Liberals view the fact that the appropriations for research and innovation have been halved. Not one word did Member Gellerman say about it. And that perhaps speaks for itself.

It is difficult for the Liberals – a party that speaks warmly about educational issues and even claims to be Sweden's education party – to stand behind a national plan that the Sweden Democrats have probably had a very large influence over. What we see now is, in fact, a halving of the appropriations for research and innovation, billion-kronor cuts. That is not something a liberal should stand for. And perhaps that was exactly why I did not hear a single word about how the member sees that cut.

But perhaps the Liberals will take the chance when I now pose the question once again: How do you view, and are you still "incredibly proud" of, the national plan which entails a halving of the appropriations for research and innovation within the transport sector? How is Sweden to build the future's sustainable maintenance systems and the future's sustainable innovative transport systems if one cuts so drastically on research and innovation? I want an answer to that, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I think I have two plus two minutes, so therefore I started with the cost control. If we get the plan in order so that we have control over our costs, we will in the future be able to get much more money than the 3.4 billion that we have reduced, so that we can invest even more in research. One must create the money before one can use it.

At the same time, research is extremely important – our parties stand for that. In the research bill, we dramatically increased the part that is to go to applied research.

When conducting procurements, one can create space for suppliers to be able to make innovations, such as that I mentioned in my speech regarding Vossloh's factory, where they have started prefabricating switches in order to achieve much faster production methods. A great deal of this is happening in our companies, and it is important that we truly take advantage of it.

At the same time, when we make this reduction within research, I assume that Trafikverket will report back on what consequences it has. In the next step, one could then see what it is we need to adjust, if these 3.4 billion have too great consequences.

I believe it is good that, just as we are reducing the number of people at Trafikverket, we review in all parts of the organization how research can be shaped moving forward. But I share the member's wonder regarding what consequences this will have. I assume that Trafikverket will revert if they see that it has far too great consequences for research moving forward.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Gellerman, for the speech.

I have two questions. One has some bearing on the same issues that Aylin Nouri raised, so I choose to raise the other question.

The chairperson said she was incredibly proud of what had been improved and could not understand how Göteborg–Alingsås could not have been included in the plans earlier. But in November 2006, an infrastructure minister stood here at the rostrum and had to answer the question why Floda–Aspen was not in the plans. That was because the municipality called Lerum, a year earlier, in 2005, had said a firm no and that neither of the two alternatives that existed then was feasible.

So, it is about a long process of influence work over many years. I am also pleased that previous deadlocks have eased so that this proposal can now be presented – I truly hope that it becomes a reality.

I just wanted to clarify a little bit. It sounded like the issues had not been understood, and I wondered why there hadn't been any investment in these parts before. The member might want to comment on some of this so that we can reach a bit further back in time than the eight years that the member referred to.

My second question, which I also choose to ask, is the one about research. 0.34 percent of the plan is invested in research. The member is very aware of how much companies within this industry invest in research. What is it that makes the state not consider itself needing to invest in research when it comes to these parts?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions. I think they are very relevant.

We can start with the first one, which concerns Göteborg–Alingsås. I have personally been involved in this since 2006. We were the only municipality that said no out of 49 municipalities in Västra Götaland. That was because we knew what was required to build between Floda and Aspen.

What Banverket presented would not work. There were so many costs that were not included in that calculation. One was to build on quick clay – there was nothing about stabilizing it all. One was to build in existing traffic. The section they intended to build was too short for the high-speed trains to be able to overtake the slow trains. There were so many errors that Banverket withdrew its proposal.

Five years later, I believe it was, a proposal was submitted – exactly the same proposal that we had submitted in 2006: that we should build north of Aspen. Now this becomes very local, but I know that the member knows this. Then the proposal was submitted that we, as the only municipality in all of Västra Götaland, had put forward. It was completely correct.

In the new investigation that Trafikverket produced in 2024, they point to exactly the same stretch as we pointed out in 2006. I believe that we in Lerum were probably more correct than the other 48 municipalities when it comes to just this.

I will wait until the next turn to answer the second question regarding research.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Gellerman, for the answer to my first question!

I think it is important to be able to trace the timelines backward to make people understand. We are talking about the plan that currently applies for twelve years, and then further plans will follow. That means we are looking very far ahead, and then we also need to look backward to understand why we are where we are today. I know that the member is extremely knowledgeable in the area, so thank you for the answer!

Let me bring up this point regarding the research. Companies in this industry perhaps invest 3–7 percent. We perhaps should not compare with Ericsson with 20 percent, but IT companies still invest between 50 and 30 percent on research. It is known that the research is one thing and that the results of it are part of the profit. But it is also about building up a competence in this area that Trafikverket has use of and that politics has use of.

You are destroying large parts of a research policy ecosystem for transport research when you cut by as much as 3.4 billion kronor. It is an incredible amount of money.

In a previous exchange, the member said that we can scale back now, because we are going to free up money to invest in it later. But it will become jerky, and there will be an enormous shortage of competence linked to these parts if one does not utilize the competence that exists. Should one sit and wait for something that comes later – there will be nothing left! That is the transport research we are talking about.

The Chairman just mentioned the applied research, which had been targeted in the research bill. This is indeed highly applied. Therefore, it becomes so difficult to understand how, in the Tidö cooperation and not least from the Liberals' side, one says to be so incredibly proud but still does not have answers to these questions.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I mentioned a bit about the research bill in my previous contribution.

With these changes, I believe that more attention will be paid to cooperating with suppliers and creating joint research projects. I myself have a long history when it comes to research within the automotive industry. There, people have entered from the universities and Trafikverket, and above all, the large international companies have entered with their development capacity and participated in research projects. They have been involved in taking the research results and making innovations that people in general have been able to benefit from.

I believe it could be a signal that even in this area where Trafikverket provides funding, one could increase that part. At the same time, I share the member's concern if the cuts become too severe.

Regarding the second discussion we have had here, about whether to use large market suppliers to improve maintenance, I can mention that international companies – as well as Volvo, Scania and Volvo passenger cars – have great capacity to develop, research and innovate. There, Trafikverket could enter into a significantly closer cooperation, so that we could quickly get out what has been developed to the public and into our infrastructure.

This is something I have heard people in other countries say about the Swedish system. Just the connection to the large companies ensures that we quickly get our innovations out. I believe that this can be such a signal.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! After four years with the Tidö government, we can state that it is a failure. Sweden is worse equipped to meet an oil crisis now than before the Tidö government took office. Sweden is more dependent on fossil fuels produced in Russia, Iran, or Saudi Arabia than before Andreas Carlson became Minister for Infrastructure and before Ulf Kristersson became Prime Minister. Sweden is therefore now more vulnerable.

At the beginning of the mandate period, a great fuss was made about all modes of transport being welcome, but the Tidö government has consistently favored fossil fuels – with a total of 70 billion in subsidies – and at the same time, for the greater part of the mandate period, made it harder and more expensive to travel by train or by public transport. Then came a substantial amount of election pork here at the end, three months before the election.

But the consequence is, therefore, that the energy source whose use has increased the most during the mandate period is fossil energy, equivalent to two nuclear power plants per year.

The first and perhaps most damaging thing in the long term that this government did was to stop investments in new main lines and thereby also waste tens of billions in co-financing from the EU that Sweden had received for new railways. Now, a national plan is being presented that further locks Sweden into a fossil dependency. It is bad for the climate, for competitiveness, and for our security.

Necessary investments in the railway are being omitted. Rail travel in Sweden has more than doubled in recent decades. The business sector wants to be able to transport more goods in a climate-smart way by rail, and for most people, it is quite obvious that not only maintenance on the railway was needed, but also more capacity. But that is not the case for this government.

The government has stopped investments in new main lines in southern Sweden. For northern Sweden, full funding is missing for the expansion of the new Ostkustbanan. Previous conservative governments have delayed the expansion of the Norrbotniabanan by over ten years.

Madam Speaker! We definitely need to maintain the existing railway better, but the level of ambition of this government is unacceptably low. It is, therefore, about a measly increase of approximately 5 percent of the maintenance. This means that practically almost the entire maintenance debt for the railway is pushed into the future after the end of the planning period.

What Andreas Carlson usually boasts about, and what we have also heard Moderate members boast about – more gear shifts than ever and so on – is however the result of the previous national plan, which the Green Party developed together with the Social Democrats and the January cooperation. There, however, we increased the maintenance by 50 percent. That was thus ten times more when calculated in percentage points.

We still have not received an answer regarding the reclamation of the maintenance. One is to reclaim 10 or maximum 15 percent of the maintenance during this planning period. Then the rest, 85 percent, is to be reclaimed in the same period. But it is therefore impossible to increase the ambitions during this planning period. That logic does not add up.

Miljöpartiet has, on the contrary, presented a plan to reclaim the maintenance entirely and fully during this planning period, both on roads and on railways.

Over the last 30 years, rail travel has, as said, more than doubled. This clearly shows that people want to travel sustainably. The will is there. The needs are there. But our railway system has not kept up.

Today, the railway is struggling with two major problems. It is capacity shortage and deferred maintenance. These two problems reinforce each other. When the tracks become full, the system becomes more vulnerable. When something goes wrong, the disruptions spread quickly. At the same time, it becomes harder to carry out maintenance when it is crowded on the tracks.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, we need to do more than just patch and repair. If we are to seriously solve the problems, we must expand the capacity fundamentally. That is why new main lines are needed throughout Sweden. It is absolutely crucial for our country.

The system does not work if the main arteries do not work. In the end, it is people who are affected by delayed trains and long waits. They do not get home. They do not get to work. They do not arrive in time to pick up children from preschool and so on.

Madam Speaker! This national plan is in fact a betrayal of Sweden's train travelers. There are fewer kilometers of new railway in this infrastructure plan than in the previous one. The government leaves the large maintenance debt for the railway to the future, and the government completely lacks a vision or a holistic perspective when it comes to the railway's needs. This will result in people being left behind on the platform, waiting for delayed trains, for a long time to come.

Madam Speaker! We need new main lines throughout Sweden. Miljöpartiet wants to see new interconnected main lines in southern Sweden with a hub in Jönköping. New interconnected main lines make it easier to travel both by long-distance trains and by regional public transport. At the same time, it will be better for freight trains. With interconnected main lines, we intend to link the ongoing projects Ostlänken, Göteborg–Borås, and Lund–Hässleholm into a system. It is about achieving full capacity and actually utilizing the combined investments in a much more efficient way. This would significantly relieve the existing tracks on the Södra stambanan and the Västra stambanan.

A fast railway connection between Stockholm and Oslo could replace many flights and also replace a considerable amount of car traffic between the larger cities along the route. Above all, it would connect two of Europe's important capitals, namely Stockholm and Oslo.

Two pressing projects for new main lines in northern Sweden are the Ostkustbanan, including the Ådalsbanan, and the Norrbotniabanan. During the 2022 election campaign, Ulf Kristersson promised that the entire new Ostkustbanan would be completed by 2035. Now it is unfortunately clear that the promise has been broken, as the government's investment in Ostkustbanan does not even cover what Trafikverket previously removed. Above all, it is by no means enough for passengers and the business community to receive the new double track, along the entire stretch, that they have long been waiting for.

Miljöpartiet instead adds 45 billion SEK to the new Ostkustbanan, in addition to the funds that are already in the national plan to complete the entire new Ostkustbanan within the planning period.

Madam Speaker! More investments are needed all around Sweden. On the west coast, double track between Maria station and Helsingborg is needed as soon as possible, so that we can remove that bottleneck. On the Norge/Vänerbanan, we need to renovate the Göteborg–Oslo section. We need to strengthen the Inlandsbanan for freight – it is about increased redundancy and capacity. We need a new rail yard in Tomteboda. This stops the government. Ostlänken needs to continue through Linköping to then be connected with a system for new main lines. This also stops the government.

Madam Speaker! The government has removed the so-called urban environment agreements. Miljöpartiet wants to reintroduce the removed urban environment agreements and introduce a rural environment agreement. It is a co-financing for regions and municipalities throughout Sweden that invest in pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, public transport, and sustainable freight transport solutions. Trafikverket's evaluations of the previous urban environment agreements show very positive effects. They have contributed to a more sustainable transport system.

We also want to see a targeted initiative with state funding in the national plan for increased accessibility and traffic safety and conditions for attractive cycling.

Madam Speaker! This is an incredibly large report; it is difficult to include everything. But in addition to this, we need to strengthen maritime transport. We need to invest heavily in sustainable fuels for both maritime transport and aviation, and we need to get a real momentum on electrification.

Madam Speaker! We simply need a government that invests in Swedish railways and that makes it possible to travel sustainably in Sweden – with the right solution in the right place.

We in Miljöpartiet naturally stand behind all our reservations in the report, but I move for the approval of reservations 37 and 20.

Since this is the last major debate for the Committee on Transport during this parliamentary term, I would like to take the opportunity to sincerely thank you for a good cooperation. I think that for the most part, there has been a very pleasant and cordial tone in the committee – among all parties. I have truly appreciated that. A thousand thanks!

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! After the 2014 election, the Green Party ensured that the machinery came to a halt when it came to Förbifart Stockholm. It is a project that the Green Party was critical of for a long time, despite it being a project that is truly needed to facilitate traffic in Stockholm.

In the new plan, there are a number of important projects for Stockholm. It concerns a new connection across Södertälje canal. It concerns the Eastern connection. It concerns the Södertörn cross-connection, and it concerns a widening of the E4 towards Arlanda. All these projects are extremely important for the accessibility and availability in Stockholm and for the preparedness.

If we have the misfortune that Miljöpartiet gains influence over infrastructure policy after the election, I wonder: Which of the projects that are extremely important for Stockholm does Miljöpartiet intend to put a stop to?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

This clarifies quite well what different priorities there will be depending on who you vote for. Collectively, not least the Moderaterna and the Tidö government have plowed – if one counts Förbifart Stockholm and potential investments in the Eastern Connection – over 100 billion into new motorways in Stockholm.

It is completely correctly understood that we think it is a misprioritization.

We think we should invest in sustainable travel in Stockholm. It is about strengthening public transport, expanding when it comes to buses, trams, the metro and commuter trains and investing in cycle paths, so that one can travel sustainably in all of Stockholm. It will be our priority.

For 100 billion, you get quite a lot in terms of investments in the railway. With that money, we could have made good progress with new main lines, what the Moderaterna call a prestige project. I do not think it is a prestige project to ensure that Sweden's train travelers do not have to stand and wait for delayed trains, hour in and hour out. It is actually a completely unreasonable situation now.

It is completely correct that Miljöpartiet prioritizes more capacity on the railway over expensive motorways in Stockholm.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I just want to remind Linus Lakso that 80 percent in the national plan, which the government has decided on, goes to railway. It is not the case that the majority goes to road.

I do not know if Linus Lakso is aware of it, but buses, that is to say public transport, can actually also run on these roads. One could find completely new routes even for public transport in Stockholm on these roads.

An enormous advantage of the Eastern Connection is that there will be 50,000 fewer cars in the city center. I believe that many city center residents would appreciate it if cars that actually do not need to go through the city can go around it instead.

I simply make this interpretation: If we have the misfortune that Miljöpartiet gains influence over the infrastructure, the investigation into a new connection over Södertälje canal will disappear. The eastern connection will disappear. The Södertörn cross-connection will disappear, and the widening of the E4 will disappear. It will create traffic chaos when the bypass opens.

It is a clear message to Stockholm County, and it is extremely sad because it concerns roads that Stockholm truly needs and which would increase the accessibility and opportunities for new public transport routes throughout the city. It is distressing to hear that Miljöpartiet is not looking out for Stockholm's best interests.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to Tvärförbindelse Södertörn, it is exactly the opposite, that this government is removing the possibility of running public transport on it. It is the savings that have been made – one is not to have off-ramps for bus stops and so on. The reality is therefore exactly the opposite of what Maria Stockhaus describes.

If one wants to invest in public transport, one can do it significantly more smartly than by building motorways primarily for cars. Instead, one should expand the metro, commuter trains and better cycle paths – exactly what the people of Stockholm are demanding.

We are critical of the large highway projects but not necessarily of Södertälje kanal and so on. In that regard, I believe Maria Stockhaus is putting words in my mouth. I have not said that we should stop that investment, for example. And what the outcome will be in a government negotiation, none of us can answer. We do not even know how the election will go, so that question is impossible to answer. I can only account for Miljöpartiets position, and I have done so.

If you want trains that arrive on time, a railway that works, an electrification that gains momentum and a Sweden that becomes more independent of fossil fuels, and if you want us to become self-sufficient on our own, renewable energy, you should vote for Miljöpartiet. If you want more motorways in Stockholm, more particulate emissions and exhaust fumes and poorer health for the children here in Stockholm, or whichever city you imagine the Tidö parties should be involved in governing, you should vote for Moderaterna.

It is good that we get forward our different priorities here in the chamber.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I listened very carefully when Linus Lakso gave his speech. I looked for the word cost control. I may not have been attentive enough, but I never heard it.

The previous government with the Social Democrats and the Green Party received devastating criticism from the National Audit Office for not having funded proposals and that a change really must take place. The Green Party is perhaps a partner to the Social Democrats, who are taking up increased cost control.

My question is quite simple: How does the Green Party intend to handle cost control? Do you stand behind the idea that a project, as soon as it has entered the planning phase and regardless of what level it is at, may continue from the start of construction all the way through without anyone putting a stop to it anywhere? How does the Green Party intend to handle cost control?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

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

No, I do not use the word cost control, because I think the government has used it in a completely wrong way. What I have advocated for for a long time, the entire time I have sat on the Committee on Transport, is that we should build more efficiently and rationally. We need to get more value for money.

What this government has done and what it calls cost control is actually just cutting back, removing, and making the projects worse. You don't get more out of the money, you get less. It is clear that you get less if you pay less; it is a fairly simple logic.

Miljöpartiet has long been critical of the efficiency within Trafikverket. It is one of the biggest problems. There, we have pushed for cost control, one could say, and for more efficiency to be achieved.

We believe that it needs to be divided more clearly so that we get an agency that focuses on roads and an agency that focuses on railways. Already when we proposed new main lines during the previous parliamentary term, we proposed a project company that would build new main lines. The government has not even managed to implement that idea eight years later.

We have seen good examples during study trips to Denmark and Norway, but we also see examples in Sweden, such as the Botniabanan. There, we built in a project company, and we did it on time and within budget.

When it comes to scaling up the maintenance, it is about greater state control over the whole, even if it does not need to be fully state-run. We need to work with development, innovation, rationality, and industrialization so that we get standardized processes and the equipment needed to make the maintenance much more efficient. There is much to be done.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. There were still some thoughts there.

When it comes to this government not looking at increased productivity, we have actually done what the previous government did not do for eight years. We have ensured that Trafikverket has purchased new maintenance trains. We are positive about the market and its ability to rationalize. In my speech, I took up, for example, switches and that Vossloh has built a new factory for prefabrication so that it goes quickly once you are on the tracks.

When it comes to what the member mentioned regarding project companies for operating new main lines, Trafikverket did create such a company internally. Still, we saw in 2018, when I entered the Riksdag, that Ostlänken would cost 54 billion and that everything would cost 120 billion. When we said no to new main lines, it was up to 110 billion for Ostlänken and 400 billion in total. The creation of the company did not make the cost go down.

I still wonder how you intend to solve the cost control. Those proposals provided no improvement. My question is: Do you stand behind that a project, as soon as it has entered the plan, should be able to continue to be built without being evaluated at any point? Should it really be built if the cost has, for example, doubled or tripled, as was the case with the new trunk lines?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thought I listed quite a few examples of how we can make both the maintenance and the expansion of the railway more rational. It is a disgrace that Sweden is one of the countries in Europe that builds infrastructure most expensively and slowest. It is actually completely unacceptable.

I do not think we need to have contradictions about everything. What Member of Parliament Helena Gellerman mentioned about what has been initiated, I think is very good. It is a very good start to becoming much better in this area, which we need to become.

I believe that we need to have a long-term and ambitious plan to reclaim all the maintenance within a shorter period, just as Miljöpartiet wants. In that case, I believe we need to scale up the rationality significantly, and first one must set a goal.

We are positive towards the market. It is a good tool when it comes to coming up with new solutions and solving problems, while the state is good at being long-term and stable. We shall combine these two benefits in the best way by having a long-term state control over the maintenance together with the market's innovative power to come up with better solutions and rationalize.

The truth is that it is Miljöpartiet that has presented a plan to resume all maintenance. We also have all the proposals I mentioned to get this moving. Quite the opposite is the case with the plan that the Liberals now stand behind, where the larger part of the maintenance is pushed into the future. Unfortunately, that is not sufficient.

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It has been interesting to listen to the debate. Many speak of the importance of infrastructure. We can agree on that. That is not where the lines diverge in Swedish politics. But historically, there has been too much talk and too little workshop.

Please feel free to talk about political visions for the infrastructure! But the person who is waiting for the train to arrive on time or is standing and waiting on the platform is not interested in another vision, a new roadmap, a new thought, or a new word from politicians in the Swedish Riksdag; they want the train to arrive, and on time.

The person who worries that the car will be smashed, that the truck will break down, or that one cannot get through on roads that do not hold, does not dream of new visions for long-term infrastructure in Sweden. That person wants it to work today. Therefore, the government's and the Christian Democrats' very simple vision during these four years has been that all of Sweden should function.

We are now addressing deficiencies point by point. We are cleaning up problems and tackling things that have been lying around for a long time, things that have even been stated in black and white in the previous government's own decisions, Madam Speaker. One of the consequences of the national plan that was decided upon four years ago was that the condition of the roads would continue to deteriorate.

There has been no lack of political visions, but rather a lack of political ability to execute. Just as was said in the chamber earlier in the debate, Madam Speaker, the Swedish National Audit Office was very clear in its criticism and had "promises more than it can keep" as a subtitle for the review of the previous government's national plan.

It is important to take up what we inherited as a background. We had a historically large maintenance debt that was to begin being addressed when, just under four years ago, we received the trust of the voters to ensure that Sweden can function again. It is a vision that very many people share with the government.

This is a historically large investment. It facilitates people's everyday lives, strengthens the competitiveness of Swedish business, and ensures that deficiencies in Swedish defense capability are built away. It is, in fact, the first national plan that clearly takes into account the needs of the total defense.

We are not pitting the transport laws against each other. We have strengthened the work on cost control. We are opening up for alternative implementation of infrastructure projects. And we are moving away from a narrow thinking of stages to strengthening corridors; we have a societal perspective.

I have noted that it has been discussed in the debate today, but exactly what we are doing is a systems thinking. We are upgrading existing infrastructure. It is not something for the past. It is, on the contrary, a future investment in Swedish competitiveness.

The majority of the journeys that will take place in the future and the majority of the freight that will be transported in the future will take place on infrastructure that we already have today. It is therefore that maintenance must come first, which it also does in the national plan that we are discussing today.

Now we are reversing the development of historical negligence with maintenance. With the government's maintenance plan, we can clear the entire maintenance debt on Swedish roads by 2037 and the maintenance debt on railways by 2050. That is how quickly Trafikverket assesses it is possible.

It is then a matter of injecting funds and implementing the measures that can be taken whenever it is seen that capacity increases as a result of new innovations and new investments that are initiated.

There has been quite a bit of discussion about this today, but approximately half of this plan goes toward maintenance. Here we must probably agree. Even though one can hear from the debate that the election is approaching, I hope there will be a consensus now once and for all that we are not to neglect maintenance again.

Madam Speaker! If I had brought a map with me, I could have shown what it looks like now. It is bright red on many roads in our country. I could also have shown what it will look like in twelve years. Then it will be green. By that, I mean that the maintenance backlog is handled. But since there is a prohibition on props in the speaker's chair, Madam Speaker, I refrain from showing any map.

We have received some of the opposition's proposals with concern, not least the proposal from the Socialdemokraterna to withdraw 45 billion from road maintenance from our historical investment of 354 billion. It is written in black and white in the Socialdemokraterna's motion.

We have conducted a consequence assessment of this. I do not know if the Social Democrats have done so. But the consequence assessment of the Social Democratic policy shows that the maintenance debt would not be addressed during the coming twelve years, but rather it would worsen. The condition of the roads in our elongated country would become worse.

Therefore, a debate such as this is, of course, about what lies ahead of us. But it also needs to be about what responsibility was taken previously, what claims one makes to take responsibility again, and in what way one can see a leadership in that assumption of responsibility in the own documents.

We have here a follow-up motion to the infrastructure bill, in which the Social Democrats reduce the road maintenance by 45 billion. When we assess the consequences of this, we see that the maintenance debt will be worsened instead of being addressed, as the government is currently doing.

This is a choice that the voters can ultimately make. It is possible to make reprioritizations. But I hope, Madam Speaker, that there will be a consensus that we must maintain and renovate first.

This is not just a question of the roads being able to withstand everyday commuters. It is also about the total defense capability, which is being threatened. One of the points that ranks high on NATO's lists and the Nordic cooperation's lists is that the maintenance debt needs to be addressed so that there are detour routes in the event of a crisis, high alert, or ultimately war.

That is why we are investing so much in maintenance. But we are not just investing more money in infrastructure, we are also ensuring that there is more infrastructure for the money. We have cleaned up significantly.

I was surprised when we discovered how bad the situation was with the accounts. We saw that there were errors in the appropriations. Why I am bringing this up in a debate like this, one might wonder. Yes, because it concerned a misbooking of 59 billion, Madam Speaker. We have cleaned this up.

Previous governments allowed Trafikverket to charge administrative costs against appropriations that were intended for maintenance. We did not accept that. We have ensured that this is being rectified. This leads to cost control, budget discipline, and ultimately transparency. Citizens should be able to see that what the Riksdag has decided shall go to road maintenance and railway maintenance shall also go to that and not to officials at Trafikverket.

This has meant that the national plan we are debating today involves, in comparison, an increase of a full 27 percent. Within railway maintenance, the increase is not 5 percent but 18 percent. It is 18 percent more on average that can be used to refurbish Swedish railways.

We see the result already, because we have given Trafikverket a multitude of assignments. The Agency shall cooperate with the sector, increase the pace, strengthen its procurement responsibility, increase the operational capacity, and ensure that the contracts measure time on track even more than just cost.

What is the result? In three years, the gear changes have tripled, and contact line changes and track changes have increased. What will be the effect for passengers? Well, the punctuality has also increased.

Today, the statistics for the month of May are presented, which show that May is the most punctual May month in the last three years. April was more punctual than the years before. March was more punctual than the years before. In 2025, it was the most punctual year in several years, Madam Speaker. The government's policy is therefore making a difference.

It is not enough with just maintenance. We are also heavily upgrading existing routes. Malmbanan, Ostkustbanan, and Inlandsbanan are being upgraded for total defense needs. The Stockholm–Oslo route is being strengthened where it is most critical. The ring road around Stockholm will finally be closed now that an eastern connection is included again and can be planned anew. The Södertörn cross-connection will begin construction. There will be four tracks to Uppsala. The Södertälje Bridge will be widened.

We are strengthening the capacity in Stockholm but also in Western Sweden, where we are making a very large and important investment in the Western Main Line on the section Gothenburg–Alingsås. The fairway to the Port of Gothenburg is being deepened. The section Gothenburg–Borås has now been pre-laid so that it can be prepared for the start of construction.

In Jönköping County, national road 40 is being built between Jönköping and Ulricehamn so that there will finally be two-plus-two lanes all the way between Sweden's two largest cities. The capacity of the Southern Main Line is increased, and on the Lund–Hässleholm stretch, the government doubles Trafikverket's proposed funding. Revenues from the Öresund Bridge shall remain in the region, and there we have also learned from Denmark.

We have strengthened the work on cost control. We have a pilot program for OPS, so that we seriously test new, alternative forms. We have laid the foundation for a new state-owned company that can provide institutional competition. Here it is interesting to hear the opposition's criticism today. They want to both challenge Trafikverket through more competition and take more back to Trafikverket. I believe one has to decide which side one is going to stand on.

We have strengthened aviation, and we are strengthening maritime transport. We ensure that we do not pit different modes of transport against each other. The Government has strengthened the Swedish transport system. We have increased the appropriations but also strengthened the governance. There will be more money for infrastructure but also more infrastructure for the money.

Mr. Speaker! The investments spread from north to south, from east to west, and they hit both city and countryside. The government's national plan builds Sweden strongly so that all of Sweden shall function.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for participating in the debate and for good cooperation with the committee during the mandate period.

My questions are not about the maintenance, as we have debated that quite a bit. My first question instead concerns the reduction of the research grant, from 7.4 billion to 4 billion. What weaknesses does the Minister see? How does one ensure that Sweden does not lose, for example, competence through this proposal? How does one minimize the damage so that our fears are not realized?

My second question concerns shipping. We heard a member from the Minister's party say that it is time for a new port study and a proper port strategy. How does the Minister view that? Shipping is very important, but it has not taken up much space in today's debate. The Swedish Maritime Administration's organization also makes it harder for shipping to become more competitive – even though the government has made a few interventions with tonnage taxation etc., which do facilitate things.

How does the Minister view the appointment of a port investigation that could result in a port strategy, and how does the Minister view the organization of the Swedish Maritime Administration?

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now lowering the research grant from 5 billion to 4 billion, but we are also making a clearer prioritization. The funds shall go to three prioritized areas. For the first: increased efficiency and productivity, that is to say optimized resource use. For the second: a well and cost-effectively maintained transport infrastructure that also takes into account security policy requirements. For the third: a transport system that enables increased electrification and automation. It is important to emphasize that this is not all research and that there are more sources of funding. But it is a question of prioritization, and we are now clear about what the money shall go to.

When it comes to shipping, we have at the EU level discussed both a maritime strategy and a port strategy. At the ministry, we are now preparing a maritime strategy, which takes a broader approach and is not only about ports and shipping but, of course, also includes them. In the long term, I am obviously also prepared to look at the port issue. We have many important ports, also from a total defense perspective, and how to strengthen them and connect them to the rest of the transport system are important questions.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Andreas Carlson for the answers to my questions, and the maritime strategy is, of course, important.

The Minister mentioned the importance of maintaining what we have and reviewing how we can make the whole of Sweden work. I know that the Christian Democrats and the Minister have a great commitment to the countryside, and therefore I have two questions.

My first question concerns the individual roads. In Västernorrland, a number of them applied for funds. But since they were not given the opportunity to participate in the funds, it became quite costly for them. Now the funds have increased, but how can they be made available to more, for example through a disaster fund?

My second question concerns our islands, which are located along our entire coast but also in our lakes. Trafikverket's ferry company is a source of frustration for many of those who live on our islands, and recently, accessibility has deteriorated. How does the Minister view the accessibility for Gotland and other islands? Even smaller islands should be accessible for families with children when it comes to school, leisure activities, and so on. I believe the Minister is well-informed regarding the islands along our coasts, so how does the Minister intend to improve accessibility for those who live on the islands but also for fire defense, ambulance, and so on?

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to individual roads, it is very true that the government has doubled the support for them. But to answer the specific question: We have changed the support regulation so that support can also be obtained in the event of disasters, such as heavy rainfall and the like. There is now, therefore, a specific support to apply for for just such cases.

The issue is important, not least from a security perspective. In addition to the good arguments the member highlights, it is also important for security reasons to have good accessibility.

My answer specifically concerns Gotland, which the member also mentioned. Here, the government has announced powerful support, and we are working on a support regulation for discounted ticket prices for permanent residents of Gotland, which I know is a welcome announcement.

There are, however, further things to do, and I am, of course, open to continued discussions beyond what our speaking time here in the chamber allows.

I thank the chairman of the Committee on Transport for good cooperation during the parliamentary term.

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! I hear the Minister once again describing historical investments, more projects, and more maintenance. Let me be clear that this is good. More maintenance was needed, and several of the investments in the plans are important.

This is not what concerns me, but rather the major changes that Sweden faces. We have joined Nato, the industry is making historically large investments, Fehmarn Bält opens during the planning period, and the competition for jobs, business establishments, and investments is intensifying. In that situation, we cannot only ask ourselves how we maintain today's transport system. We also need to ask ourselves which transport system will carry Sweden's growth, competitiveness, and readiness during the coming decades.

My question to the Minister is therefore: Does the Minister mean that the national plan which has now been fully decided meets Sweden's future needs for capacity, growth, and preparedness?

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! No, not fully. There is more to be done. We inherited a historically large maintenance debt which, of course, has taken up much of the budget space.

I actually agree with Aylin Nouri on exactly everything she just said in the chamber. The arguments are legitimate and true. But against that background: How could the Social Democrats come up with the idea to cut the road budget by a full 45 billion kronor?

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is not a serious way to tackle these issues in the chamber. Andreas Carlson knows very well that we made a sound balance distribution between the different modes of transport. Unlike the Tidö parties, we do not pit the modes of transport against each other.

We need functioning roads, and we need functioning railways. But the government neglects the railway's needs. The maintenance rate that Andreas Carlson speaks so warmly about is far too low and also unrealistic. During the entire planning period, only 10 percent of the maintenance debt will be repaid. One could have chosen another path where both our roads and our railways are strengthened. That is the path the Social Democrats have chosen, and therefore added 45 billion more to the railway.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish railways are in acute need of maintenance. The quality is among the lowest in Europe. As I explained in my first reply, the needs are enormous, and it is not sufficient to push the problems forward. A government is needed that actually understands the serious situation Sweden finds itself in and has a policy that meets it.

Andreas Carlsson and this government's great concern is reality. It is not a lack of beautiful words, but it is a lack of concrete delivery that makes a difference during the planning period. One could have chosen another path and invested in roads and in the Swedish railway.

(Applause)

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not possible to describe a significant cut in road maintenance as an investment. I do not know if the Social Democrats have conducted a consequence assessment. Aylin Nouri is shaking her head, so it probably hasn't been done. She has not conducted a consequence assessment of the proposal to cut road maintenance by 45 billion. We have checked that. It will mean that the maintenance debt will grow over the next twelve years.

It is not enough to push the problems forward, said Aylin Nouri. But that is exactly what the Social Democrats are doing. Nothing has been learned from eleven Swedish National Audit Office reports, the last of which had the headline Promises more than it can keep. Now the Social Democrats are making the same mistake again. The Social Democrats' policy with a reduction of 45 billion on the roads will cause the maintenance debt to grow.

We have not received an answer in the chamber today as to which roads will become worse, but the answer is: In principle, all of them. The maintenance debt will skyrocket.

One cannot move money to railway maintenance as easily as Aylin Nouri pretends. We are investing maximum in railway maintenance. We are increasing it. We have tripled the number of switch replacements in just three years.

You can judge the tree by its fruit. It worries me that the Social Democrats, even before they started negotiating with the Green Party, have decided to cut 45 billion from road maintenance, which means that instead of being addressed, the maintenance debt will spiral out of control.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks to Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson for participating in the debate! It is very pleasant.

I want to first remind that Miljöpartiet has allocated the same amount as the government for the maintenance of the roads. Andreas Carlson does not need to be worried about that.

Of course we should have good roads – and the vehicles that are to travel on the roads should be electrified. That is where the government's policy falls short considerably.

My first question is perhaps straightforward: is Andreas Carlson satisfied with the significantly increased fossil fuel dependency on Swedish roads during this parliamentary term, and that we are now more dependent on fossil fuels and indirectly also support Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine by driving up the oil price and filling Russia's war chest?

Then, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about the New East Coast Line. The government's so-called investment does not even cover what the Transport Administration removed. It has been decided that the project shall now only include the expansion of the Gävle–Kringlan section, where a new double track is laid in the west and a traffic junction is built at the E4. This is to cost 11 billion instead of 15.8. But during the planning period, there are only 7 billion kronor in the national plan.

I also want to remind that Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson promised the voters before the 2022 election that the entire New East Coast Line would be completed by 2035. Why should the voters trust the Tidö parties' promises regarding new investments in infrastructure this time?

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the issue of the New East Coast Line, we are allocating funds so that double tracks can be built on this important section. It is an important announcement. It has been a relief for many who see the need to upgrade the capacity in the north-south direction in that part of the country.

When it comes to the oil price, it is primarily the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz that has driven it up recently. The government is working very actively to accelerate electrification and also to expand charging infrastructure and enable the purchase of construction machinery and heavy vehicles.

I am very pleased that Linus Lakso supports the government's policy regarding road maintenance. Has Linus Lakso considered how he can convince the Social Democrats not to cut 45 billion and create a situation where the maintenance debt would spiral? That should worry a party that claims to be in government together with the Social Democrats. Linus Lakso perhaps has some answer to that.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Cooperation with the Social Democrats is least what I am worried about. It worked well for over seven years.

As we said, we invested in maintenance. We increased maintenance significantly – by 50 percent during that period – primarily on the railway. The description that Andreas Carlson gives of this government investing in maintenance is therefore not true. It is quite the opposite. The major investment was made during the previous parliamentary term. Regardless of whether it was 5 percent last year, as one could read in the bill, or if it is 18 percent as Andreas Carlson claims now, it is still less than half – at most – of the increase the previous government made. Above all, the absolute majority of the maintenance debt is pushed into the future.

My question is how Andreas Carlson has the nerve to claim that the government is making major investments in the maintenance of the railway when it neither matches the previous government's increase or even addresses more than a fraction of the problem.

Last but not least: I know that Andreas Carlson personally has been an advocate for new main lines. Trafikverket's analysis shows that they are truly needed to achieve the capacity Sweden needs on the railway.

Investigations show that if double tracks are built on existing main lines, there will be virtually no difference in how much new railway is needed. The big difference is that it will be much more difficult to do it rationally, quickly and efficiently and with new technology if double tracks are built instead of laying new lines.

Is Andreas Carlson satisfied with the government's decision not to expand the railway sufficiently?

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are expanding the railway. We are building in many places – I listed what we are doing from north to south to increase the capacity.

When it comes to railway maintenance, there were 36 switch replacements in the year I became Minister for Infrastructure and Housing. Last year, there were 106 switch replacements. Feel free to talk about your investments, but they did not lead to increased capacity, increased punctuality, or increased reliability. It is this government, our government, that has ensured that the pace of work has been increased and that punctuality has been increased.

It is a bit worrying that Linus Lakso says that the cooperation with the Social Democrats worked well. We saw that the maintenance work was not achieved, despite it being discussed. On the side of the road, it was stated in black and white in the own decision that the consequence would be that the roads would actually become worse, and that is what has happened. That is what we are changing now. But there is great reason for concern if one were to give the power back to parties that want to cut back on something as fundamental as road maintenance in uncertain times.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for his speech!

I would like to ask the Minister some questions regarding the Gotland transport.

After the collective Gotlandic politics has frequently lobbied the government and the Riksdag in recent years with demands for lower prices in the ferry traffic – the Minister knows this well – 125 million has now been allocated in the budget to finally push down altogether too high prices. This is a compensation that Vänsterpartiet has had in its budget for several years, so it is good that it is now being implemented.

But the joy for the residents of Gotland was short-lived. Trafikverket has now announced that there may be deteriorations in traffic as early as this autumn after fuel prices increased and the government refrained from injecting the resources required to cover this cost increase. The consequence will be longer travel times and cancelled trips.

My very concrete question to the Minister is: What will the government do? How will the government act to avoid this?

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This is an urgent matter.

I am pleased to be able to say that the government is always ready to take further measures, not least if the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz were to be prolonged or if the reports we have been able to read over the last few days were not to hold.

But we have, Mr. Speaker, already shown that we are prepared to act in different ways to dampen price increases, reduce household costs and provide support for other means of transport for those who do not need to take the car and to support public transport. We are, of course, ready to provide additional support if it should be needed.

Regarding the support for Gotlandstrafiken, I am very pleased to now be able to give that announcement. We will return in the near future with how this support regulation will look so that the support is in place this summer, just as the government has previously signaled.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer!

Then I wonder how I should interpret this answer. Trafikverket has indeed been allocated 100 million to cover the cost increases due to the higher fuel prices. Should I, therefore, understand the Minister's answer as that the compensation will come? Will those funds be disbursed so that we avoid these deteriorations in Gotland transport that I just described, with cancelled trips and longer travel times, which have huge consequences for all Gotlanders? Is that how I should understand the answer?

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

Infrastruktur- och bostadsministern Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When different agencies submit their budget messages, they do so with a timetable and a deadline.

It was quite shortly after the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz arose that this budget request was submitted to warn the government about potential problems. It was not known exactly what it would look like or how long it would last. It was an estimate that was made at that time. Since then, the government has, of course, been in close dialogue with the authority to monitor the situation that arose and to be prepared to make decisions.

No, it should not be interpreted as us granting the request outright, but we will continue the dialogue with Trafikverket and ensure that we manage the crisis if it were to become long-lasting so that it does not have unexpected effects for the transport system as a whole. There we have already shown that we are prepared to act, and we obviously continue to be as well.

I would like to thank the member for the commitment to the issue and also for the support for the people of Gotland. I am very pleased that the government will in the near future present what the support will look like so that it is in place this summer as previously signaled.

(cont. § 8)

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