Railway issues

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! We shall once again discuss railway issues in this chamber. Initially, I would like to move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Mr. Speaker! Debating committee reports can sometimes give the feeling that one has experienced the debate before. To some extent, that is also the case. It is not that the questions are eternal, but during a parliamentary term, the issues are often recurring. That is also true this year. The restoration of railway maintenance, ERMTS, and track charges are some of the things that recur in this report and that have been included previously. These are important issues that are crucial for the railway system to function.

Since October 2022, we have had a government with the ambition to gradually get Sweden in order again. This is also an important starting point within infrastructure and railway transport. It is a major task, and there are no shortcuts. The most important proposition of the mandate period within the Transport Committee's preparatory area is the infrastructure proposition, which is followed by a national plan for the period 2026-2037. Trafikverket's orientation basis has been presented and sent out for consultation. It is to be ready by April 15. After that, analyses and processing are carried out before a proposition is presented.

To look forward, in a broad sense, one must sometimes look backward, not least to learn and draw conclusions from what has been. An authority that has done this is the Swedish National Audit Office. In December last year, they presented a report that I believe very many reacted strongly to. It was a total dismantling of how the previous government handled infrastructure policy during its eight years. The Swedish National Audit Office writes in a press release about the report: "The government has disrupted long-term infrastructure planning through its management of the Swedish Transport Administration. The Swedish Transport Administration's weak cost control has worsened the situation. The result is poorer transport opportunities and more deaths in traffic than would otherwise have been possible."

This is extremely strong criticism. If one reads the entire report, one actually becomes terrified. It is a dreadful conclusion that the National Audit Office delivers, and they stood by it when they were asked about it during our committee presentation of their report.

The new government, our government, wants to work with infrastructure by focusing on what is socio-economically profitable and ensuring that what we already have in place functions. That one has chosen to invest heavily in new large and expensive projects instead of ensuring that we have a railway that actually works is something that very many are suffering for today. We have switches that should have been replaced a long time ago. That trains derail and so on is due to our lack of maintenance. It has to do with the policy that the previous government pursued with all its might, even though Trafikverket was clear: If one does not increase the appropriations for maintenance, our railways will be in worse condition at the end of the planning period than at the beginning.

We will try to ensure that this does not continue, so that we can get the railway in order. There is much that needs to be done, and there are no shortcuts. We need, as said, to ensure that we maintain what we have, so that people can rely on that the trains run on time and that they arrive on time and are not left sitting out on the tracks. It is also important to ensure that our companies receive their deliveries on time.

As a government, one must dare to prioritize and ensure that what we have functions and that we make the right priorities, so that they become socio-economically profitable. There are very many who, in the debate in different ways, distort this issue of socio-economic profitability, which I find incredibly strange. From the Moderate side, Mr. Speaker, we are careful that tax money is used wisely, and then one must ensure that we prioritize according to socio-economic profitability. This applies in particular to the railway.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! During the last few months, we have had delayed trains, stationary trains, cancelled trains, and derailed trains. On many of these occasions, it has been due to deficiencies in the railway that could have been avoided if the railway had been maintained in a timely manner for preventive purposes. In our budget, we want to invest 500 million more than the right wants on railway maintenance.

In the government's budget bill, it is stated that "the government considers that the deregulated railway market has contributed to a positive development of railway maintenance". Sweden has the world's most deregulated railway. We have delayed trains and cancelled trains. Where is the positive development?

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is an investigation from 2015 that points out how the maintenance could be reorganized and what measures would need to be taken regarding the governance of Trafikverket. That investigation was very clear on one thing in its evaluation of the deregulation of railway maintenance: When a procurement procedure has been used instead of Trafikverket or Banverket handling everything on their own, the costs have been 25 percent lower and the quality the same. One therefore gets much more for the money when using procurement than if Trafikverket were to do this itself.

The Swedish National Audit Office's evaluation of Trafikverket's work shows, however, that they are not working in a sufficiently efficient manner in the procurement of railway maintenance. The criticism of Trafikverket has been extensive regarding their management and organization of the maintenance. I find it very difficult to believe that it would become better if they were to take it over themselves. Furthermore, independent evaluations show that more has been obtained for the same cost.

The investigation from 2015 had a number of proposals on how the maintenance could be organized and how Trafikverket should work. The previous government sent the investigation out for consultation, but then it disappeared into a black hole. My question back to Åsa Karlsson is: Why did they not take action on this – why did they do nothing about Trafikverket's procurement and other matters and ensure that they work in an efficient way? Then we would not have had the situation we have today. When, in addition, one deliberately invests too little in the maintenance over many years, it becomes a perfect storm of misery, I would say. It has led to the situation we now find ourselves in.

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The answer raises questions for me. One is happy to refer to investigations that highlight one's own views. The investigation that Maria Stockhaus refers to is from 2015. But we also have, for example, the significantly more modern investigation report Framtidens järnvägsunderhåll, which is from 2020. There, it is pointed out that changes need to be made because one is not achieving good procurement. Still, the government parties refuse to agree to even investigate whether a transfer of railway maintenance to Trafikverket would improve the maintenance.

How does the member view that the deregulation "contributed to a positive development"? What is it that is positive? I cannot see it.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! It would have been interesting to have two parallel railway systems where they had been done in respective ways in order to be able to compare. Then we could have obtained a proper independent evaluation. But here, VTI - which is very independent, we may say - has looked at this and said that private companies do it more efficiently. They develop their methods in a way that makes it possible to get more maintenance for the money invested.

Mr. Speaker! Eleven reports from the Swedish National Audit Office, several of which concern railway maintenance, have collectively criticized how Trafikverket operates. They do not have a grip on the facilities. They do not conduct the procurements on the correct basis. That has resulted in us ending up where we are today. The previous government did nothing at all in light of the reports from the Swedish National Audit Office.

This government is now trying, together with our coalition partner, to achieve a change of Trafikverket - a change that the previous government had plenty of grounds to make but chose not to do. It is about private actors carrying out the maintenance themselves. There, I believe we end up in an ideological issue regarding the view on private companies and whether they manage things more efficiently than a state agency would. I rely on independent evaluations that show that we get more for the money.

Then the Swedish Transport Administration needs to step up regarding how they work with these procurements. It is a task that unfortunately should have been done a long time ago, which the previous government did not do but which this government is now taking action on.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! The railway in Sweden has a relatively long history. It is immensely important. We have many times heard about how incredibly quickly it was possible to build quite many miles of railway in the 1800s. It becomes a bit lopsided to compare this with the advanced system that it is about today when one builds new railway.

The Committee on Transport has many different reports during a spring. This report is called TU6 Railway Issues, but quite a few of the railway issues recur in the infrastructure report that we will debate at another occasion. One might wonder why certain railway issues do not come up here. I wanted to explain this to those listening to the debate and who perhaps wonder why not all railway issues are included in the same debate.

Furthermore, there are many important railway issues in this report. The member from Moderaterna raised the issue of organizing maintenance. In that regard, the Centerpartiet has a reservation which has number 4, and I would like to take this opportunity now to move for its approval.

This is about the organization of railway maintenance. In the previous exchange, we could hear that the Moderaterna were very clear about the importance of continuing to have the maintenance in private hands, but still having good competence at Trafikverket so that the procurement of maintenance functions in a good way. The Centerpartiet also highlights this as a very important part.

Both effective and high-tech maintenance are needed. Centerpartiet also believes that procurement on market terms is the best way to do this. The agency then has the right knowledge and competence to strengthen this so that it becomes efficient. This is a very important part. Increased competition provides lower prices and better quality if it is managed in the right way.

Mr. Speaker! One becomes quite curious about the political game that is currently taking place. I want to take this opportunity to mention this, because in this report there are very many reservations from the Sweden Democrats.

Now we know that infrastructure issues will become part of the Tidö Agreement. I noted that the Sverigedemokraterna powerfully applauded the Moderaterna's contribution, which concerned maintenance that continues to be carried out in private hands. A number of the reservations on this area in the report concern that the Sverigedemokraterna are very critical of it being done in this way – they would like to nationalize the maintenance. It will be exciting to ask questions moving forward when the Sverigedemokraterna now intend to negotiate with the government parties on this issue. How do the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna imagine that the parties in the Tidö cooperation will be able to reach a compromise?

Another important part linked to the railway development is the technical development of the signaling system. When discussions about ERTMS began, it was thought that it might cost a couple of billion, but now we are at completely different figures. I can wonder how the government parties intend to work with this issue. I can also feel that the question is raised a bit too early. It will be handled in the infrastructure bill that will come later this year, and therefore I chose not to ask any question about this to the member who represents the government party.

Mr. Speaker! The climate goals are also important for the railway. We know that it is extremely climate-smart to transport goods and people by rail. However, there are a number of railways in Sweden - not that many - that are not electrified and where diesel locomotives are operated. The Energy Authority has delivered an investigation, and I imagine that the government parties are looking curiously at how it would be possible to have a strategy for, for example, hydrogen trains and how this could be an opportunity on, for example, the Inlandsbanan. Kinnekullebanan, in my home in Western Sweden, is another line where it would be extremely interesting with hydrogen trains. It would be exciting to see how the government parties position themselves on this issue beyond just following the developments, as it is usually called.

There is another important issue that I would like to raise in this context. It is something that has become clearer every year. I mentioned the climate issue and the possibility of running trains in other ways than with diesel, but I am also thinking about the possibility of running trains in other ways than with electrification. From a total defense perspective, it becomes incredibly important that one can maintain train traffic even if there were to be disruptions in the power system. Therefore, this issue becomes important for us to follow.

At the same time, it becomes important not only to follow the issue but also to ensure that these routes, for example Inlandsbanan, are given the right conditions so that one can refuel with hydrogen in the way that would be needed moving forward.

These were some questions that we from the Center Party side wanted to raise. It concerns the continued organization of the maintenance. It also concerns the design of the signaling system moving forward, even though I chose to wait with the actual debate on this.

It is also about the climate issue. We have a major challenge from a total defense perspective when it comes to being able to use the railway as well in the event of a crisis or war. Therefore, it is very important to be able to see that trains can run on fuels other than electricity or diesel.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to express my support for the committee's proposal.

All of Sweden shall function - it is a clear priority for us Christians Democrats and for the entire government. Therefore, jobs and growth are protected throughout the country.

For the country to have good opportunities to grow, live, and develop, large investments in the transport infrastructure are needed. None of us need to travel so far in our country to realize that large investments are required in both the road network and the railway network. Therefore, I am glad that we have a government that prioritizes capacity increases and upgrading of existing railways, better road standards, and the expansion of the charging infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker! The development of railway traffic has been very strong for a long time. This is positive, but it has resulted in capacity shortages and heavy wear and tear on an aging railway infrastructure. The Tidö parties have therefore rearranged the priorities for the railway infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker! We have a very large maintenance debt. According to Trafikverket's latest assessment, the maintenance debt amounts to approximately 35 billion kronor for roads and approximately 91 billion kronor for railways. Therefore, during the coming mandate period, the government shall prioritize continued improvements of the existing infrastructure, repair where it is needed, and manage our common resources in the best possible way.

Preventive maintenance increases the lifespan of our roads and railways. This is a technology-intensive activity. Digitalization expands the possibilities to conduct more efficient and more purposeful maintenance.

The Christian Democrats consider, like the other Tidö parties, that the planning and implementation of maintenance and capacity-enhancing measures in the railway network shall be based on socio-economic profitability and a long-term sustainable transport supply. This will be an important starting point in the work towards a new national plan for the planning period 2026-2037.

Mr. Speaker! A NATO membership will bring both opportunities and challenges. The transport sector needs to be developed and its capacity strengthened in order to maintain essential societal functions, both during various types of peacetime crises and during high alert or, in the worst case, war.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Magnus Oscarsson for the speech, and we share much of the view on how the maintenance should be organized. In the committee's position, one can clearly read that the committee shares the government's view that the current order with a deregulated railway market has contributed to a positive development of railway maintenance and therefore finds that there is no reason to take any action in light of the motion proposals that Trafikverket should carry out railway maintenance to a greater extent in its own capacity.

Magnus Oscarsson's party is responsible for infrastructure issues in the government, so therefore I ask: How can one trust that it will continue like that now when the Sverigedemokraterna are also to be involved in the infrastructure parts? I look forward to listening to the Sverigedemokraterna's statement in a moment, but I wonder when you will reconcile with each other regarding how the railway maintenance shall be conducted going forward.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ulrika Heie for the question.

Just as the member has pointed out, we have a clear position on the issue. Discussions are, of course, being held with all Tidö parties, and I can say that we are confident in the policy we have presented. Of course, there are things that must be improved, and we have also pointed that out via Trafikverket. The government parties are in discussions with the Sverigedemokraterna about how we can improve the situation in the transport network.

It is positive that the Tidö parties have a very good dialogue with a give-and-take, and I believe that this dialogue will be important to change tracks when it comes to the perspective. There is so much in our country that we need to address, and in traffic issues, it is very important to ensure that we get our roads and the railway in order, which has been talked about for a long time. The maintenance debt has not arrived now; it has existed for a very long time. I look forward to this cooperation between the Tidö parties.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Magnus Oscarsson for the answer.

Both Maria Stockhaus and Magnus Oscarsson highlight the importance of continuing to have railway maintenance on a free market because it lowers costs and increases quality, but say that one also needs to ensure that Trafikverket has the right competence to be able to carry out correct procurements. Is this something you will stick to, or will you move more towards the Sweden Democrats' view that all railway maintenance should be nationalized? These are, after all, diametrically opposed positions. One says to have a fine dialogue and applauds each other's speeches despite it being different politics than in the committee's position.

Can we trust that the Christian Democrats will hold the view on a market economy for efficient railway maintenance? Or is one prepared to sacrifice this in a negotiation to get something else? It is an important question, because it is important to consider which positions one holds that also hold over time.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ulrika Heie for her rhetorical question, because it is indeed about rhetoric. When we were in opposition, we asked the same question to the Center Party: Can you be trusted? You supported the government at that time. The answer we always received from the Center Party was: You can trust us. My answer is the same: Ulrika Heie can trust the Christian Democrats. We will not nationalize more. It is not necessary because there are companies that can do this well. My answer to the rhetorical question is therefore: The Member can absolutely trust the Christian Democrats.

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Transport's report TU6 Railway issues, and I begin by moving for approval of reservation 2.

Sweden is an elongated country, 205 miles long from Treriksröset to Smygehuk. For the infrastructure to function in the entire country, it is required that we have access to all four modes of transport: road, aviation, shipping, and railway, which we are debating here today.

A strong transport system is a prerequisite for jobs and growth. It is important that the transport laws interact well so that transport can be as simple and smooth as possible. This also applies to cross-border transport, which has received increasing attention in light of the geopolitical situation with war in our vicinity and through the upcoming NATO membership. We will need to review the infrastructure needs from a total defense perspective. Here, the railway has an important role to play. The importance of having a robust railway in a changed geopolitical situation must be taken seriously. We must have enough tracks, and the tracks that already exist must be maintained.

Mr. Speaker! Passenger traffic on the railway has increased significantly since the 1990s. It has more than doubled, and the forecast ahead looks strong. The train has already recovered after the pandemic. More and more people choose the train because it is a climate-smart and convenient way to travel and an efficient way to reach larger labor market regions. One gets significantly further in the same amount of time by train than by car. Freight traffic has also increased significantly recently and has an enormous significance for the business sector. The increase means that more and more passenger trains and freight trains will have to share the tracks, where it is already crowded. Track work and railway maintenance must also share the tracks.

It is already crowded on the tracks, and it will become even more crowded with the increase in rail traffic. When the Fehmarn Bält connection opens in 2029, the need for rail transport between Scandinavia and the continent will increase further, while the need for railway maintenance also increases.

Today we have 14,200 kilometers of railway tracks, 525 stations, 11,000 switches, 4,100 bridges and 165 tunnels, but it is not enough. We need to expand the railway where there is a need. We need to remove the bottlenecks that block the flow in the infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker! The day before Christmas Eve 2022, the announcement came that the planning for new main lines would be stopped or paused. The Göteborg-Borås section was paused, the Hässleholm-Lund section was stopped, and the planning for the Jönköping-Hässleholm section was aborted. Ostlänken, Järna-Linköping, had come too far in the planning to be able to be aborted but would be investigated for cost reduction. These announcements have led to further delay of the expansion of new main lines.

Furthermore, appeals regarding the construction of the Norrbotniabanan Dåva-Skellefteå lay on the government's desk for almost a year before a decision was reached just before Christmas that all appeals were rejected. This delayed the project, which would have needed to be completed already given the green industrial development in northern Sweden. Moreover, Norrbotniabanan would have already been finished if the right-wing government that took office in 2006 had not quickly halted the construction.

It is unfortunate that the right-wing government has such a negative attitude towards the construction of a new railway. It risks giving Sweden an outdated transport system. An improved infrastructure benefits all inhabitants in the country, not least the business sector, which is also driving the green transition that is now taking place and which needs a well-developed infrastructure and reliable transport. If it is in place, goods can arrive faster and more climate-smart and labor market regions can grow. We must have a railway that connects the country.

Mr. Speaker! We also need to maintain the railway we have. Lately, we have heard about delayed trains, cancelled trains, switching errors, and a shortage of trains almost every day. So we cannot have that! Furthermore, we have had several cases of trains derailing. It is not acceptable!

The latest derailment occurred on December 17 when a freight train derailed on the Malmbanan between Kiruna and Narvik, a stretch that is usually traversed by eight to ten trains a day. LKAB can expect income losses of at least 100 million kronor per day. The forecast for when the track would reopen was actually set for today, but it is delayed and is now estimated to reopen on February 4. Even so, there are 60 to 100 people who have been working around the clock to repair this track since the derailment. It is a stretch of 15 kilometers that needs to be repaired. It involves approximately 25,000 sleepers that must be replaced, as well as switches and cables and everything else that comes with it, and this during a period when there has been extreme weather with a cold of minus 35, storms and snowfall.

In our budget proposal, we wanted to invest 500 million more than the right-wing government on railway maintenance. It was voted down by the majority in the Swedish Riksdag. Those funds would have been needed now.

Sweden has for a long time, under many different governments, under-invested in railway maintenance. That is what is noticeable now with derailments, delays, and impaired accessibility. We now need to invest in both new railways and in the maintenance of the existing railway. We must also invest more in preventive maintenance as it is cheaper in the end than remedial maintenance, that is, repairing when it is already broken.

It is important to have control over the costs of infrastructure investments, such as railway maintenance, and that there is transparency regarding the reasons why the cost increases have skyrocketed. If Trafikverket managed the railway maintenance in its own capacity, it would lead to increased competence within the state regarding the condition of the railway.

People and companies must be able to rely on the railway and the trains functioning every day. Efficient and functioning railway maintenance is a prerequisite for this. We can state that the deregulated railway has unfortunately led to the state losing competence when it comes to railway maintenance. Preventive work is significantly cheaper than remedial maintenance. In order for the state to increase its competence, we believe that an increased part of the railway maintenance should be carried out in-house. We consider it necessary to achieve a robust Swedish railway.

We therefore consider that the government should review the possibility for the state to carry out railway maintenance to an increased extent under its own management.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not quite know where to begin. I have written "eight years!!" at the top of my note card. When the member speaks, one might think that her party has been far from taking responsibility for anything to do with the railway, but that is simply not true. It is not so long ago that the Social Democrats left Rosenbad.

I previously quoted the Swedish National Audit Office's latest report. There, one can read that with the previous government's management of Trafikverket, transport opportunities have worsened and more people have died in traffic. It is quite serious criticism.

And by saying "cards are laid" when the previous plan was submitted, one has not been able to test unprofitable projects. Trafikverket was nevertheless very clear in its basis for the previous plan that, as the distribution looked between maintenance and new investments, the status of the facilities would be significantly worse than they were at the beginning of the period.

It is somewhat remarkable, Mr. Speaker, to stand and talk about all the maintenance that is needed when one has so deliberately sidelined and ignored everything that Trafikverket has said and warned about, and has simply micro-managed Trafikverket in a way that has led to the situation we find ourselves in now.

I think it is remarkable that one sits on such high horses and pretends that one has had no responsibility at all, despite having had responsibility for eight years and despite the National Audit Office having completely shredded the previous government's infrastructure policy.

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by reminding that the Social Democrats had 500 million more in railway maintenance than the government had.

The criticism from the National Audit Office was scathing. I have read it, of course. It went very hard on the previous government's planning. Regarding "lagt kort ligger" (laid cards lie), we know that the business community and municipalities and regions have been grateful to receive long-term planning and that the planning is not reset every four years. Therefore, "lagt kort ligger" is a good strategy.

The National Audit Office also wrote that they thought the investment in the Malmbanan was useless because it would not provide any socio-economic profit. Malmbanan transports ore and steel from LKAB. It concerns 90 percent of Europe's steel production. Is that not a social benefit, I don't know. What are we supposed to build then?

The National Audit Office also thought that the Norrbotniabanan should not have been included because it had not been sufficiently analyzed. But then we must be aware of the acute situation up in northern Sweden with the green transition. The Norrbotniabanan should already have been in place; it would already have been needed. It is an acute need for the Norrbotniabanan. The government at the time took its responsibility and included it in the national plan.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! What the National Audit Office criticized with "laid short" was that there is no possibility to reassess projects where costs escalate to completely unreasonable levels. The Östlänken is such an example. Now, the planning has progressed so far that it is difficult to stop. That project should have been reviewed and given completely different directives much earlier.

It is remarkable that one dares to throw in the Norrbotniabanan in the plan without having a proper basis. I am not saying that the Norrbotniabanan was not needed, and sometimes one must also look at aspects other than just the purely socio-economic profitability - that is what many say. But with the principle of sunk costs, it becomes a problem when we have projects where the costs have not just risen by a few percent but have become several times more expensive. Then one must be able to reconsider.

I believe that the Swedish people and also companies that are dependent on our infrastructure expect us to take responsibility for the tax money instead of just letting it roll away without control and without considering whether this is right to continue with or not.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is remarkable that one beats one's breast because one indeed allocates 500 million more than the government for railway maintenance. But the fact is that in your previous plan, you made a distribution of the money between new investments and maintenance when Trafikverket explicitly wrote that the facilities will be in worse condition at the end of the period than they were at the beginning. Still, you chose to let it stand and make no changes, which has meant that we have insufficient maintenance, and that we have had it for a very long time.

As said, 500 million in all glory, but this criticism concerns that one has not invested sufficiently in maintenance over several years back, which makes us in the situation we are in today. It has been more fun to cut ribbons in election campaigns than to ensure that the facility we have functions.

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I also mentioned in my speech that there has been a lack of maintenance for a fairly long time and under many different governments - not only the S government but also previous governments.

This was noted by the previous government. In the infrastructure bill submitted before the national plan that came in 2022, the financial framework amounted to 876 billion. It was an increase of 176 billion compared to the previous plan.

In the plan, 165 billion was also allocated to railway maintenance, and that was an increase of 40 billion. We therefore noted the maintenance debt we had already at the beginning of the previous parliamentary term, and we addressed the issue then.

(Applause)

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker and Member Åsa Karlsson! Since Trafikverket was formed in 2010, Trafikverket has swelled with 4,200 employees. That Trafikverket – this coordination gain project that is a coordination loss project – was formed is not the Social Democrats' fault, but the Social Democrats have held onto it. The 4,200 people who have been added since Trafikverket was formed perform no maintenance whatsoever, but they are office staff.

Trafikverket has swollen the most during the Social Democrats' time, by over 50 percent, and they allowed it to swell unchecked. The cost for the 4,200 employees is roughly 3 billion. One must keep in mind that the railway today has a maintenance debt of 60 billion. The 3 billion would have gone a very long way toward paying off this maintenance debt. 4 billion a year for 15 years becomes 60 billion.

I have a question for Åsa Karlsson: How do you view the fact that you have had such poor management at Trafikverket?

My second question concerns high-speed trains. One train per hour - a high-speed train, X 2000 - runs in each direction between Malmö and Stockholm, and there are 1.4 trains per hour between Gothenburg and Stockholm, which are operated by two operators. You want to build out for 400 billion, and in that, one must take into account that more than 90 percent of the journeys are local and regional, not long-distance journeys. I wonder, Åsa Karlsson: Can you justify the expansion of high-speed trains that you proposed?

Finally: Sweden is long, but not 205 mil. It is 157.2 mil between Treriksröset and Smygehuk.

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Member Jönsson!

Trafikverket has grown over a long period since 2010. That is how it looks. The organization that Trafikverket has today has also led to more employees. I cannot say more than that on this issue.

Regarding high-speed trains, it is a concept that we have left behind long ago. What we need are trunk lines that hold Sweden together. Now that we are in such great need of upgrading already existing railway tracks, there must also be new railways to travel on.

We know that Fehmarn Bält will be ready in 2029. At that time, we will also need to strengthen the Swedish railway. There will be much more traffic between Sweden, Scandinavia and Europe.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Exactly! We will not have a finished railway between Hässleholm and Lund by 2029 when the trains start rolling because the Social Democrats' entry has driven their grand and, measured against Sweden's proportions, almost insane project. It would have cost over 400 billion to build this high-speed railway for a very small proportion of people. If you had done the right thing from the beginning, Åsa Karlsson, we might already have four tracks between Hässleholm and Lund. I truly think this is sad.

I welcome the Social Democrats' realignment on the issue. It has actually been understood that it is not high-speed trains that matter, but we need new main lines. I appreciate that.

Then we have the important question that a large part of the maintenance debt can be linked to the time when the Social Democrats were in power, when they let the Swedish Transport Administration eat up the money that was supposed to go to maintenance. It went to office services, and I myself have sat in a position that I believe absolutely could be rationalized away. It concerns the quality fees, where money is shifted to no use at all and where the National Audit Office can confirm that no improvement whatsoever can be seen for the train operations. Fewer trains run on time because of quality fees, not more.

There are amounts of money to be saved. Around 3 billion has the expansion of services cost, but I think the answer from Member Åsa Karlsson is very weak. She merely states that it is so. I wonder: Does it feel good that the money is being eaten up by office services instead of there being people out in the field? Is that Social Democratic policy?

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think that one must be able to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. We need to ensure that Trafikverket has the conditions they need and that there are people in both planning and office services and out in the tracks. They should not be in opposition to each other; rather, both must exist.

The Leader of the Opposition said that if we Social Democrats had not worked for the new main lines, double tracks would be in place on the section between Hässleholm and Lund. I just want to remind that it was indeed that part of our infrastructure plan that was stopped completely by the newly appointed government on Christmas Eve 2022.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Åsa Karlsson, for the speech! I have a few questions that I would like to have answers to.

The member of Parliament said that people should be able to rely on a well-functioning railway. I truly agree with the member of Parliament that people should be able to do that.

Then I think it is interesting. We have a deficit debt of 91 billion for the railway, and the member surely is also wondering how much money that actually is. Actually, I do not like when one tosses it back and forth between the previous government, this government, and so on, but since the member Åsa Karlsson was quite tough against this government, I still have some thoughts.

As one of my colleagues pointed out, we had a visit from the National Audit Office yesterday, whose report is titled National Plan for Transport Infrastructure - promises more than it can deliver. They took up, for example, the signaling system ERTMS, which has been delayed and become more expensive, despite warnings from Trafikverket. They talk about it being finished in 2070 at this rate, thanks to the previous government removing funds. Given what the member himself said, that people should be able to rely on a well-functioning railway, I think it becomes a bit hollow. The member says this to us, but we can look a bit in the rearview mirror at what certain decisions have resulted in. The year 2070 is still quite a long way off.

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Oscarsson, for the questions! Where should I begin? I will start with ERTMS, which became more expensive than expected when it began to be introduced. It has now been introduced in the northern part of Sweden. We have it on the Malmbanan, Botniabanan and Ådalsbanan.

There have been major entry problems. One must have both systems. The problems are starting to rectify themselves now, and it is actually going very well now. If one stands at the train station in Sundsvall, as I sometimes do, one sees that the trains coming from the north keep time significantly better than the trains coming from the south. The work with the new signaling system must, of course, continue.

When it comes to talking about the previous government and this government and blaming each other, we are perhaps equally good at it both of us, because this government has every opportunity in the world to make new decisions.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Åsa Karlsson for the answer!

The member wants to blame this government, but I mean that in the rearview mirror, there is much to reflect on that could have been done then. The member took as an example that it works up north, but with the previous government's pace, it would have been finished in 2070, so that is a long time. I can think that is remarkable.

The opposition leader also says that this government does not want to build any new railway, but that is actually incorrect. I read directly from October 2023: "The government has made a decision that Trafikverket shall restart the planning for the new Göteborg-Borås railway." We are also in the process of several things in Skåne to increase capacity when Fehmarn Bält opens. Ostlänken is an example that this government is continuing to work on, and we are also developing and analyzing measures for Norrbotten and Västerbotten counties.

This government is, therefore, constantly doing things so that railways will be built in our country. I think this should be corrected for those who are listening to this, in addition to those of us who are sitting here: This government wants to build, but it is cautious and first listens to the criticism that the previous government received for simply pushing ahead.

Now one listens to what Trafikverket says and gets the correct factual basis. Then one can build and drive. That is what I wanted to include in the post.

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! What happened when the government stopped and paused these tracks and when the appeals regarding the Norrbotniabanan lay on the government's desk for almost a year was that there was a delay in the construction. We need to get started with new main lines so that they are in place when we need them! When it comes to Norrbotniabanan, it is a catastrophe. It should have been needed a long time ago. It should be ready now!

I forgot in the previous exchange to answer this regarding the National Audit Office. What is important, I think, is that we in some way must review the socio-economic model that we have today, because it is misleading. SCB's population statistics lag behind. If one looks, for example, at the population development for my hometown Skellefteå in the latest report, which came in October, it looks as if Skellefteå is to decrease by 2,500 people by 2040 when we in reality increased by 2,000 people in 2023.

One looks at such a long period of time that the development that has occurred in recent years is not included. It is not in the underlying documents, and then it becomes an incorrect picture of the development in northern Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I listened carefully when the member made his presentation. Something that recurred was that the Social Democrats in their budget invested 500 million more than the government with coalition partners invested in their budget.

I find that to be remarkable, because when it comes to maintenance, the Social Democrats have been responsible for eight years in government, and in the policy basis that Trafikverket has presented, they point out that 570 billion is needed over the next twelve years for the railway system to maintain its capacity and operations.

The chairman highlights the 500 million and emphasizes that if we had only done those things, it would have been resolved, but 500 million is therefore less than one thousandth of what the Transport Administration says is needed in the next twelve years.

These signals were very clearly present in the orientation basis that existed for the current national plan. Why didn't you do more during your eight years in government? 500 million is very little in relation to the enormously large need that exists.

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We need a lot of money for maintenance. We have a large maintenance debt, and it needs to be corrected.

As I said in a previous exchange, the S-led government allocated 165 billion for railway maintenance in the previous transport plan. That was an increase of 40 billion, so that the Social Democrats would not have invested in maintenance is completely incorrect. We increased the maintenance part of the plan by 40 billion kronor.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! You invested 165 billion, but the need that Trafikverket is now signaling, and which has become significantly larger, was already signaled in the previous orientation document. But then the Social Democrats chose to scale back, which has caused the need to almost explode up to the point in time where we are today.

A criticism that comes from the Swedish National Audit Office is that this plan of 800 billion has a negative social benefit. This means that we invest 800 billion but get back less from building these railways and roads. And the business community is shouting that we should build more railway so that they can get their goods out and so on.

The reason it resulted in a negative social benefit is the new main lines. The National Audit Office points out that if a different prioritization had been made, one could have achieved six times as much social benefit as is obtained with the current plan.

I wonder: How did one reason when prioritizing among different projects? It is very clear in the material that Trafikverket has prepared now, where they show with schematic images where the large social benefits lie – namely in maintenance. Why did one not prioritize that more?

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! A large increase was made in the maintenance part. 40 billion was invested; it is a large increase. More is needed, and that is up to the new government to prove. Then those funds can be taken out instead of lowering taxes.

Regarding the Swedish National Audit Office, the socio-economic model and the public benefit, I think again that we need to review the model, because it does not work for the development that is taking place in northern Sweden today. Just as I said, the population statistics lag behind. One does not see what is happening in northern Sweden, and the need is enormous. We need the Norrbotniabanan. We need the reinforced Malmbanan, because from the Malmbanan actually comes 90 percent of Europe's steel. We must have a functioning and robust infrastructure in the northern parts of Sweden.

We also need to build the whole country together. The new main lines that we included in our infrastructure plan are important for holding the country together and for connecting Sweden with the continent and, for that part, also with Finland and Norway.

We must have a cohesive country, and for that we must upgrade the old railways but also build new tracks.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating railway issues. For Sweden to function, the transport systems must be interconnected. We are dependent on all modes of transport being robust and functioning as they should; railway, road, aviation, and shipping. Sweden is an elongated country with the longest coastline and the most islands in Europe, and that places demands on our transport systems. Transport takes us to work or studies, brings in international expertise, and transports the goods of companies.

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

The single most important measure for increased capacity on the railway is that we maintain the existing railway. The cold winter has also shown that we need to review the robustness of train traffic during increased precipitation in the form of rain or snow and colder weather conditions. This applies to both rails and vehicles. It is not just about Trafikverket, but it is also about the train operators.

Mr. Speaker! On January 15, Trafikverket submitted the orientation basis for the new national infrastructure plan 2026-2037. The directive from the government was to facilitate commuting and freight traffic and to have a perspective where all modes of transport shall cooperate. Maintenance and cost-effective measures to increase capacity shall be at the center.

From the underlying material from Trafikverket, one can read that a total of 571 billion is needed during the period 2026-2037 to maintain the facility's function, and in that, we are talking about both railway and road. To that, they want to add 119 billion for deferred maintenance. These are gigantic sums. At the same time, maintenance has the highest social utility, to care for what we have. That is why the issue is strongly prioritized by the current government.

Like other speakers before me, I will say something about the National Audit Office's report. They submitted a report in December where they analyzed the current national plan. The criticism was severe and primarily concerned that one could not see a connection between content and social benefit. It was said that the connection was non-existent; one could not find it.

The by far biggest reason why the total plan shows a negative social benefit is the current government's investment in the project New Main Lines. The National Audit Office points out that the current plan could have had six times as high a social benefit with other projects in the plan. The current government's prioritization of maintenance will reverse the trend, so that social benefit will once again come into focus.

The basis for the direction states that at the current stage, an increase of 20 percent of the planning budget is required to make room for new projects if all current projects are to be completed. There are many projects with a high socio-economic benefit that are on hold. This 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. Despite this, the previous government did not take action against the cost overruns. The problem concerns, above all, as the Swedish National Audit Office also points out, the initial calculation, i.e., the calculation on which we politicians prioritize the projects. This increases the risk of misprioritization and that more socially beneficial infrastructure projects fall outside the plan.

I can take the new trunk lines as an example. When the proposals were first submitted, they cost 120 billion. At today's status, they cost three times as much. It is not reasonable because it pushes out more socially beneficial projects.

Social utility must be at the center, while at the same time other necessary projects, for example the delayed construction in Norrland which threatens to delay the green transition, must be taken into account.

By the decision to stop the project for new trunk lines, more capacity shortages on the Swedish railway can be solved in the long run. This applies in particular to the largest capacity shortage on the entire railway network, namely the Göteborg-Alingsås section. For me, it is incomprehensible that it is not given higher priority from a whole-Sweden perspective. 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. Still, it is not in the current plan. For me, it is a mystery why the previous government did not include that section in the current infrastructure plan. The section has a major impact on the whole of Sweden, both on passengers and for the companies' freight, not least on the important section between Sweden's two largest cities and on the freight routes, for example the Norrland coast down through Göteborgs Hamn. The Liberals want to see the shovel in the ground on that section during the next parliamentary term.

The work with the orientation basis will characterize the rest of this parliamentary term, and the basis from Trafikverket is now out for consultation. The final product is a new national infrastructure plan 2026-2037, which will be presented during the spring of 2026. It will have a significantly stronger focus on social benefit than the current one.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals believe that railway maintenance should be procured through competition in the future as well. In doing so, we take advantage of the collective expertise in the international companies on how to efficiently maintain railways and can utilize the creativity and flexibility of smaller companies. The investigation by Gunnar Alexandersson in 2015, Koll på anläggning en, clearly shows that better maintenance can be achieved at a lower cost by procuring the infrastructure instead of having the state manage everything.

Trafikverket, however, needs to have better knowledge of the status of our railways and the ability to effectively procure the substrate. These are the two root causes of why we do not have better cost-effective maintenance today. Trafikverket does not have a handle on its infrastructure.

Increased digitalization is needed here, both to effectively collect information about the railway and, with the help of AI, to prioritize where the maintenance should be done first.

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 each passenger train can carry significantly more passengers. This means that available capacity can be utilized more 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.

As I have mentioned previously, the railway system is in great need of maintenance. Some parts are over 100 years old. At the same time, major maintenance work puts the current traffic under pressure. We Liberals are very concerned about the overhead line replacement planned for the Göteborg-Alingsås section, precisely because it is Sweden's most heavily used railway section.

There is a major problem with overhead line replacements. It does not only concern that section. Replacements will be needed in many places. But it will become urgent on the Göteborg-Alingsås section as it will be operated as a single track for two and a half years.

Here, Trafikverket needs to work with new, modern methods and machines to streamline its processes, minimize maintenance time, and thereby put the customers at the center.

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, not least now with an imminent entry into Nato. This places great demands on our railways, not least in the east-west direction. The Liberals believe that we should investigate how we can organizationally facilitate future joint Nordic infrastructure initiatives.

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

(Applause)

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker, dear committee colleagues and other viewers in our long country!

We Sweden Democrats stand behind all of our reservations, but in order to gain time, I move for approval only of reservation 3 concerning the organization of railway maintenance and a re-nationalization of railway maintenance.

As you may remember, Sweden in May last year was close to having one of its worst railway accidents ever, where the number of fatalities could have exceeded a hundred people. Pure luck ensured that was not the case. It was an Arlanda Express train that derailed at 150 kilometers per hour due to a fault in a crossing point in a track switch.

Not long after, another devastating accident occurred when an X55 train derailed at noon on August 7 between Iggesund and Hudiksvall. The cause here was that Trafikverket had chosen to run the trains on an undermined track bed where reports of heavy settlements had been received, in combination with the fact that there was water up to the rail edge. Fortunately, no one was injured.

During 2023, we also experienced the failure of the new planning system MPK. Trafikverket chose to launch the completely central planning system for the allocation of track capacity with the knowledge that it would not work. It was therefore known long before that MPK would not work; nevertheless, the choice was made to put it into operation, furthermore without having the old system to fall back on. As expected, the system failed. The traffic planners at Trafikverket had to work themselves to exhaustion. The freight and passenger transport operators assessed the costs and loss of revenue to over 1 billion kronor. The passengers and freight transport customers often had to choose other solutions than the train. Car and truck became the most common alternative.

Then we have the planning of the replacement of the overhead lines on the Västra stambanan. We in the Transport Committee have had several meetings and unanimously directed sharp criticism at Trafikverket for the poor planning and procurement of the upcoming work, which would disrupt traffic on the important Västra stambanan for a very long time.

There are more examples of failures.

What is it that we have witnessed time and again during 2023? Yes, a colossal agency that has acted unprofessionally and with a nonchalant attitude towards passengers and freight transport buyers, a nonchalant attitude towards freight traffic operators and passenger traffic operators and a nonchalant attitude towards the policy. One always shifts the blame. One always has an excuse. One never admits a failure.

To manage an agency that has swollen in a short time from approximately 6,800 employees to around 11,000 employees is certainly not easy. The step from the top to the bottom becomes very long. But for that volume of operations of around 90 billion with origins from taxpayers' funds and other fees, we could have expected better – significantly better. Above all, we could have expected a portion of humility. That costs nothing at all.

Trafikverket is struggling with major problems regarding lack of maintenance, skyrocketing costs for both maintenance and investment, loss of competence, and additionally a dependence on the procurement of external consultants. It is therefore not surprising that we see a steadily growing maintenance debt and that cost control fails in one major project after another. Just because Trafikverket has almost doubled the number of employees from 6,806 in 2010 to today's approximately 11,000 does not mean that Trafikverket has become twice as good. I want to say that it has rather become half as good, and even then I am being quite kind.

One can see a certain irony, Mr. Speaker, in that the merger of Vägverket and Banverket was carried out with the aim of achieving coordination gains. The result, instead, was coordination losses.

It is incredibly obvious, in any case for us Sverigedemokrater, that this monster colossus of an agency must be split. We must go back to a road authority and a railway authority. We cannot keep this gigantic agency any longer. And that is not enough. We must also reduce the number of employees. We must go back and see how Banverket managed with around half as many employees before it was phased out.

I remember that, because I have been part of this journey. I have worked in the railway for 20 years and started at Banverket in 2001 or 2002. I remember thinking that there were too many employees at Banverket even then. One could really have straight away removed at least 10 percent.

Today, one could scale back by 20 or perhaps 25 percent without any negative impact on train operations and production. The outcome would likely rather be positive, especially if the economic gain were used for direct maintenance of the tracks.

Consider that we have received 4,200 new desk jobs at Trafikverket, but the number of those who actually maintain our railway has almost halved since the turn of the millennium and now amounts to approximately 3,700 people.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to railway technicians, they have a lot to do, and more are needed.

When Trafikverket visited the Transport Committee about three years ago regarding traffic stoppages due to cracked rails, it was stated that 280 miles or 20 percent of all rails and numerous points need to be replaced. We have heard this before. This absolutely could not be completed within the current twelve-year plan.

Add to that the enormous reinvestment project ERTMS for around 50 billion, which is somewhat urgent as approximately one-third of the substations are so old that they have reached their technical lifespan. This can be discussed a bit – some claim it is as little as one-tenth, but I have also heard one-third. Regardless, we have very many old substations that need to be replaced, as they will become obsolete within a ten-year period. And spare parts are missing – one simply has to cannibalize substations that have been taken out of service.

Quickly strengthening the maintenance is a direct matter of fate for the Swedish railway. I am not exaggerating when I claim that around 4 billion more per year for 15 years must be added to working away the maintenance debt, which according to Omtag Svensk Järnväg is currently estimated at 60 billion.

Madam Speaker! We continue on the topic of Trafikverket.

In 2010, Vägverket and Banverket were abolished. They were merged and formed Trafikverket. But it did not stop there. Equally bad was that own maintenance was phased out.

Furthermore, the very important consultancy operations were sold. This is less known. Vägverket Konsult and Banverket Projektering were merged into Vectura in 2009, and later the state sold the company to the engineering consultancy Sweco. So that expertise disappeared as well.

Banverket Industridivision was phased out in the same period. They were considered at the time to be Europe's leading railway builders.

Madam Speaker! It is easy to demolish something with a single blow in the Swedish Riksdag, but it takes many years of hard work to restore it. This hard work, we Sverigedemokrater believe, should have been started several years ago. For every day that nothing happens, it becomes worse and worse. We will work diligently to split Trafikverket, re-establish Banverket and Vägverket, reclaim maintenance in our own management in parity with the operations in Infranord, which we subsequently want to liquidate, and present an efficiency program for a future banverk and vägverk.

More money must be added, but it must also be used in the right way. Competence must be strengthened, and that will also occur by restoring career paths with maintenance in their own management.

Not all problems concerning the railway are within Trafikverket's control. As recently as today, we were reached by the announcement from Tågstatistik that an incredible 11,000 train departures were cancelled during December and January. Of these, SJ accounted for approximately 1,900. That Tågstatistik also reports such a low punctuality as 75 percent for January, including the cancelled trains, is worrying.

In addition to the staff shortage, much is rooted in the fact that train traffic has grown in scope and more trains have been purchased without the number of inspection facilities having increased at a corresponding rate. If the train is not inspected, it cannot be maintained, and then it must not be operated. This affects, among others, me and very many other passengers. Approximately every third X 2000 train to Skåne is cancelled.

One cannot place their trust in that it is always plus degrees in Skåne, I must unfortunately say – I would have appreciated it if it had been warmer. In that case, one runs the trains there for de-icing, but one cannot always hope for that. The responsible parties simply must build more de-icing facilities.

Madam Speaker! The railway network is under severe strain and needs to be expanded. We must get many shovels in the ground and start construction projects on a large scale.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we argue that Göteborg-Alingsås must be elevated as a prioritized corridor, something that is not in Trafikverket's plans. The work to get four tracks on that section must be started immediately.

The heavily increased cost of the Ostlänken is underway. For Göteborg-Borås, we are waiting for localization negotiations. When it comes to the Hässleholm-Lund section, which is important for both freight traffic and passenger traffic, I assess that we can at least see a construction start beginning to approach at the end of the mandate period.

There is also a crying need for four tracks between Uppsala and the county border to Stockholm and double tracks on the most heavily loaded single-track sections, such as Hässleholm-Kristianstad, Alvesta-Växjö, Kil-Karlstad, Lockarp-Trelleborg and for Norrland so important Ostkustbanan and Norrbotniabanan.

I hope there is a broad consensus on getting these projects started. Furthermore, we will need to take into account requirements from Nato in connection with us soon joining this defense alliance.

Madam Speaker! It is not five to twelve - it is five past twelve. Drastic measures must be taken. Significantly higher appropriations will be required, and a stricter management of the authority Trafikverket is required.

We Sweden Democrats stand ready. We will give the Swedish people and Swedish companies trains on time and better capacity with our policy. But we must all be aware that this requires perseverance, determination, and a certain portion of courage. We believe that Sweden can. We believe that a railway authority can, and we believe that our railway technicians and construction companies can. All that remains is to prove that the policy can also.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The organization of railway maintenance has been discussed several times in the Swedish Riksdag, most recently in June last year. At that time, as now, the Sverigedemokraterna had a reservation regarding the nationalization of railway maintenance. At that moment, the Sverigedemokraterna voted for their own proposal when it came time for the vote. But when it fell against the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet's reservation, which also concerned the nationalization of railway maintenance, the Sverigedemokraterna chose, instead of abstaining from voting as is customary when one's own proposal has fallen, to actively vote for the government's proposal, that is, to vote against their own proposal.

Is that how the Sweden Democrats will act in the chamber this time as well? Has MP Jönsson stood in the speaker's chair today and said one thing, only to then vote for a completely opposite proposal when it comes time to press the button?

(Applause)

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! During the last or the previous parliamentary term, I spoke with the former Minister for Infrastructure, Tomas Eneroth, and submitted proposals that are quite similar to our proposals now. We have very good proposals on how to organize both the railway maintenance and Trafikverket - which shall not remain, for that matter.

Unfortunately, an investigation was produced that was so incredibly poor that we could not stand behind it. One of the reasons why nothing has happened is that the proposals that came from the Social Democrats simply have not been good enough. Would they have been better than doing nothing at all? It is possible; it is difficult to judge. But our view, in any case, is that they simply have not been good enough. That nothing good has been done from this during their previous two terms, I think, is strange.

When it comes to our procedure, we are very clear about what we want. But just as when the Social Democrats ruled together with the Green Party, we do not always get what we want. It can be a give and take. Sometimes it can be parties from other parts of the Tidö agreement - the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals - who are dissatisfied, and sometimes it can be us who are dissatisfied. Now we have a new mandate period, and we have a very good cooperation. I am full of confidence and believe that we will come to something good. But one is not always in agreement on all issues.

Let me remind you of a deputy prime minister who stood and cried at a press conference because she did not get her policy through. I do not intend to stand and cry at any rostrum, Madam Speaker, and surely no one else from the Tidö parties will do so either if we do not reach an agreement on every single issue. But we agree on quite a lot, and I am very satisfied with that so far.

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

Åsa Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not perceive that I received an answer to my question. The question was about how SD intends to act in the chamber during the vote on the railway maintenance. Will you stand behind your own proposal, or will you vote for the government's completely opposite proposal?

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I think this is quite interesting. One has had eight years to achieve a maintenance in state administration. No one would have been happier than I if we had come this far.

Should the whole cake be under state control? No, I actually don't think Trafikverket would have sorted that out. On the other hand, I and the Sverigedemokraterna as a party think that we should start by reclaiming the part that is Infranords, which is approximately half of the maintenance. It should be about maintenance on a continuous stretch, for example, the main lines. We should have maintenance on larger areas. When it comes to the maintenance that we still intend to put out to tender, I think the areas should be corrected and made larger, and the contracts should probably also be made longer. This should be investigated.

We could have come very far here. We have had a very long time. I know that Member Åsa Karlsson was not in the transport committee then, so no shadow should fall over her, but rather over Åsa Karlsson's former infrastructure minister, who could have come very far in this matter but deliberately chose not to do so. I think that is sad.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker and Patrik Jönsson! I must say that this feels like one of the strangest debates I have been involved in in political life. It is a pity that the Committee on Transport is not represented by all parties here in the chamber - that the largest party in the government does not have the opportunity to remain when we discuss important issues.

But perhaps it becomes even stranger when the Sweden Democrats, who have the most reservations in this report - I have not counted exactly - are nevertheless the party that has applauded the Moderates, the Liberals and the Christian Democrats, who have demanded a rejection of all reservations. This has been very clearly applauded by all the Sweden Democrats' members.

Then you take the speaker's podium and say that you stand behind all your reservations but move for approval only of reservation 3, which concerns the maintenance that Åsa Karlsson also asked about. And she received no answer to the question of how one will act during the vote, which will take place sometime next week.

Patrik Jönsson says: We stand ready with our policy. We are not always in agreement on all issues. In those cases, it becomes very exciting to try to get a clear answer on what is the highest priority. We have understood that the Tidö cooperation will also include infrastructure issues. Is this the last time the Sverigedemokraterna have the most reservations? Will there eventually be no reservations? And how will you take a stand when it becomes clear that there is a majority against a certain nationalization and that the Sverigedemokraterna stand in diametrically opposite positions? It would be exciting to get an answer!

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Ulrika Heie wants this to be one of the strangest debates she has taken part in. In that case, I must say that her political life must have been quite meager, for I have been involved in more peculiar debates than this.

But I agree with the member on one thing. I think it is extremely peculiar - it is the first time I have been involved in this - that one discusses who applauds whom. Of course, we have common sense and are polite in our party. We cooperate and do what we can to achieve the best possible policy for Sweden's infrastructure. That aspect is perhaps strange, but probably stranger debates have been taken part in by Ulrika Heie. I actually guess so.

When it comes to the issue itself, I must say that there is probably no politician who has a crystal ball. It is quite new that we are to have a cooperation regarding the infrastructure bill. This is also what has been released to the public.

Naturally, our goal in the Tidö cooperation is to cooperate as well as possible on issues where we have common points of contact. I know very well that when C cooperated with S during previous terms, they did not get all their policies through. There were things that were subject to differences of opinion, and in those cases, those issues may have been buried, or a compromise was made. That is how politics works.

When it comes to railway issues, no one would have been happier than I if the Sverigedemokraterna had received 51 percent in an election. I will not be negative, but I perhaps do not think that we will ever get 51 percent, even though I hope for it, because then everything would have been very simple. It would have been drastic measures. Exactly what I am standing here and saying, I would also have implemented if I had been minister.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I may have expressed myself carelessly when I said it was among the strangest things I have witnessed. There can always be different types of oddities. But I have never witnessed someone wholeheartedly applauding that the government parties move for the rejection of all reservations, only to then take the rostrum and say that they stand behind all their own reservations. It was this that I meant was strange.

I experience that the Sweden Democrats are speaking with a double tongue in these issues. They suggest that all their policies will be implemented, but at the same time, Patrik Jönsson now says in the exchange of remarks that certain issues will probably be buried in cooperation with the other Tidö parties while they can agree on other things. We all know that in politics one sometimes has to reach an agreement and that one sometimes has to leave certain issues lying. But I have not seen this shift before, where one gives the impression of standing for both. That is what I found strange in the exchange of remarks.

Now I do not know if my time is up or if I have any speaking time left.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: Two minutes have passed.)

Then I shall ask to be thanked and look forward to the answer regarding the duality that I perceive in today's debate.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not think it is appropriate for us to even have a debate about who one applauds or does not. I have given an answer, and I thank you for the debate.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! We are debating railway issues, and I do not expect any applause. You should have that clear before I begin.

Once upon a time, you could rely on the Swedish railway. The trains arrived on time and the ticket prices were reasonable. That is not the case today. What was once a well-functioning, cohesive railway system has collapsed. Most people have at some point found themselves in the middle of the Swedish train chaos. I rarely travel by train, but even I have experienced it.

We have today a situation where a number of different actors are responsible for their small, delimited part of the railway system. In many cases, they are also driven by a pure profit interest instead of looking out for the best interests of the train traffic. No one takes responsibility for the whole. Society lacks control. That is how it is.

That is why the Left Party wants to take back control over the whole. We want to create Järnväg Sverige, as we have named it, with an overall responsibility in line with the British re-regulation of the trains. They shall own and maintain the state's railway infrastructure in their own name as well as set prices, be responsible for all booking, and have full responsibility for train planning. The train operators would remain due to EU regulations, unfortunately.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all our reservations but move for approval of reservation 1.

The government is unfortunately uninterested in achieving any kind of climate goal at all. But if Sweden's climate transition is to succeed, the railway must function significantly better than it does today. Sometimes it is enough for it to become zero degrees so that the 70-year-old switches stop working, the trains on the already fully booked railway freeze, and train departures are cancelled at a rapid pace. We heard examples of this in the news this morning.

Add to that the introduction of the digital train planning system, which last year caused delays, so we understand that the way the railway is organized today does not help either passengers, freight carriers, or the climate transition. It is quite clear that the state, just as in the United Kingdom, needs to take back control of the railway.

A clear example is that Trafikverket is a procurement authority instead of an executing authority. In that case, it is not strange that track switches are not replaced, when it is the lowest price in the procurements that gets to rule.

It is good that the Social Democrats occasionally point out that the state should take more responsibility for maintenance, but the question then is why the Social Democrats do not allocate more than the 500 million that has been discussed, when a competence boost is needed. With the same stingy budget, you will get nowhere. Nothing will happen. This is obviously known by both the Socialdemokraterna and the government.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are no better either, despite a hard line that the Transport Administration should be divided into several parts and that Infranord should not remain. But instead of joining together in the opposition and demanding that the government take action on maintenance, SD backed down and went to the government and made a deal. No one knows what they got in exchange!

Lack of capacity on the railways in northern Sweden is one of the biggest obstacles for several of the major industrial initiatives that have been started.

Within a couple of years, parts of the Norrland corridor, including the Malmbanan, will be so heavily trafficked that there will be no room for more trains. Trafikverket has made the assessment that they need to move forward several of the planned railway projects.

The Government has tasked Trafikverket with reporting on which measures are required to equip the transport infrastructure in northern Sweden. Trafikverket's solution is to provide loan financing - the interest rates will thus burden subsequent national plans.

It concerns, among other things, double tracks between Boden and Luleå to secure future ore deliveries and the advancement of the completion of the Norrbotniabanan – an important measure for both freight traffic and the labor market. The amount of freight transport to Luleå Hamn is estimated to increase to 25 million tons per year. Increased railway capacity will, of course, also promote Sweden's shipping.

Volvo Cars, Green Cargo, Stora Enso and SSAB wrote a letter in May to the Minister for Infrastructure regarding how train delays negatively affected Sweden's basic industry. The chambers of commerce in the north have long been concerned about the substandard railway, which they see as limiting the industry's potential.

There are several ways to finance large infrastructure investments, and it can be significant to investigate a more multifaceted financing model. But Trafikverket's plea to be allowed to use loan financing to address the most acute needs and expand capacity on prioritized railway sections should be heeded.

Vänsterpartiet has submitted a proposal for a committee initiative and has long advocated that large infrastructure investments should be loan-financed. It is good that several parties have begun to change their opinions on the financing. But it needs to go significantly faster, and more billions must be invested.

On the evening of December 17, a fully loaded ore train derailed - it came from Kiruna and was on its way to Narvik. It is very well known today.

The route Kiruna-Narvik accounts for about two-thirds of LKAB's deliveries of iron ore products with ten fully loaded ore trains per day. Each train set carries 6,800 tons. If what is in these ten train sets were transported by truck to Narvik, it would - bear with me now - require over a thousand truck transports every day. Everyone understands that it is impossible.

All this regarding the double track between Kiruna and Narvik has been on the table for decades. There have been different colors of governments, but they are equally good at beating around the bush. It has been known for decades that this was needed.

I am thinking about the revenues. This has also been trumpeted in the media for a long time. Every week that the ore train traffic to Narvik is cancelled means 1 billion in lost revenues for LKAB.

I think they started rolling yesterday or something like that, but 4-5 billion has been lost anyway. Talk about public benefit!

It is known that 25,000 slipers need to be restored. It is rails, switch components and overhead contact lines over a distance of 15 kilometers that need to be restored. That is what has been worked on since the derailment.

Malmbanan is the hub of the Swedish iron ore industry. There are no other alternatives than to transport the heavy ore by freight trains. Malmbanan is 50 miles long, and there, passenger trains, freight trains, and ore trains are crowded together. A double track is needed. LKAB has, as I said, advocated for a double track for a very long time. For decades, it has been talked about that it would be needed. The government is surely well aware of this. But they are still only launching 3 miles of Malmbanan, between Luleå and Boden. It is only 3 of 50 miles.

If Sweden is to have an infrastructure that can cope even in more challenging times, investments need to increase. Trafikverket argues that the economic frame must increase since we have a maintenance debt - the figures have been heard in the debate today - regarding both the railway and the road network. Transport is a foundation in civil and military preparedness, and well-functioning maintenance is the most important from a preparedness perspective. Infrastructure is not just something we can afford in good times. Infrastructure is the hub in the climate transition, in the preparedness, and when it comes to the resilience of society.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have reached a new chapter in Swedish railway history. It has become painfully clear to the Swedish people what poor condition our railway is in.

There have been 11,000 cancelled train departures in December and January alone. Over the last three years, we have seen a sharp decline in terms of trains arriving on time. The penalties for train companies and Trafikverket have skyrocketed. Today, SJ is releasing train tickets for the period from April 9 to June 3. But a third of the departures cannot be booked. Why? It is because those trains simply will not leave the platform. If we have not realized the seriousness of this before, it is high time to do so.

Madam Speaker! It was a beautiful November day in 2007 when the then Finance Minister Anders Borg was interviewed in Sydsvenskan. He said: An investment in roads is four to five times more important than in railways. We have over-invested in railways. So said the then Moderate Finance Minister. We see the result of that attitude today.

In 2010, when the Alliance was at the helm, the maintenance of the railway was put out to tender. It was a mistake whose consequences we see today.

We need to start asking ourselves some questions:

Do we want a modern Sweden that shoulders the sustainable construction of society? Yes, then we need functioning trains. Do we want a Sweden characterized by a competitive business sector and vibrant labor market regions? Yes, then we need to have functioning trains. And do we want a Sweden that reaches net-zero emissions in 21 years? Yes, then we need functioning trains. But we do not have that today. A mobilization of forces needs to occur.

Madam Speaker! We need a crisis commission for Sweden's railways. Our goal is that Swedish trains should arrive on time in at least 95 percent of cases - that is almost in line with Switzerland's current 98 percent. To arrive on time in this case means that the trains must not be delayed by more than 5 minutes and 59 seconds. Unfortunately, it is a goal that is not being met. The full-year figures for 2022 show 89.8 percent. And the latest figures, for January to June 2023, land on a dismal 86 percent.

When it comes to railway traffic on the Södra stambanan and Västra stambanan, punctuality stands at approximately 50 percent. This is unacceptable.

Is it too much to ask for the trains to arrive on time in the Tidö parties' Sweden? For Miljöpartiet, the answer is no. The trains must arrive on time. Trafikverket's maintenance debt must be closed as soon as possible. Therefore, we are investing 5 billion more on maintenance than the government.

That is where the ambitions of many of the Tidö parties stop. But we need to do more. We need to future-proof Sweden. Therefore, we need large infrastructure investments in sustainable transport systems.

It is also clear that it does not work within the current system. If we are to make investments, which we perhaps do every hundred years, in new railways, we need to find new models. It is not strange. Municipalities already do this today. One has an investment budget. Miljöpartiet has previously proposed new models for financing and also an investment budget for the climate of 100 billion per year for the next ten years to solve the challenges we face. It is sufficient both to stop the bleeding that we see today and to build new railways for the future. We need, in fact, new main lines both in the north and in the south, and we need to refurbish the railway immediately. If we do not simultaneously fix the maintenance and increase the capacity on the railway, we will only be pushing the problems into the future.

I also cannot help but reflect a little on what has been debated earlier, regarding the socio-economic benefit. We heard in the committee yesterday that the National Audit Office and the Transport Administration consider the Norrbotniabanan to be socio-economically unprofitable.

As a matter of chance, I had a meeting that same evening with the government's coordinator for the green transition in northern Sweden who spontaneously mentioned that the absolutely most important investment for the entire green transition and the entire green industrial revolution that we see in northern Sweden to function is the Norrbotniabanan. I believe therefore that we need to think a turn further when it comes to how we are to measure what are socio-economically important investments.

In addition to the extra 5 billion for maintenance, we are also investing a total of approximately 150 billion more in our investment budget to expand the railway over the next ten years.

Madam Speaker! We have several important proposals and reservations in this report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 5.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 7 February.)

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