Railway issues

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! In order for the whole of Sweden to function and be given good conditions to grow, live, and develop, continued large-scale investments in railways in Sweden are needed. It is about both safeguarding what we have already built and investing in new rails where it is needed, for the sake of, among other things, the companies.

A small, export-dependent country like Sweden obviously needs a robust railway. It is a prerequisite for our economy and competitiveness. During this parliamentary term, the government prioritizes continuing to improve the railway, repairing where needed, and managing our common resources in the best possible way.

Madam Speaker! There is an expression that is often used: that something is running like a train. By that, one means that everything is functioning well in the normal state. In the current state, it is hardly an expression that we can use. The prevailing situation characterizing the Swedish railway is not acceptable. It became quite obvious, especially today, when some of us from the Transport Committee had the opportunity to be present at the round-table discussion that the Minister for Infrastructure held. We heard various testimonies from the railway industry and the business community.

The situation is completely unacceptable. Both passengers and transport buyers must be able to rely on the trains arriving on time and that deliveries can be made according to agreements. It is a fundamental prerequisite. Passengers should also be able to book their tickets well in advance.

A new planning system is an important transition and one of the biggest changes that has occurred within the railway industry in a very long time. The introduction of the planning system has caused problems in Trafikverket's planning work. It is concerning that the railway companies have found it difficult to plan their operations, with negative consequences for passengers and transport buyers. Furthermore, this undermines confidence in trains as a means of transport. I know that the government is following the development closely and has a close dialogue with Trafikverket, which is doing everything it can to rectify the situation as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker! On a typical day, approximately 290,000 people travel by train. The tracks are used by an average of 3,100 passenger trains, and the total distance they travel is 370,000 kilometers. It can be said with reason that without the trains, Sweden stands still. But Swedish railways have problems with congestion on the tracks in commuting areas and neglected maintenance, and this affects, not least, freight and commuting flows.

Railway issues

We should at every given opportunity discuss precisely maintenance and the railway's connection to other modes of transport. Instead, we have historically, during my years in the transport committee, devoted an incredible amount of time to discussing high-speed trains and operational forms for maintenance. It makes for better press releases to present new projects, but unfortunately, it is more maintenance that would really make a difference—not least in the shorter perspective.

Madam Speaker! There are occasions when ideology becomes clear even in infrastructure policy. This year, the ideological differences are noticeable in the question of who should carry out the maintenance of the railway. Let me be clear: the Moderates do not believe that the future's modern train policy is built by returning to state monopolies. A modern train policy is created through a functioning market and good procurement.

Madam Speaker! The Moderates see the train as one of four important future fossil-free means of transport. Sweden needs a robust railway with good maintenance. The Moderates went to the election on a policy that combined substantial maintenance efforts with investments in cost-effective and capacity-enhancing measures for the railway across the country. We asserted that more maintenance was needed, more tracks in the existing network, and completely new tracks when it is socio-economically justifiable.

Now we see how the government is restructuring the policy step by step. It is about improvements whose effects will not materialize in a week, but provided that we prioritize correctly, the train can reach its full potential within not too distant a future and contribute to more jobs, growth, security, and employment.

Madam Speaker! On Thursday, June 15, the government decided to task Trafikverket with preparing a strategic basis for the upcoming planning period 2026-2033. We are now laying the foundation for the upcoming long-term plan for the country's transport infrastructure. The government prioritizes continuing to improve the existing infrastructure, repairing where necessary, and managing the common resources in the best possible way.

The Government's priority is to facilitate commuting and freight traffic to strengthen jobs and growth throughout the country. The Government also emphasizes the importance of maintenance and cost-effective measures to optimize the transport infrastructure and increase transport efficiency.

Trafikverket receives the assignment that many have requested, namely to have a clear transport-wide perspective. We must see our infrastructure as a coherent system where railway is connected with road, shipping, and aviation. This perspective shall form the basis for the new national plan.

The needs are great, partly for maintenance to work down the large maintenance debt, and partly for building new rails. Even though the frameworks for the new plan are not set, the needs will likely always be greater than the framework that is decided upon here in the Riksdag. In the orientation basis, Trafikverket shall therefore look at possibilities for financing beyond the economic planning framework. It could involve co-financing in various forms, for example increased track fees, but also ensuring that Sweden becomes better at utilizing the support that the EU has for financing infrastructure.

The work on cost control shall be strengthened. Trafikverket shall assess additional funding beyond the economic planning framework and look at what opportunities there are for other forms of investments. Now that the business community has so clearly signaled that they are prepared to participate and invest in infrastructure, I am particularly pleased that Trafikverket has been tasked with looking at that possibility.

Madam Speaker! There are approx. 15,600 kilometers of railway tracks in our elongated country. As said, it is fun with press releases about new fine projects, but if one wants to make a difference in the short term, it is about maintaining, optimizing, and supplementing. It will be our government's priority. Then we safeguard tax money and enable growth.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Maria Stockhaus, for the speech and the clarification on a number of issues that are very important for Sweden! I believe that the parties we represent share a common view on a number of these issues, not least regarding the maintenance of the railway and regarding operating models and efficiency, and that one needs to be able to raise those issues in many different ways.

It was interesting to hear that what for a number of days has been called a Christmas meeting is now judged to be a round-table discussion, and I think that is a positive description of the way one approaches the future challenges we see for the railway.

The member mentioned that within not too distant future, the railway shall reach its full potential. That sounds extremely positive and is extremely important. At the same time, the member mentioned the planning system that has been introduced and which does not quite work. In our report, we also highlight ERTMS and the additional parts that need to be worked on to strengthen safety and opportunities within all of Europe and bind together the different parts. If the member and I have the opportunity to continue living, I think we will both be called elderly the day that, according to the documents we are handling here today, one sees that ERTMS has been fully rolled out.

Therefore, my question is in what way the member sees that one, in that context where there is a lot of talk about maintenance, still manages to make the important investments required to ensure a modern railway moving forward. In what way does the government intend to work to not delay the part we need, for example that which is linked to ERTMS?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! There are many things that need to be done for us to be able to utilize the full potential of the railway.

A good start is that there is an enormous interest from the business sector, which was clear at the Christmas meeting - if one is to call it that - today. There is a great willingness to be involved and contribute to solving the problems and creating a more efficient use of the railway we actually have. I believe that in the short term, it will be that which will most quickly provide greater capacity in our railway.

ERTMS still has a way to go; that rollout has hardly begun. It is included in the assignment to also look at that rollout, but of course, we have a challenge there in that the cost is very high even for the train operators. A discussion needs to be had moving forward on how it should be handled.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Stockhaus, for the answer to the question!

The member mentioned as a conclusion to his first speech, I would like to ask an additional question about. It is clear that it is extremely important that the cost increases we have seen for ERTMS are kept down as long as quality is maintained. The member mentioned the high costs that arise for the other train operators when it comes to being able to meet the system that is being rolled out on our railways.

Since this is something that is starting to be rolled out, I would like to hear a bit more about how the members and the government parties are discussing in what way it is intended to be ensured in the near term that there will be resources linked to this from the government's side.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! The Government will invest in ensuring that what we have functions, and if one wants to achieve a big difference in the short term, it is a matter of ensuring that maintenance works and that Trafikverket delivers the new planning system. That will be the focus in the short perspective. That is what will make a difference here and now and create more capacity, and that is what the business community demands. ERTMS is important, but in the situation we find ourselves in now, there are other measures that are significantly more important.

The government will also have more money to invest in existing railways, and also in ERTMS, given that we have said no to the expensive prestige project with high-speed rail between our major cities. This means that we have other opportunities to make the necessary investments than the previous government did.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It is always exciting to listen to Member Stockhaus. I have a few things to bring up.

We are going to use the railway we have much more effectively, and what we have shall function - step by step we are changing the policy. So says MP Stockhaus.

When it comes to what we Social Democrats and also the government base – that is, the Sweden Democrats – think is important, namely that the maintenance should function, she is however very clear that it is about ideology. What we want is apparently about ideology.

I would still like to ask whether it is not just as ideological to think that that which does not work should remain just because it is other actors who are running it. I think that Stockhaus and her party also engage very much in ideology. If we do it now, Stockhaus probably does as well.

I am curious about how one can achieve a more efficient railway with the tracks we have. We already know today that it is far too crowded and that people cannot fit. Neither passenger traffic nor freight traffic fits. We have very much forest time, meaning that the trains stand still and wait to get out onto the tracks. Maria Stockhaus says that their focus is to increase work commuting and truly utilize what already exists, but Stockhaus says nothing about the future. How are we to increase the capacity in the railway? Maintaining what we already have does not increase any capacity.

I am, therefore, a bit curious about this. Could Stockhaus elaborate a little bit on how one thinks about an increase in capacity when it is only a matter of maintaining what we already have?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! It is possible that Gunilla Svantorp did not listen closely enough. I also said that one should complement and build new tracks where it is socio-economically profitable, and that means we are absolutely not averse to building new tracks. We do, however, want to safeguard the taxpayers' money.

At the meeting we attended today, where practically all the larger companies in Sweden were represented, as well as all the train operators, it was very clear that it is possible to extract much more capacity from the existing railway system we have. When the new planning system is up and running as it should, it is expected that there will be 5 percent higher capacity in the system just because of that. If, in addition, something can be achieved that was also discussed, namely more efficient maintenance where the window for carrying out the maintenance is shorter, the capacity will be able to be increased even further.

The same applies if one has a common planning with all actors, which is not the case today. I am glad that the Director General of Trafikverket was open to having that type of consultation, where one jointly tries to help each other to create more efficiency. There is therefore much more capacity to be extracted without actually building more tracks – even though it also absolutely will be needed to increase the capacity.

If you want to build more tracks, you must look at where the greatest needs are. The two biggest bottlenecks in the system are on the sections Uppsala-Stockholm and Alingsås-Göteborg. Gunilla Svantorp's government prioritized away these two sections in the national plan. How do you take the needs in society into account when you do that - when you prioritize away the two reddest of all red sections we have in our entire railway system?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe there is any contradiction between any parties regarding building where it is socio-economically profitable. But we must also look at history and see that what we have built has sometimes been said not to be socio-economically profitable, but actually has become so once it is built. One must, therefore, reflect a little. One needs to look at history and see what has happened and what we have done.

To answer the question about the distance Alingsås-Gothenburg - I have answered it many times before - the fact is that Västra Götalandsregionen has a position paper where all the parties agree that they have a priority and that it is not Gothenburg-Alingsås but rather Borås-Gothenburg. I believe it would be very short-sighted not to listen to the local and regional politicians who, across all party lines, have nevertheless agreed that this is most important. My question back to Maria Stockhaus is therefore: Do you intend to override all regional politicians? That was, after all, what you started with when you stopped the construction of new main lines.

When the Fehmarn Belt connection arrives, how are we supposed to dock in Sweden from it? We haven't heard a single thing about that. We never get any answers on it. It will increase the need for capacity by almost any amount, and the only thing we hear from Stockhaus and others is that one should build and maintain what already exists. How are we actually going to be able to receive the freight and passenger traffic coming down from there, and how are we going to ensure that it gets out into the world when there is a standstill in Hässleholm?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! The socio-economic profitability is largely about being able to compare objects, and in that case, one must look at Trafikverket's proposal for the national plan. Very many of the objects that ended up outside the plan had much greater socio-economic profitability than the high-speed railway, which was in the plan. In that case, a crazy prioritization must have been made and no account taken of which objects had the greatest profitability.

When one speaks with many companies in northern Sweden, they highlight the Alingsås-Göteborg stretch as one of the most important to increase capacity on. This is because there are very many goods that are to go to the Port of Gothenburg, and Alingsås-Göteborg is an extremely important stretch for that handling. It is therefore not about overriding anyone, but about looking at the whole: What does the Swedish railway system need? And if one looks at capacity shortages today, it is on the Uppsala-Stockholm and Alingsås-Göteborg stretches where the very largest shortages exist.

The Alingsås-Göteborg route is very important for the Port of Gothenburg and all the export that goes that way, as well as the import that comes in that way. The Stockholm-Uppsala route affects the railway traffic to all of northern Sweden, in addition to all the commuting that takes place on that route.

These two stretches, where the greatest deficiencies exist, were completely deprioritized by the Social Democrats. This means that everyone has been run over—all the companies in northern Sweden that depend on getting to the port of Gothenburg. Everyone has been run over—all the commuters between Uppsala and Stockholm and also everyone who travels up to northern Sweden. They have completely ignored them in order to proceed with the prestige project of the high-speed railway.

It is always a trade-off. We have chosen all of Sweden instead of focusing on individual parts.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but hook into the previous remarks. Maria Stockhaus spoke about ideology and that it should be what makes us talk about taking back parts of the railway maintenance. It is completely obvious that it is Maria Stockhaus who has gotten stuck in ideology when it comes to the idea that it should only be in private hands to manage the railway maintenance. The only thing we know today is that the railway maintenance is dysfunctional. It has been investigated a number of times, most recently by the Investigation on the Future of Railway Maintenance, which pointed out that we need to make changes because we are not achieving good procurement, which Maria Stockhaus speaks of as something that should exist. We do not have a functioning market in the area.

Still, the government refuses to look at the question of changing the railway maintenance. We know that Trafikverket is not capable of the procurements because they do not have the competence. They do not carry out the operations themselves. They need to take over the basic maintenance for parts of the routes. Then we can achieve a good and functioning operation. It is absolutely necessary. We see how it looks today; we see how poorly the maintenance works combined with the other problems that exist. I am surprised that it is called ideology to want to solve the task.

The question of the railway's full potential in the near future has also been raised here. I understand that one can say that because one is not looking at what is needed ahead. We know that the capacity on the railways needs to increase, not least on the Södra stambanan. Then the government cuts all the investments that are to be there. That surprises me.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement that railway maintenance is not functioning today. It was also clear today at the meeting with a number of companies and Trafikverket, which work with maintenance, that there is much to be done for the maintenance to function better.

I believe there are eleven National Audit Office reports that point out major deficiencies in the entire organization of Trafikverket. I find it very difficult to understand that Daniel Helldén, along with several others, believe that the solution to the problems with railway maintenance is to let this criticized agency take over the responsibility for the maintenance.

There are many other things that could be done to increase the quality of the procurements, such as having different forms of innovation incentives for those who perform the maintenance. If I may speculate: Where is there the greatest initiative when it comes to finding new creative solutions? I believe that is found in the market, among those who perform the maintenance together with Trafikverket and among those who run the trains on the rails.

Such a cooperation does not exist today, but it needs to be established in order for the operations to be made more efficient. Then we can get much better maintenance. There are no objective experts anywhere who point out that the maintenance would be managed better if Trafikverket itself were given responsibility for it.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Stockhaus says that no objective experts say it would be better if Trafikverket took over the maintenance. There are at least several investigations that say that if Trafikverket were to take back parts of the maintenance, they would have the competence to conduct procurements but also an ability to have an overview of sections where long-term perspective is needed instead of different contractors jumping in and solving tasks from time to time.

It is an objective truth that investigations indicate that Trafikverket should take back parts of the maintenance and thereby create the competence. The worst thing that exists is agencies of various kinds that conduct procurements without really having a grasp of what it is they are procuring. I will not say that Trafikverket knows nothing about railways, but when it comes to the procurement of maintenance, the investigations show that they cannot do this because they outsourced all the practical maintenance activities to private contractors and thus lost that competence.

That is how we must do it. I usually say that Trafikverket is a dysfunctional agency, but it does not get any better if they do not get to learn or get the competence that is needed. It surprises me that the government so stubbornly wants to keep a system that has not functioned, which we are stuck in. I really hope that the government thinks again.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! It is of course high on the agenda to get the maintenance in order. But we do not believe that the solution should be that Trafikverket itself is to carry out the maintenance. The vast majority of experts I have spoken with do not believe that either, and there are a number of investigations that directly advise against it. It is about Trafikverket having a grip on the status of the facilities, and that can be obtained without being the one who has the responsibility for the maintenance. There is much that can be said about how the contracts are designed. They are fragmented, they are not functional procurements, and there are no innovation components in the contracts. I got a positive feeling from the dialogues that were held this morning; there is a will to move forward and find a better cooperation to raise the quality of the maintenance. But that does not presuppose that Trafikverket takes this back in its own capacity, rather it can be done in consultation and cooperation with all actors affected by the railway.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! It is now time for us in the Committee on Transport to conclude with the final committee debate. It concerns railway issues, rather technical ones. It is not so much about the system itself and so on, but about existing technical solutions that we need to work with in various ways. It may not be so strange, as quite large parts concern what we members have motioned about. But it also concerns a Swedish National Audit Office report linked to various parts that I will not go into more deeply. It is nevertheless important to bring that in and highlight what this report contains.

The railway is incredibly important for the supply of skills and for the green transition. The round table discussion or Christmas meeting that took place earlier today is an important part to highlight. The railway is incredibly central, and it is extremely important that it functions, not least for the green transition and the various needs of the business sector.

It was the case that the meeting came about partly because a number of large companies wrote to the government and were extremely concerned that the authority was not listening to the business community when it came to various forms of maintenance measures and so on. At the meeting, people spoke about the flexibility that is desired. It complicates things for the maintenance contractors if one cannot plan for this in a good way.

The Minister's party colleague here in the chamber today is Magnus Oscarsson. I would like to ask in what way your work with ERTMS can be accelerated. One can see how we in Sweden are actually falling behind from a Nordic perspective. We could, for example, learn from Finland, where they combine other systems. We have had a discussion in the committee about the new planning system and partially questioned thinking in how new systems are rolled out. Therefore, it becomes incredibly important how the new system is rolled out.

Member of Parliament Stockhaus said in his speech and in his replies that it is important to look at the whole. It becomes a bit strange because previously planned holistic solutions, such as new main lines, are being slaughtered and that instead it is about the labor market regions that Sweden is divided into. Then it becomes important to consider how we should develop the railway moving forward. We all stand for that one should be able to utilize as much potential as possible.

Speaking of potential, maintenance is very important. A paradox for those who read the report and listen to the debate is that the Sweden Democrats have a proposal to nationalize maintenance but then crawl under the Tidöt Agreement when it does not gain traction, even though they could obtain a majority together with, for example, the Social Democrats. I would very much like to hear how they think regarding principles and ideology.

Centerpartiet has four reservations in the report. One concerns railway maintenance, and it is important that it is efficient. We were the driving force behind the additional directive to ensure business sense, productivity, and a developed market for railway maintenance. I am confident that the three government parties will highlight these issues.

One reservation concerns ERTMS and the signaling systems, which I have already mentioned, and another concerns longer and heavier trains. Since the quality is not the best on the railway, it is perhaps primarily about longer trains in order not to damage the rails with heavier trains. I am very curious about what the government parties intend here.

Our last reservation concerns fossil-free status. Parts of Sweden's railway system are still not electrified, and how can one work there? It could involve electrification and battery operation, but also hydrogen trains. There are exciting procurements in other parts of Europe. It would be interesting to know what the Christian Democrats and the Liberals think regarding the procurement of hydrogen trains, as there were writings about this in the January Agreement. In what way does the government intend to proceed regarding fossil-free status? Is the electrification of the entire system envisioned, or can other technologies also be used to develop the railway towards fossil-free status?

With these words, I wish the committee, the Speaker's Presidium, and the committee's wonderful staff a very nice summer. Thank you for a great year! I move for approval of reservation 4.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Transport's report on railway issues, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

"It's going like clockwork" is a good Swedish expression for something that rolls along completely without any trouble. However, that does not apply to the Swedish railway. There, it is perhaps so troublesome that we almost daily have problems with delays and acute faults. It is a very serious situation, and decisive action must be taken to rectify the concerns. The current situation is not acceptable. Passengers must be able to rely on arriving on time and transport buyers that deliveries are made according to agreement. These are fundamental conditions, and tickets must be able to be booked in advance.

Madam Speaker! For all of Sweden to function and have the conditions to grow, live, and develop, large investments in the transport infrastructure are needed. It is both about safeguarding what we have already built and about investing in new infrastructure where it is needed for, among other things, the needs of companies. A small, export-dependent country like Sweden naturally needs a robust infrastructure. It is a prerequisite for our economy and competitiveness. I am pleased that we have a government that, during the mandate period, will prioritize improvements of the infrastructure we have, repair where it is needed, and manage our common resources in the best way. There are enormous deficiencies in the railway, and the maintenance debt is large. We will need to invest to get a railway network that we can all rely on.

Madam Speaker! Now we are shifting the policy and prioritizing correctly. All modes of transport shall be included. The Government prioritizes a holistic view of the transport sector and wants to promote that a journey can contain different modes of transport that complement each other. One must start from how reality looks, not from a fantasy that high-speed trains will solve Sweden's infrastructure challenges. The Government prioritizes the upgrading of existing railways, better road standards, and expanded charging infrastructure before investments in high-speed trains. The needs within the infrastructure are great, and an investment in high-speed railway risks pushing out other necessary investments. Other investments in the existing railway system and new tracks involve better conditions for trains to travel faster in the future, even without high-speed railway.

Madam Speaker! Investments in the railway should primarily facilitate commuting and freight traffic. It strengthens jobs and growth throughout the country. One such example is Ostlänken. We know that it is currently a bottleneck, but when Ostlänken is completed, it will become much easier to both commute and transport freight, which improves the green transition.

Another important railway is the one between Borås and Göteborg. Here, Trafikverket shall develop proposals for a modified solution that is cost-effective and which, above all, shall improve the conditions for work commuting in the region and the connection to the airport in Landvetter.

For Lund-Hässleholm, Trafikverket shall investigate new measures in the railway system that achieve capacity improvements in Skåne in a cost-effective manner. By having Trafikverket commissioned to take a holistic approach to the capacity in Skåne, one can identify which are the worst bottlenecks and the most cost-effective solutions. It primarily concerns measures on the section between Hässleholm and Lund but also on other sections.

I thank Madam Speaker, the secretariat and my colleagues in the Committee on Transport and wish you a pleasant summer.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Oscarsson. I already hinted in my speech that I intended to ask the Member a question linked to the technical solutions. It is strange that the word high-speed railway is now used almost as a pejorative and that one takes to a defensive tone to make people understand how bad it would be to invest in new main lines where the trains travel relatively fast.

I was at an electrification conference that was opened by the member's party colleague, also the Minister for Infrastructure, in February. Around the dinner table, there were many surprised faces and exclamations: What, are you not wise? Do you not intend to build new main lines to increase efficiency, especially when the Fehmarn Bält connection is completed?

Now, the member mentioned that he intended to make small improvements between Lund and Hässleholm, but there is a very great concern, not least from Skåne's politicians from all political parties, that Stockholm and Gothenburg will now be prioritized and that Skåne's conditions are not being seen.

I would also like to ask the member of Parliament a question regarding ERTMS. We have a rather technical report here. Regarding the implementation of ERTMS, Trafikverket has stated that it will take a very long time and that it may now take even longer if resources cannot be increased. But it seems as if the other Nordic countries have thought about it in a slightly different way than Sweden and intend to partially roll this out and use both old and new technology. I would then like to ask the member of Parliament in what way one looks at the other Nordic countries and sees that successful models for introducing this could also be implemented in Sweden.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Ulrika Heie for the questions.

We do not consider that we are not wise, but we consider that we are wise when we make such a decision. We mean that one put a lot of money in a single basket - one put a lot of eggs in the same basket - and believed that it would be solved in that way. As a farm boy, I know that it is stupid to put all the eggs in one basket. Things can happen. It is something that we mean is not positive at all. It is much better to spread the eggs out in different ways. That is what we think when we submit our proposal. To invest these enormous billions - one didn't know exactly how much one was talking about, whether it was 250, 350 or 450 billion - I mean is not wise.

However, we argue that by being able to reprioritize and prioritize correctly and invest in the railway network that we have, we can invest in more railway parts in our country, because we need to invest in more parts, not just between Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö.

I am not worried about our government, but I am confident that this government will present good proposals and come up with good measures so that all of Sweden can get a little better.

Before my speaking time is over, I would like to ask the Speaker to begin by explaining what ERTMS stands for, given that so many people are watching this debate. Otherwise, it will become incredibly technical for those who do not understand what it stands for.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the prompt to provide some public education and speak about what ERTMS stands for. It stands for European Rail Traffic Management System. It is a common EU signaling system so that we can link up all of Europe and have the opportunity to have a signaling system that also works here.

We can see that a number of countries are now moving ahead. They are both building railways faster and introducing ERTMS. In the Nordic region, for example, Finland has used a different rollout method which is believed to accelerate the possibility of also realizing the benefits of a new signaling system and in what way that could work.

I ask the member to forgive me for being a bit full of laughter over all these egg pictures. It is clear that many eggs in the same basket can easily become scrambled eggs. It was not quite in the way that new main lines were previously envisioned, but it was about connecting the whole of Sweden.

The Social Democrats have a Minister for Rural Affairs as a party colleague who also usually highlights the whole of Sweden. But here, we are actually seeing rather small-scale initiatives from the government's side, linked to the Stockholm area and the Gothenburg area. I really hope that the Gothenburg-Borås stretch gets the opportunity to move from being more like a museum railway with an extremely low average speed to actually being able to become a faster route.

So we are not talking about high-speed trains in that way, but we are talking about connecting Sweden, creating robustness and building new trunk lines that increase capacity. Because we know, just as the member highlights, the need for Alingsås-Gothenburg but also Gothenburg-Borås. But we wonder, not least, in what way the capacity shortage will be met when the Fehmarn Bält tunnel opens in just a few years.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Ulrika Heie for the questions again.

ERTMS, that is: It is good that we want to technologically enhance. The member raised Finland as a good example of how they have led the way and moved forward. I can imagine that it is exactly what we need to do: look at how other countries have done it. But we know that Sweden is a bit unique because we have very old railways. It is old technology that needs to be improved. Some things it is incredibly important that we now take action on, and it is important that Trafikverket really does what they have said. We are of course not satisfied with what we see. We cannot be satisfied with what we see with these delays and that people cannot trust Sweden's railways. It is not enough, it must become better.

Then the question of the high-speed railway was up again. I believe it is important to highlight that we are not against being able to travel fast by rail, but we are against building this. I must nevertheless turn against the belief that we bind our country together, with all these funds that we would then spend on this. We would bind together primarily the large cities, such as Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö, but we have very much more than just the three large cities. We need to invest in our entire country.

I never mentioned Alingsås-Göteborg – someone else might do that – but I mentioned Borås-Göteborg. It is a very important stretch, but we have more things that I know and am confident that this government will do. I am therefore not worried about this government, rather it will be good moving forward.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting to debate railway issues, as we are doing right now. I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 2.

The right-conservative government's almost first decision was to very quickly stop and pause new main lines; we have heard this here during the debate. But they did it without having their own alternatives for increased capacity. There is a lot of talk, but we have not yet seen any proposals on what should come instead.

The day before Christmas Eve last year, the Göteborg-Borås line was paused. The Jönköping-Hässleholm line was interrupted, and the Hässleholm-Lund line was stopped. A fourth measure could have been added, namely the Ostlänken Järna-Linköping, if it had not progressed too far in the planning. What we saw then, the day before Christmas Eve last year, was a rerun from 2006 when the then Alliance government interrupted the Norrbotniabanan Umeå-Luleå. The S-government then lifted it again. Now it is included again in the national plan, but it is indeed delayed.

In the midst of the green industrial transition, with an increased need for passenger transport for the sake of skills supply and an expanded need for freight transport, we have, through the political decision of 2006, delayed having a well-functioning railway.

The Committee on Transport has during this year and since December 2022 had several different visits to the committee from regions and the business community all around our country - from all over Sweden. They are worried and concerned, and they speak with one voice. They speak about the need for us to have enlarged labor market regions that create growth. They speak about the agreements that were made already a very long time ago, for example the Sweden Agreement, where they undertook to build housing in exchange for getting something else instead. They are actually quite irritated that the cards have not been laid; so that is how I have perceived the visits we have had in the committee.

The importance of the railway can almost not be overstated. It is about holding our entire country together. It is about reducing emissions by moving freight from road to rail. It is about meeting the increased transport demand, and it is about contributing to travel and freight transport so that we reach out into the world and the world comes to us in Sweden.

Passenger traffic has doubled since the 90s, and freight traffic is increasing. It could increase even more if there were capacity. But everyone has to share the common corridor, and it is crowded there.

We also see that things are happening in other countries, as we have heard during the course of the debate. The Fehmarn Belt link is complete in 2029. We are soon reaching 2029. We know that new capacity is needed, and we know that existing main lines are not sufficient. We also know that the EU has the goal of increasing freight traffic. It will then crowd out the regional traffic.

Our joint reservation with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet concerns the maintenance of the railway. It concerns increased opportunity for the state to carry out maintenance under its own management, and it does so for two reasons: partly benchmarking, and partly the own competence.

Competence is something we have lost. It is very difficult to set the right requirements in procurements if one does not really know what it is that one is requesting. Therefore, it is important that we ensure we increase the competence within the state. We must, after all, get control over the cost increases.

In the middle of the 1800s, Sweden was a very poor country. People emigrated. But we still had politicians who did not stand in this chamber but in one of the other two chambers and spoke about how one had to build railways. And that was done. That decision was made, and new railways were actually built. One invested in an investment that has benefited us for hundreds of years - more than 150 years, even.

I would like to conclude by reminding that in this debate we are talking about 14,200 kilometers of railway track. We are talking about 525 stations, 15,000 points, 4,100 bridges, 165 tunnels and tens of thousands of kilometers of cables. It is a complex system. With the S-governments and their comrades, we have increased both investments and maintenance in recent years, but we will need more in the future. Therefore, it is important that we use our money in the right way.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! In 2015, an investigation was conducted by Gunnar Alexandersson: Another train arrangement - beyond the railway junction. The investigator looked at, among other things, this with railway maintenance and firmly advised against a re-nationalization as a solution to the problems that were already seen at that time.

In the previous government's investigation on railway maintenance, they point to completely different solutions than renationalization to get the maintenance in order.

Why do the Social Democrats hold so stubbornly to the idea that railway maintenance should be nationalized when there are no independent experts who believe that it will in any way solve the situation we find ourselves in regarding railway maintenance?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It is always the case that one looks at the investigations that show what one believes themselves, much like Member Stockhaus just did.

There are investigations that show that we have lost competence - that we do not really know what we are ordering when we order. I think it is important to consider how we can become better orderers, not least considering all the actors who are involved in the system. When one sees that it actually does not work today, one must want to do something about it.

That is why we have for quite some time - since 2014, I believe - promised that we will re-nationalize railway maintenance. Now we have said that we want to re-nationalize parts of it. In order to have something to compare with, it is important that we do so.

But for the Moderates, it feels like it is a lot of ideology not to let the state perform maintenance. It is always better that some other actor does it. I think it is strange, because you lose competence. Do Maria Stockhaus and her party not realize that you lose a lot of competence when you do not perform it yourself, and then later have to set a specification for it?

I would like to know why Maria Stockhaus is so opposed to us having two providers, partly the state and partly other providers, that we can compare. I believe that we need all providers. Why does Maria Stockhaus want to say no to the state being one of them? If that is not ideology, then I do not know what ideology is.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! It is actually very simple: We want better railway maintenance, and we do not believe that the solution lies in Trafikverket performing it itself.

What the Swedish Transport Administration needs to do is to get a handle on the status of the facilities and then ensure that professional procurements are carried out. If one looks at the criticism that has been voiced regarding procurement and keeping track of the facilities, one sees that the Swedish Transport Administration receives very sharp criticism when it comes to maintenance. This applies to both railway and road.

The answer to the question is therefore quite simple: We do not believe that railway maintenance would be better in any way if Trafikverket itself were responsible for it.

In her speech, Gunilla Svantorp spoke warmly about using tax money responsibly.

Kristofer Odolinski, who works at VTI, has written a doctoral thesis on precisely the maintenance of railways. He notes that since the railway maintenance was deregulated and the market was opened up, the price has become 11 percent lower with maintained quality.

In the situation we find ourselves in now, we need more bang for the buck. We need to have a better return on the money we invest. There is an investigation here which points out that we get 11 percent more for the money if we use private actors. Why do the Social Democrats want to increase the costs for maintenance so that we get out less of the money that we actually invest in maintenance?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! As I said earlier, I believe that one needs to read several different dissertations and several different reports to see what is actually what most say versus what a few individuals say.

I and my party cannot understand how it can be cheaper and better for the state to ensure that consultants do the work that the state could do, namely to keep track of what needs to be procured. It must be much better for the person who is already employed to do that work than for one to pay expensive consultants for that job, so we will continue to fight so that we take back some of the maintenance under state management.

It will be very exciting to see what happens when you, in your basis for governing this country, have a party that has a completely different opinion. They also have their own reservation, which they intend to vote against. It will be very exciting to see what they will get instead.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating railway issues.

Sweden is dependent on all modes of transport functioning. It is an elongated country with the longest coastline and the most islands in all of Europe. It is through cooperation between railway, road, aviation, and shipping that Sweden can hold together and function. Transport allows us to get to work or studies, obtain international expertise, and transport companies' goods. We therefore need to continue making large investments in our infrastructure.

The railway plays an important role in the transport system, perhaps above all for its ability to transport many people at once and large amounts of freight in an efficient way, both over long distances and in the regions around our cities. We must safeguard that function.

The single most important measure for increased capacity on the railway is that we maintain the existing railway. Many of us have been delayed on the Västra and Södra stambanan, and freight trains have had to wait in the forest because rails from the 70s have reached their technical lifespan.

To address the maintenance on the railway, approximately 50 billion kronor are required – well-invested money to secure availability and make the railway robust and reliable again. To understand the level, one can set these 50 billion kronor against just the cost increase of new high-speed lines. The cost for new main lines tripled in eight years, an increase of 240 billion kronor, almost five times the cost if we were to do all the maintenance required on today's railway. New main lines were thus a cuckoo. Now it is time to invest in maintenance and to remove bottlenecks in the railway system to once again have a robust railway.

Under the heading on bottlenecks, there are also the three parts of the new main lines that actually are bottlenecks – the Järna-Linköping section, the Göteborg-Borås section, and the Hässleholm-Lund section. These bottlenecks remain. They have not been removed. But it was the entire system that made the socio-economic profitability for the high-speed line such that we only received 50 öre back for every invested krona. And so we cannot act.

The Liberals believe that railway maintenance should continue to be procured through competition. We want to take advantage of the collective expertise in international companies on how to maintain railways in an efficient way. We want to utilize the creativity and flexibility of smaller companies.

The previous investigation that Gunnar Alexandersson presented shows that we get better quality on the maintenance at a lower cost by outsourcing the maintenance instead of having the state handle everything.

Trafikverket, however, needs to have better knowledge of the status of our railways and the ability to effectively procure the maintenance. Increased digitalization is needed, partly to effectively collect information on the railway's condition, and partly to use AI to prioritize the maintenance based on this data. That is where the big problem lies - Trafikverket's knowledge of the status of the Swedish railway network. The data that is already available is not being used.

The last half year, the railway has had major problems, primarily because Trafikverket has introduced the digital planning system MPK. It was a long-awaited system. But train operators and maintenance contractors have not been able to plan their operations, which in the end has affected passengers and many companies that use the railway for their transports. We Liberals are positive about digitalization, but not about how this has been introduced. All problems must be solved as soon as possible so that trust in the railway is not further damaged. Significantly better cooperation is required, which all actors at this morning's meeting on MPK and railway maintenance said they supported. They wanted to see increased cooperation between all actors - cargo owners, train operators, maintenance contractors, and many more. They need to collectively try to understand the challenges that exist for all involved in capacity planning and maintenance and find common solutions. That is how we can quickly find more efficient ways to carry out maintenance and more efficient ways to plan the capacity that is available. This cooperation must happen now so that trust in the railway does not further decrease.

One way to quickly increase capacity is to enable longer and heavier trains, so that fewer freight trains can transport the same amount of goods and so that each passenger train can carry significantly more passengers. This means that available capacity can be utilized optimally, and carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced. The Liberals therefore want to invest in the smaller investments in railways and platforms that are required to enable longer and heavier trains.

Madam Speaker! Last Thursday, the starting shot for the new national infrastructure plan 2026-2037 was fired with the government's decision to task Trafikverket with preparing the orientation basis. The basis must be delivered by January 15, 2024, at the latest. The Liberals fully support the focus on facilitating commuting and freight traffic and on having a transport-mode-transcending perspective on all four transport modes. Maintenance and cost-effective measures to increase capacity are at the center.

There are many railway projects queuing to be included in the infrastructure plan. But the space is limited. And that is largely due to the lack of cost control at Trafikverket, which the Swedish National Audit Office has pointed out in nine reports since 2017. This applies primarily to the initial calculation, i.e., the calculation according to which we politicians prioritize whether a project should be included in the infrastructure plan or not. This increases the risk of misprioritization and that more socially beneficial infrastructure projects end up outside the plan.

I previously raised the example of the new trunk lines with a triple cost today compared to when the decision was made to start the project in 2013. It has gone from 120 billion kronor to approximately 360 billion kronor. So we cannot continue.

By the decision to stop new main lines, many capacity shortages on the Swedish railway can be addressed in the long run. Many projects need to be carried out, not least to address the largest capacity shortage on the entire railway network, the Göteborg-Alingsås section. Göteborgs hamn, Green Cargo, SJ and MTRX, but also the regions in the north, all point to this section as one of the absolutely highest prioritized sections in Sweden. Despite this, the previous government did not include it in the current infrastructure plan. The section has a major impact on all of Sweden, both on passengers and on companies' freight, both on the important section between Sweden's two largest cities and, for example, on the freight routes down along the Norrland coast and out through Göteborgs hamn. The Liberals want to see the shovel in the ground on this section during the next parliamentary term.

Finally, I want to highlight our cross-border railway traffic, which needs to be upgraded and expanded. Coordination between the Nordic countries is absolutely crucial. The Liberals believe that we should investigate how we can organizationally facilitate future, joint Nordic infrastructure investments, not least traffic to Denmark and Norway.

Madam Speaker! Since this is our last debate before the summer, I would like to take the opportunity to wish my colleagues in the Committee on Transport, the Committee on Transport's secretariat, and other parliamentary staff a very nice summer.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We Sweden Democrats stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 3 regarding the organization of railway maintenance and a restoration of railway maintenance. If this reservation does not receive approval during the voting, we will, in the second instance, support the committee's proposal for a decision.

Madam Speaker! On May 27 this year, we could have had one of our worst railway accidents ever with over 100 dead. Pure luck ensured that was not the case. The train Arlanda Express departed from Arlanda as early as 4.20, and therefore there were only 67 people on board.

If the front carriage had derailed, instead of the rear ones, the entire train would likely have tangled and overturned, which has happened in Spain and Germany – if you remember those accidents – with many fatalities. The train was traveling at about 150 kilometers per hour. I do not want to think about how it would have ended if misfortune had struck and an oncoming train had crashed into it.

Madam Speaker! It was precisely these kinds of serious accidents that I warned against and feared - and still fear - which were the basis for why I wanted the Swedish Transport Administration to come to the Transport Committee during the previous parliamentary term to account for the poor tracks in Sweden. I also wanted to hear if there were plans to replace them.

The first two times we from the committee called Trafikverket, they ignored us and refused to come. It was only after the third time that they came. The answer we received was that approximately 280 miles or 20 percent of all rails and quantities of points need to be replaced. For about three years ago, the maintenance debt was estimated at approximately 46 billion.

To my question to Trafikverket regarding whether they planned to increase the intensity of rail replacement due to all the acute speed reductions and derailment risks, I only received a no and a reference to maintenance plans. Talk about nonchalance!

The Arlanda Express accident did not occur on Trafikverket's premises, but could just as easily have done so. I want everyone in here to be aware of how bad the situation is and what risks exist. This applies in particular to those of you who were not involved and received Trafikverket's pull during the last parliamentary term.

I mean that Trafikverket must be required to provide an action program for how to expeditiously replace all substandard rails to avoid accidents. Until then, one must ensure that acute speed reductions due to track cracks are minimized.

Madam Speaker! The past week was completely catastrophic for many travelers. In addition to, among other things, the Södra stambanan being closed between Alvesta and Norrköping, there were massive delays for other reasons.

Trafikverket informed about the excellence of completely closing the Södra stambanan for a week and that there would be more of such in the future because it is easier to maintain. That is certainly true. With that logic, Trafikverket could close all railway traffic during 2024 so that it becomes even easier to maintain. They seem to miss that we have a railway because people need to travel by train. The main purpose of the railway is not that it should be completely closed, but that it should be navigable.

When Trafikverket is to replace overhead lines on the Västra stambanan over several years - perhaps over ten - they choose to reject a reduction of the working time by up to a third and instead increase the closure distance by six to eight times because they have actively chosen to reject the most time- and cost-effective method that Sweden has, namely the wire-replacement train. It once belonged to Banverket's industrial division but is now forced to sit in a sack. The words that describe this stupidity are not suitable for the speaker's rostrum, Madam Speaker.

After the election, we Tidö parties agreed to scrap the high-speed train project – or high-cost trains, as I have chosen to call it. I have mostly heard good things about this decision from both private individuals as well as operators and the business community, given that we are now delivering on what was promised. It is about an investment in local and regional travel, which constitutes the bulk of train travel with a good bit over 90 percent of the journeys, as well as a strengthened flow for industry and freight trains. Many are the routes that need to be strengthened.

The Sweden Democrats argue that the Göteborg-Alingsås stretch must be elevated as a prioritized route. Right now, it lies dormant at Trafikverket. The work to get four tracks on that stretch must be started immediately. Other examples are four tracks between Uppsala and the county border towards Stockholm, double tracks on the most heavily loaded single-track sections, such as Hässleholm-Kristianstad, Lockarp-Trelleborg, Alvesta-Växjö and Kil-Karlstad, and the Ostkustbanan, which is so important for Norrland.

I was at Forum Vätternrundan on Friday. It is pleasing to see that the work on the double track north of Motala to Hallsberg has now come a good way. But it should have been finished already at least 20 years ago. That it is not is a mystery to me.

We have the three former stages for the high-speed train that must now be built with conventional tracks instead. I am referring primarily to the section between Lund and Hässleholm, which is extremely important for the country's exports. It needs four tracks immediately, and they should, of course, be laid along the existing route. This is also advocated by us in Skåne; I am from Hässleholm. This is partly for the sake of passenger traffic, and partly to avoid a lot of unnecessary interventions to create double noise corridors.

The East Link is about to be started, and we must complete the Göteborg-Borås section. In the long term, the latter section should also be expanded with double tracks to Jönköping, which is a major freight hub.

I also hope that the Swedish and Norwegian governments succeed with the Stockholm-Oslo project. Now that a new connection between Denmark and Sweden has stalled, new opportunities open up for this. We must also not forget that there is a great need to also renovate several marshalling yards.

Madam Speaker! The system for market-based capacity planning, MPK, has laid itself like a wet blanket over the railway. It does not, admittedly, short-circuit the track management, but over the past year it has short-circuited all planning of railway traffic where track work is involved. It cannot continue this way.

Before the new planning system was launched, Trafikverket knew that it did not work. At that point, a decision had to be made to postpone the implementation, which we advocated for and pointed out to Trafikverket. This has caused chaos in both passenger traffic and freight traffic. It has caused damages for the railway companies and the business community in amounts exceeding a billion. Over seven years have been spent developing the system. Nevertheless, the implementation was forced through - with chaos as a result.

The idea of the system was to streamline, but allow me to doubt. Right now, it is extremely personnel-intensive, and staff in the train dispatching are being lured with salary supplements of tens of thousands of kronor to stay. It is about people whom you cannot just take off the street; it takes approximately a year to internally train a traffic controller.

We cannot afford any more such mistakes at Trafikverket. We are at the starting blocks for introducing ERTMS. Will we see the same chaos then? I truly hope that Trafikverket has learned its lesson and does not rush this project as well.

Speaking of ERTMS, the cost of the project has skyrocketed. The consultancy firm Ramboll estimated the cost in 2020, on behalf of Trafikverket and the train companies, to be 46 billion, of which 16 billion would fall on the train companies. That sum is likely significantly higher today.

One can also question Trafikverket's procurement strategy. On the Malmbanan alone, the project is being procured with a handful of different procurements, while Norway has chosen one procurement for the entire country. What do you think will be the cheapest? One might wonder if this will become a new MPK.

Madam Speaker! Trafikverket has become an altogether too large colossus to manage. We need to divide Trafikverket and go back to a road authority and a railway authority. According to Trafikverket's annual report, the total number of employees was 6,806 in 2010. Twelve years later, in 2022, the total number of employees had increased to 10,642. That is an increase of 56 percent. At the same time as over 3,800 new desk jobs have been added, the number of railway technicians, who maintain and build our railway, has largely been halved by the same number of people since the turn of the millennium. Is anyone surprised that we have a maintenance debt?

Trafikverket must be restructured immediately and reduce its overhead in favor of more people working on the tracks to strengthen maintenance.

Another problem that can be observed with the merger is that it is now more difficult to obtain the required competence for several services, as Trafikverket no longer carries out maintenance, investments, and reinvestments in its own capacity as when Banverket Produktion and Vägverket Produktion existed. At that time, there were career paths within each agency, and competence and knowledge naturally remained within each respective operation and agency.

We Sweden Democrats want to take over parts of the maintenance by having Infranord merge into Trafikverket or – even better – a future banverk and having the most important rail yards and main lines maintained under our own management in contiguous corridors.

What is never talked about - although Gunilla Svantorp mentioned it here, so it has actually just been talked about - is that the own consultancy business was sold off during the merger in 2010. Banverket Projektering and Vägverket Konsult were sold to Vectura Consulting AB, and even this valuable expertise was lost. All of this must be restored so that we can tackle the competence problems within Trafikverket.

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag has issued a notice to the previous government regarding longer and heavier trains. This work seems to be progressing slowly. We see that individual meeting tracks and rail yards have begun to be designed, but we must intensify this work to strengthen the competition in favor of the railway against truck traffic.

With relatively small means, we can give the freight operators the opportunity to expand their capacity. This can also reduce congestion on the tracks as there will be fewer but longer or heavier trains. It is also a prerequisite for handling the longer trains that are expected to arrive when Fehmarn Bält opens in six years.

Madam Speaker! Some has been done, but most lies ahead of us. Now we must put harder pressure on Trafikverket to deliver more tracks, better maintenance, and more trains on time.

With this, I wish the committee and Madam Speaker with the presidium a happy summer.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! It is sometimes a bit worrying and difficult that the Sweden Democrats and the Left Party think so similarly in many of the railway issues. It can sometimes be a bit of a political or internal conflict for me as a Member of Parliament.

We do, however, agree on a lot and have the same view on much. This does not apply to high-speed railways and so on, but it applies to a good deal, including the organization of railway maintenance. Both parties also want more state maintenance.

That is why it surprises me very much when the Sweden Democrats are now backing away from their own policy. In the committee, the Sweden Democrats could stitch together a majority to get more state railway maintenance, but they choose not to do so. The committee will go to a vote tomorrow. There are seven members in the transport committee who are for more state railway maintenance and seven members—from the governing parties—who are against. The Sweden Democrats have two votes and could decide this very important issue, where we think alike.

It took a whole week for the Sweden Democrats to decide which side they would stand on. Would they pursue their own policy, as stated in the Sweden Democrats' own reservation, or would they back down? After a week, the Sweden Democrats returned and said that they will back down. They will not see their policy through to completion; instead, they will first vote on their own reservation and then on the policy from the government, which does not want to increase state railway maintenance.

My question is: Why do the Sweden Democrats choose to back away so clearly from their own policy?

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Just as Member Linda Snecker says here, the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats have a great deal in common in this case. At least in the case of the Sweden Democrats, this is not due to ideology but due to the fact that it is so incredibly simple and obvious: If one does not have maintenance in one's own management, one also does not get the competence and cannot succeed with procurements, which we are seeing now. It is not that strange.

Something that worked has been broken. The possibility of having competence in-house has been broken, and I think that is a tragedy.

I will be very straightforward and honest. There has been a January agreement before. Now we have the Tidö parties discussing matters and things. One has to give and take in negotiations. It is not stranger than that.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! Politics is about giving and taking, but also about standing up for what one actually advocates for very clearly. Here, the Sweden Democrats have been extremely clear about the division they want to see of the Transport Administration. They go into much more detail than we Members of Parliament perhaps should when it comes to the division of agencies - it is almost ministerial rule that SD is pursuing. When one is very knowledgeable about the issue, it becomes easy to do so. The Sweden Democrats are also incredibly engaged in the organization of railway maintenance.

The question then is: What else will the Sweden Democrats back down from? What can the voters rely on the Sweden Democrats actually going to implement and push through? What will the Sweden Democrats do during the coming period? Was the big fight to get rid of the high-speed trains and scrap the construction of trunk lines throughout Sweden? Was it this fight that the Sweden Democrats took and won, and will they now back down when it comes to proposal after proposal? Is this the party we are going to see in the Committee on Transport?

In such cases, my question is: Did you not pay a little too much to scrap the high-speed railways when you instead might have been able to push through a better and more well-functioning transport authority?

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, it is not ministerial rule to decide whether we should have an agency that manages all traffic. In that case, it was ministerial rule to merge Vägverket and Banverket, Madam Speaker. I believe the member Snecker will have to back down from this statement, because it is absolutely not true. It is a self-evident matter that politicians organize which agencies we shall have.

As I said, it is a giving and a taking in negotiations. What will be revisited in later negotiations, I cannot answer here and now, but we shall have to see.

The last word has perhaps not been said on this issue. Right here and now, however, we move for approval of our reservation, which concerns our desire to nationalize parts of the maintenance corresponding to Infranord's share. I do not believe that it would have been appropriate at this stage to nationalize everything, because I simply do not believe that Trafikverket is mature enough to take over such a large share. It is probably not even desirable, but just as Member Svantorp was touching upon, it is quite good to be able to benchmark private compared to public.

The share we have landed on is approximately equivalent to Infranord's share and around half the market. It is reasonable to do this in contiguous stretches, such as with the Södra stambanan and Norra stambanan, so that one can utilize personnel and send personnel when larger things happen.

I have seen this myself during all my years - I have been an electrical and cable driver for ten or eleven years and seen how the resources are insufficient when these small contracts are outsourced and what a problem it has been. I could go into many, many problems with this, but I do not intend to do that here and now.

I can state that every negotiation has its time and that new negotiations may arise. This negotiation is as it is.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I have approximately the same question.

It is not very long ago that we sat in the chamber and had a vote. At that time, it was about the professional traffic, and the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats had identical reservations. Even then, the Sweden Democrats moved for approval of their own reservation, but in the decisive vote, one still chose to vote for M, KD, and L.

Now we see exactly the same thing again. I have received questions today, because people do not understand this. They wonder why the Sverigedemokraterna are not voting for their own proposal.

The Sweden Democrats vote first on their own proposal. The custom in the Riksdag is that one lays down their vote when one's own proposal falls, but the Sweden Democrats choose not to do that. Instead, they actually vote against their own proposal. It is very strange that they do that.

Overall, it is strange that one writes reservations when one is part of a cooperation, because then one handles the negotiation on the side. This is very strange.

How are people supposed to understand what the Sweden Democrats actually want? The tone from the Sweden Democrats is quite high on various issues when they are out speaking about what they want, but then they vote completely differently when we finally get here to the Riksdag.

It is clear that negotiations are taking place, but one becomes very curious about what the Sverigedemokraterna have won in this negotiation. I perceive, however, that this is one of the major issues for Sverigedemokraterna – all the time and in all debates, people talk about the lack of maintenance and that we must reclaim a part of the maintenance under state control. Now, one chooses to vote against it. This is completely incomprehensible, Patrik Jönsson.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the example that Member Svantorp brings up, it concerned something we wanted completely different from what the Social Democrats wanted. When it comes to abandoning their own policy, I believe that Gunilla Svantorp has very good experience of that over the last eight years.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! In negotiations, it is a matter of give and take. But it is a matter of not abandoning one's own policy and one's own direction. That is, after all, the reason why we all have a political mandate.

I still have to say that the Sweden Democrats are incredibly skilled at steering from the backseat while still sounding like they are in opposition.

It is obvious that there is not a single minister who enters a single department without you having said okay to them doing so and okay to them submitting proposals. It is so obvious.

One thing we take with us from the last time the Alliance government was in power is that they choose to allocate significantly more money to tax cuts than to welfare.

In my case, when I sat in the Education Committee, it was chosen to spend 19 times more on tax cuts than on schools.

It sounds like money is going to come. It is said: We will allocate the money for infrastructure to completely different things than what the Social Democrats wanted to allocate the money on.

In my view, there is in any case a very great concern that the money that potentially remains will be spent on tax cuts. We know who benefits from tax cuts.

It is not single mothers or students. It is the high-earning men who benefit from tax cuts.

My question to Patrik Jönsson is: Will the Sverigedemokraterna contribute to something that they have said they will not do, but which they do anyway? That is, to contribute to tax cuts before investments in welfare.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Had this been a council chamber within municipal politics, the chairman would have said that the member should stick to the subject. I could argue that we are discussing railway issues here and not welfare issues and tax cuts.

What we are debating here is, reasonably, just as the member previously touched upon, whether maintenance should be state-run or subject to competition. I will be very clear. It creates a great deal of irritation for me.

MP Svantorp has sat in the Riksdag in any case for eight years. During that time, the Social Democrats have held power and have not chosen to reclaim the maintenance under state control. It almost becomes a farce of it all.

Madam Speaker! I explained to the previous Minister for Infrastructure, Tomas Eneroth, that if he wanted to push through a form of state maintenance, a proposal of that kind should be presented.

Now an investigation came that was directly worthless. They wanted to dabble here and dabble there. It was neither sharp nor thorough. Somewhere I feel that perhaps one should sweep clean in front of one's own door first.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am on the same theme. Now, it sounds like from Patrik Jönsson that it is not so important. The reservation that we have from S, V and MP is so far from what you want that you could not support it, or vote in such a way that it passes. You want to go a bit further.

When I read your reservation, I perceive it as you being unusually close. It is about taking back parts of the railway maintenance and ensuring that Trafikverket receives the competence it needs.

I think Patrik Jönsson describes this in a good way in his speech. We know that Trafikverket has lost the competence. It must come back. The question is how much of the maintenance needs to be brought back in. But it is needed. To then do nothing becomes incredibly strange.

I also understand this regarding negotiations. I have read in every case the negotiation results that are public. It is often pointed out that the Tidö Agreement should be followed to the letter. I have no memory of anything regarding railway maintenance being in it.

It is clear that there are a lot of underlying agreements that govern your cooperation, and that is how it usually is. It would be interesting to know what else during the mandate period you will say you want to do, but which you know will never happen, because you have already negotiated it away.

In relation to the reservation you have, it becomes even more strange, especially for the public. The member demands it even though the member will not stand behind it. I would have understood it more if you had demanded something other than the proposals you have. To make it sound as if you will stand behind it, I think is a bit strange.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not remember if it was the Miljöpartiets spokesperson Isabella Lövin or someone else who cried when one had been forced to abandon some question regarding immigration policy. One had truly encroached upon the Miljöpartiets soul when one had been forced to compromise on a question.

Just as Member Helldén says here, it is negotiations and a give and take. That is how it is. It is not that we do not think it is important. On the contrary, I spent a great deal of time in my speech explaining why, without us restoring the maintenance activities.

We advocate that Infranord should be taken over by the state. It is admittedly a state-owned company. But you do not have the career path. Without the state part of the maintenance, you do not get the career paths, and you do not get the competence. It is long-term.

I have not spoken to a single person in the industry - and I know very many after 20 years in the railway - who has thought that this is good. Not a single one.

I stand by the fact that it is a matter of fate if we do not decentralize the maintenance. Fate issue two is that we split Trafikverket into a road authority and a rail authority. If we do not do that, we will be standing here not just in four years, but in eight or twelve years, and having the same discussions. It will not get better.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am still surprised that the Sweden Democrats are pushing this issue so hard. You highlight it and make it sound as if you support it.

Furthermore, Patrik Jönsson is now standing there and saying that the proposal we have is so trivial that it will not yield any result. So that is how I perceived the motion.

It would be interesting to know what the Sweden Democrats think about the proposal we have and how far away from it it actually is. I see it as a first step and an important reform. I believe that the Sweden Democrats also stand behind that.

It was another language tube that cried in the broadcast. There, it was about government negotiations. It was completely obvious that one was explaining what was happening in that context.

Here in the chamber, the Sweden Democrats present it as if they are still driving the issue and that it is all well and good. The impression is that the Sweden Democrats, which is practically a governing party, are driving the issue and can get it through. But then they back down.

It is the whole process around it that becomes so strange. I think the Sverigedemokraterna could stand up straight and take this against the government. It is such an important issue for Sweden's railways and the future of the railways.

We will not get this in order if we let it continue as it has been until now. But the Sweden Democrats are backing down. We can only regret that.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker and Member Daniel Helldén! All those who have spoken against me have pointed out that negotiations are a give and take.

Regarding whether the proposal you have written is flimsy or not, I want to say: Absolutely not. I have not said that. It is a misunderstanding. However, it is diffuse. Your proposal is much more diffuse than the Sweden Democrats' proposal.

We are very clear about what we want. I have said it before. It is about us wanting to take over Infranord's share in state ownership.

Then perhaps that is not the last word said on this issue, but the last word is said for this year. But I naturally hope for a different outcome later. I am very clear: This is a matter of destiny. We will be standing here with the same problem - no, with worse problems! - in four, eight, or twelve years if nothing is done.

If Trafikverket is not divided into a road authority and a rail authority and if a part of the maintenance is not re-established, we will never get the competence. This cannot be bought.

It is roughly like asking Ingemar Stenmark how he can be so good at downhill skiing. Do you think the answer will be "I have purchased this as a consultancy service" or "I have trained myself for this"? I actually believe that Ingemar Stenmark has trained himself for it. He knows his business. He can ski downhill. He has not bought this, but he has that knowledge himself.

In exactly the same way, I mean that Trafikverket must know its infrastructure, and that will not happen if one does not have maintenance under its own management.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! Last night, an SMS arrived stating that the train to Stockholm was cancelled and that replacement buses would potentially be arranged. Last week, the Södra stambanan was completely closed, and then no trains ran at all between Malmö and Stockholm. Today, there were many repairs that were still not finished after a week of train chaos for large parts of Sweden. And there we stood in Norrköping, everyone who wanted to get to work and everyone who had just started their summer holidays and were about to leave.

The train journey is climate-smart and fast and should function significantly better than it does. But there is no interest from the government that Sweden's railways should function. After several weeks, the Minister for Infrastructure heard the warnings from heavy industry that the freight transports will not function this summer, because Trafikverket's implementation of a digital train planning system has not worked at all. It will take a year before the train planning functions again.

It is very good that the Minister for Infrastructure had a meeting with Tågföretagen today, but as long as the government stops the construction of new main lines and more railway overall in Sweden, the patching and repairing of, for example, the Södra stambanan will continue to mean that we cannot get to work for a week's time.

Madam Speaker! Last week I visited Fehmarn Belt, the giant immersed tunnel being built between Denmark and Germany to replace the ferry that today both cars and trains take to transport themselves further into Europe. And when one stands there on the continent – Denmark always feels so wonderfully European – one is struck by how incredibly petty Sweden's infrastructure planning is and how small and nationalistic it is.

It is visionless without the will to make Sweden grow and become part of Europe. The government has completely swallowed SD's nation-first perspective, where the car is pitted against the railway and where neither national competition nor cooperation has any significance, for it is the nation-state that must come first.

But the problem with the nation first perspective is that Sweden will fall behind. Our trains with green steel from LKAB will not be able to travel down to the rest of Europe. Sweden as a green industrial nation will not be able to be realized if the railway does not work.

A single freight train corresponds to approximately 40 trucks. Transporting more by road would mean increased carbon emissions, more road wear and tear, and more disturbances for residents along the roads. Often, it is also not possible to replace a freight train because it would require significantly more time for loading and unloading.

But if we want the railway to function, it is obvious that more of the maintenance must take place under state management. Trafikverket is a procurement authority with hundreds of subcontractors, and the difficulties this entails become clear today, as the Södra stambanan is still not open.

Here, Vänsterpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna share the same perspective: more state maintenance. We push for this together with Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet. Together, we have a majority in the committee.

But SD backs down from its own policy. It is said that one pushes for Trafikverket to be divided and become a banverk and that Infranord should take over more maintenance. But when it comes down to it, the backbone is weak, and one goes to the government and negotiates something that one then backs down on. It is very weak!

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats might be a little worried about tomorrow's vote. If the Left Party, the Social Democrats, and the Green Party were to vote in favor of the Sweden Democrats' reservation, it would result in a majority for more state railway maintenance, something that the Sweden Democrats themselves are too weak to push through. I think the Sweden Democrats should be a bit vigilant about what happens tomorrow.

Nevertheless, I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! This long railway debate can be summarized by nothing other than that the railway in Sweden is limping considerably. But I would also say that the Swedes are suffering. The trains do not run as they should, railway sections are closed, the booking systems are glowing red with planned track maintenance, and it is not possible to book journeys during the summer. And we will see the same thing this autumn.

The travelers want to travel by train, but how can they do that when one can only book a one-way trip but cannot find a return journey? Few can be so flexible in their lives that they can wait until the last minute to see if they will get home. How are vacationing Swedes to be able to plan their travel? How are working Swedes to be able to plan their everyday lives? This is beyond all criticism!

It is fortunate that we have learned digital meetings and remote work, but it does not help those who are going to visit loved ones. It does not help those who are going up to the mountains this summer.

It is strange that we in Sweden are unable to plan the train traffic and that Trafikverket is unable to fulfill its mission. We are now also seeing how booked trips are disappearing. It is reported late that the maintenance is pulling the rug out from under those who are about to travel.

I must reflect on my own everyday life here. My own mother-in-law was affected as recently as last week. She had booked a trip long in advance to come up to see her grandchild. But hux flux, the trip was gone and had been replaced with a number of transfers with many extra hours of travel. No reasonable solution existed. Many can survive this and can handle the anxiety and manage an alternative journey of several extra hours, but not a 90-year-old.

The trains are delayed and cancelled. People testify to chaos and confusion. Trafikverket is unable to manage its mission. The government does nothing, and the Swedes suffer. Freight transport also suffers in silence. The companies, which had counted on transporting their goods, openly testify how all this chaos makes them unsure of how they will manage their production and their logistics this summer.

Not being able to plan the transports hampers the business sector. The effect we will have in the long term, both for freight traffic and passenger traffic, is that they will switch to road, and we do not want them there. We do not want people and freight to end up on the road and contribute to increased climate emissions in a time of climate crisis. We do not want people and freight to take up space on the road and wear down the roads we have. We want people to choose the climate-smart and efficient train. We want the freight, especially the heavy transports, to take the railway. We know that the public and the business sector want to use the trains. We must get the railway in order.

I said earlier that Trafikverket is not fulfilling its mission. Now, Trafikverket is not the only culprit in the drama. No, we can now also see how the government and its support party SD are pulling the rug out from under the future.

Some of the problems are, of course, about Trafikverket, including the new planning system MPK, market-adapted capacity planning. It does not work.

Another part is the lack of new tracks, the new tracks that would create redundancy in the system so that we can maintain it, ensure that things work and move it over. The government has pulled that away when they removed the new main lines. They claim at the same time that they will do other things, but they are only pushing the problems forward. In 10-15 years we will be standing there with enormous problems.

A third part concerns the lack of a new signaling system, something that has been worked on for a long time but now seems to have come to a complete standstill.

A fourth part concerns how the maintenance is planned and carried out. Here, the government and unfortunately also SD have been completely wrong.

These are four important pieces of the puzzle to achieve a functioning railway. But nothing is happening - above all, not with the railway maintenance, which we have talked about for a long time here today.

There is an investigation, Framtidens järnvägsunderhåll, which was released in 2020. In it, there are clear proposals on how one could change railway maintenance by taking back parts to Trafikverket so that the agency gets the competence it needs for procurement, for maintenance, and for dealing with the private contractors. The investigation discusses to what extent one should do this and how far one should go. The important thing, however, is that we start the work, because otherwise, we will not get a functioning railway network in Sweden.

We need good maintenance that Trafikverket can manage. We need new trunk lines that allow us to perform the maintenance even when we look 10-15 years into the future. But there, the government has pulled the rug out from under us, and it is deeply regrettable.

The investigation states that development work in an in-house maintenance operation would accelerate and support the development required in a number of areas to achieve a more robust facility without the maintenance costs increasing significantly. It also points out that some in-house maintenance activity is required for Trafikverket to be able to be a good procurer.

It is precisely this that is so central. Experiences from almost all industrial companies show that it is difficult to procure and develop business models in an optimal way for an activity that one does not have own experience of. We who have worked in municipalities also know how difficult it can be to have procurement activities when one does not do things oneself and does not know what requirements and specifications one should have. The base tunnel must, in part, be taken back from the private sector to Trafikverket.

We in the opposition have a motion where we propose, in line with the investigation, a partial retaking of the railway maintenance. The government does not want to. Its fourth leg, SD, the Tidö Agreement's largest party, wants to but does not dare. They want to go further than we do but choose in this issue to duck. It is incredibly regrettable, because here we could solve a task in a good way.

If you are a party that safeguards the railway, you take this step. We have talked about it before. I regret that the proposal to reclaim parts of the maintenance will likely not pass at the vote that will take place tomorrow. I had hoped that it would. There is still a day of reflection for some members. We will see what happens.

Madam Speaker! For the sake of time, I choose to only move for approval of reservation 2 regarding the organization of railway maintenance. With that, I would like to thank you for this parliamentary year - I was about to say the term - and the final debate. I also thank the Committee on Transport, the Committee on Transport's secretariat and the Swedish Parliament Administration for their work - and the Speaker.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! This debate has taken some different turns. I also represent a party that protects the railway; however, we do not have the same view at all of what the maintenance should look like going forward.

The Chairman stated himself that there is a period of reflection before tomorrow's vote, where approval has been requested for reservations 2, 3 and 4. In that case, I would like to ask: Could it be so, based on the idea that this is such an important issue – the Sverigedemokraterna representative just now said in an exchange of remarks that it was a matter of destiny – that Miljöpartiet, and perhaps also Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna, can imagine supporting reservation 3, which would mean that a majority was reached for this?

I think that there are more parties that have something to think about before tomorrow.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was an interesting question here in the final stretch of the term or the parliamentary year, Ulrika Heie. I would say that it could be theoretically possible. Now, the Sweden Democrats go further. We are a bit more in the middle on this issue, and I think it is the best proposal in this context. To take the entire step that the Sweden Democrats propose is perhaps not what we should do in this situation.

But it is an interesting proposal. Just as I have said that other parties can reflect on the development until tomorrow, I shall also do so.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Daniel Helldén, for that answer! I listened carefully to the previous exchange of remarks, and I perceived that the member himself said that one stood very close to each other in the view on this – hence my question.

Now the member says that there are certain differences in these two reservations linked to how clear the one is and how much fluffier the other perhaps is. But it will be exciting for us before tomorrow's vote to consider in what way the majority in this Riksdag can turn out in the issue.

I have no further follow-up question and am waiting with anticipation for this. Perhaps the member would still like to say something further linked to how he thinks here.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! What I can say is that the Sweden Democrats' motion is close to ours. That is why we have discussed whether we could have a joint vote and thereby achieve a change in this area. One could call our proposal fluffy, but the Sweden Democrats point to a specific change in the context that I perhaps would not start with at this stage.

I can also say this: There are several parties that can consider how they should vote tomorrow, for example, Centerpartiet.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 June.)

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