Communications

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in report TU1.

Communications

The Sweden Democrats emphasize the role of infrastructure in Swedish society. Our strategy for a competitive infrastructure, however, does not extend solely to roads as a means of transport. We believe that all types of traffic should be included and taken into account in a comprehensive transport and infrastructure planning. Regardless of whether people or goods are to travel by road, by rail, by air, or by sea, the infrastructure must be robust—regardless of the season. Sweden is an elongated country on the edge of Europe. Consequently, the entire country is in need of an infrastructure that meets the requirements at any given time.

For large parts of the country, aviation is important for strengthening industrial development. Aviation is fast and efficient for business travel and when it comes to rescue flights, firefighting flights, and police flights, as well as not least for the defense. That we have a well-functioning infrastructure for aviation is of utmost importance for the entire country.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats say, together with the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals, no to the high-speed train project. We do, however, not say no to strengthening the Swedish railway network. The efforts should primarily be directed towards increased maintenance to strengthen the railway's robustness. Where required, bottlenecks shall be built away in order to thereby increase the railway's capacity. The high-speed train project is a cuckoo that seriously damages the country's other infrastructure.

In a well-functioning and sustainable society, the right conditions must be created so that transport can interact across all modes of transport. Whether we are talking about deliveries of food to a local store in the Swedish countryside, or whether we are talking about heavy transport to and from industry, or whether we are talking about regional freight or passenger transport, these are important for our society to function. Important societal functions such as defense, rescue services, healthcare, and police are in great need of well-functioning roads, railways, shipping lanes, and airports.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine shows with all desired clarity how important a functioning infrastructure is for a country's defense capability. For industry in the north, shipping is important, and shipping in particular will be even more important in the future as a result of the large investments taking place in Norrland. Sjöfartsverket receives an authorization to order in the budget bill and can thus begin the work of procuring new icebreakers during the year.

Mr. Speaker! In the report, the appropriations for the development of the state's transport infrastructure are increased to 34.5 billion. It is a much-needed increase in the appropriations. It is far from sufficient, but it is nevertheless a clear will to increase the appropriations to strengthen an important part of our society's lifeblood.

The appropriation for the maintenance of roads is also increased to 17.3 billion, which is of utmost importance in order to somehow process the maintenance debt that exists on the roadside.

Mr. Speaker! I shall say a few words about the authority responsible for our roads and railways, namely Trafikverket. Trafikverket, which is tasked with responsibility for the long-term planning of infrastructure for road traffic, railway traffic, maritime transport and aviation, as well as for the construction and operation of state roads and railways, has during eight years with Social Democratic governments grown by a full 48 percent, to 10,316 people. So it cannot continue.

For us, it is crucial to be economical with the taxpayers' money, which should also be the state's duty. Here, we believe that the Social Democrats and Trafikverket have failed miserably. We believe that the experiment with a merged Trafikverket has now reached its end. We are convinced that a division and thus a return to a separate road authority and a separate rail authority is the right way to go - as well as a significantly reduced administrative cost. A first step is to initiate an agency review.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to summarize our position. For us, it is central that people should be able to live and reside in the entire country and get to their jobs and leisure activities quickly and safely. Companies should have good conditions for their operations and be able to transport goods by sea, road and rail, as well as in the air. The digital infrastructure is not to be forgotten - it is also very important.

Policy must relate to people's actual conditions and not be built on utopias that are only adapted for people living in larger cities. Sweden needs a new infrastructure policy that takes into account the needs of the entire country. We look forward to developing the infrastructure together with the new government. This report, which we are addressing today, is a first step on that path.

I also want to mention a bit of what is stated in the national infrastructure plan. It states that both the road network and the railway will be in poorer condition in 2033 than they are today. Road and railway will therefore be in poorer condition in 2033 than they are today. And all of you who are out on the roads see how the maintenance on the roadside has deteriorated in recent years. The other day we saw a very serious accident on the E18, where one person died and four were seriously injured. It was, therefore, insufficient ice control that was the basis for that accident.

Last winter we saw the same situation. People stood still for several hours on the main arteries of our European roads. It is a standstill that costs trucking companies and, ultimately, consumers about 1,000 kronor per hour for every truck that stands still. That is soon large amounts of money. And the trucking companies pay enormous amounts in taxes every year to pay for functioning road maintenance. There, there has been a deficiency. The old government has a great responsibility for the fact that we have a situation where maintenance of our roads does not work and where maintenance of the railway does not work. At the same time, it was intended to spend 104 billion on high-speed trains in the latest plan. It is a project that would have displacement effects when it comes to all other infrastructure. And we will be in a worse position in 2033 than we are today. So we cannot have that.

Now there is a new direction for the infrastructure policy, and it is very important.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! Something that Thomas Morell did not mention at all in his speech is the great climate challenge we have, Agenda 2030 and the global sustainability goals. Seven of the eight parties in the Riksdag stood behind the climate policy framework - however not the party that Morell belongs to. We say that we shall reduce emissions by 70 percent by 2030, compared to 2010, when it comes to transport.

Now you, Thomas Morell, are part of the government base and have a bit more responsibility than when you are in an opposition role when it comes to what we are actually going to do. In the budget that the Riksdag adopted the other day, you have removed the reduction obligation. You do not intend to change the travel deduction but continue to favor car drivers. You have withdrawn the climate bonus for electric cars. You have lowered the tax on fossil fuels. You are reducing railway maintenance. You are halving the urban environment agreements. But as far as I know, you still have not changed the climate goals, so my question to Thomas is: How are we, with your policy, going to achieve the climate goals and a reduction of 70 percent?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question. Talking about reducing emissions does not lead to practical change. What characterized the previous government was that there was a lot of talk and little workshop. Above all, there was very little knowledge about what the different measures actually achieve in terms of results.

We have been critical of the reduction obligation, because we do not believe it moves us forward in that issue. We would rather have increased electrification, i.e., electrified vehicles, perhaps primarily on the heavy side.

I went and looked at a car brand - I won't say which one it was - that is going to start being sold in Sweden at the beginning of next year. However, there is no place in this country where this vehicle can be charged today. We are talking about a heavy truck that can go 50 mil, that is, a full-sized convoy. There is no charging point today, so instead one has to charge it with lower power, which takes longer.

The technology exists. Vehicles are available to be ordered. One can go and sign a purchase contract today. But the infrastructure to supply the vehicles with electricity does not exist. It becomes a bit ridiculous in this debate. A truck that cannot be used is quite worthless. It performs no work so that there is food in the store, medicine at the pharmacy, and whatever else it may be, a job that both I and the member and I expect.

The change must go hand in hand. Companies, technology, private individuals and society must be able to move in step with the change. That has not been the case. We want to change that.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Thomas Morell, for the answer!

One can of course have opinions, but I think it is good if one sticks to the facts.

Between 2010 and 2020, emissions have decreased by 25 percent. It is not enough, but it is still a decrease. The member just stood and said that we talk but do nothing. Obviously, the previous S-led government has still done something, because emissions have decreased by 25 percent.

The member usually speaks warmly for agricultural companies, and leading truck operators and startup actors within fossil-free fuels demand a policy that is in line with the climate goals. But that is not what we see right now. We have also, during the last parliamentary term, appointed the 2030 Secretariat, which is exactly, as I began with, facts regarding how things stand. I think that the member and his party should look a little bit at what the 2030 Secretariat actually says. What is it we have promised that we shall achieve?

Electrification is of course very important, but we must do more than that. And it was still the previous, S-led government that initiated the powerful work, for example with charging stations. Then there is more to do, and it is good that one continues that work.

My question therefore remains: What do the Sweden Democrats, who stand outside but still inside, want to do?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, member!

That the emissions are decreasing is largely due to the fact that technology has advanced. A full-sized truck today can be driven on between 2 ½ and 4 liters per mile on highways, fully loaded. Just a few years ago, it was not possible to do this. It is clear that it reduces emissions.

Electrification is an incredibly important part of the transition. But it is a bit of self-deception to say that the reduction obligation will drive this forward. We import 75 percent of the material used to produce biofuels. Most of it is slaughter waste from Australia. A life cycle analysis does not provide the effect one might expect.

Many say that the decision to reduce the reduction obligation will hinder the national production of biofuels. That is not the case, because we have no domestic production to speak of since we import. It also does not matter that much where on earth the amount of biofuel that we have available is burned. If we have a higher reduction obligation in Sweden and a lower one in Europe and the fuel that is available in the different countries is distributed, the result is the same. Even if 100 percent of our fuel were biofuel, the effect overall would not be different for that.

To then have a situation where companies and private individuals can hardly manage their daily lives is not sustainable. It also creates a situation where there are no financial means to switch to a better vehicle.

This is counterproductive. The opposition must rethink here, because this will not lead to anything positive.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask a couple of questions to Member Thomas Morell in connection with the speech.

The member of Parliament pointed out that the railway is important, that increased maintenance is needed and that bottlenecks need to be built away. But when the member of Parliament says that increased maintenance is needed, it becomes a bit strange to read the budget, because there you actually take away from railway maintenance and transfer it to roads. Therefore, I wonder in what way one can interpret the Sweden Democrats' view that increased maintenance is needed, so that it becomes more than just talk.

The member also said that the discussion about the high-speed railway has finally been removed. We are, I believe, broadly in agreement that increased capacity is needed, and that was also what the member meant regarding bottlenecks. A very quick message came from the coalition parties after the election that this railway would be stopped and that it would be redone.

Now there is a very great concern linked to the parts that have nevertheless come very far. The member and I just sat the other day and discussed, for example, Göteborg-Borås together with the parties concerned. We also mentioned Alingsås-Göteborg, which we both know is a difficult part, but also Ostlänken and Lund-Hässleholm.

Then my question is: What will be the message to all those municipalities that have entered into agreements with the state to do this? Will one now have to wait, in the worst case, another five or ten years? What is the Sweden Democrats' message to these municipalities that really need an increased capacity?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, member!

If you look at the budget, the Swedish Transport Administration itself has withdrawn part of the appropriations, because it was not possible to spend the money for railway maintenance.

The high-speed train does not provide the effects one wants if we are talking about increased capacity for those who commute and for freight traffic. The high-speed project would have been a unique track solely for high-speed trains that did not create better conditions either for those who commute with commuter trains or regional trains or for freight transport. The money that is set aside for high-speed trains can instead be used with advantage to build away bottlenecks.

We can take one example of many of what the effects can be. If we stick to the Western Main Line, it is that line that has some of the biggest problems today. The big problem is spelled out as Gothenburg-Alingsås, because that is where there are disruptions in traffic that propagate up through the entire railway system. It also states in Trafikverket's own investigation that even if one built high-speed trains and they were in full operation, the problem would still remain.

If one were to ignore the problem down there by making investments, one would increase the capacity on the railway fourfold, and it would not create the delay effects that occur up in the entire system. One could sit on an X2 in Stockholm and be down in Gothenburg two and a half hours later. A little money - great effect.

So we can do this on several different projects in Sweden: quick measures that increase capacity, and one also increases the possibility for maintenance.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I will try to be much more concrete in my questions so that the member finds it easier to answer the questions I have.

I asked about Göteborg-Borås, Lund-Hässleholm and Ostlänken. What is the decision? Will they have to wait?

We know that today there is four-minute traffic with double-deckers from Borås to Gothenburg. It also gets congested when it comes to national road 40. Is one supposed to have to wait there now and perhaps get an extension of five to ten years just because this government wants to do a rethink?

I see this as very serious, so I would like a very clear answer from the member regarding those parts of the new main lines that have been planned. It is still the case that many are not talking about high-speed trains but about new main lines and increased capacity. That is what we are talking about.

I would like to add one more question. The member of Parliament said himself that we cannot just talk about reducing emissions. In last year's budget debate, which I listened to the other day, member of Parliament Morell said that we need to reduce emissions. That is a very important issue. Now the member of Parliament says that electrification is an important part of that. The Center Party also believes that. But in times of uncertainty, we need to create robustness in our system, and then we need to do everything we can to create opportunities for renewable fuels that are also Swedish-produced.

What is the member's view of what needs to be done to strengthen the possibility of creating a Swedish production? Would not the reduction obligation be an important part? Even if much comes from abroad today, as the member says, we really need to strengthen this part. In light of the government's announcement, it is actually the case that a number of billion-euro investments are being put on hold. What does the member say about that? If he now wants to reduce emissions, why does he not want to create robustness in this system by creating opportunities for a Swedish biofuel production?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question from the member. I shall try to sort this out.

To begin with, for Gothenburg-Borås, there is a huge capacity need on the railway on that stretch. When in time this is to be included, I cannot answer here. We haven't even processed the motion that we jointly submitted to the committee.

The need is there, we can state that, but the high-speed project would not have helped commuting in the slightest because it would only run trains directly between Göteborg and Borås without any stops in between. Then you still have people who need to be on the road. It was a blunder, this entire project. It did not create conditions for those who commute to work, and it is they who constitute the large travel flows during the day. This was a major city project with terminal stations, i.e., Stockholm-Malmö and Stockholm-Göteborg. All people in between end up on the sidelines - unless one is talking about Jönköping, Norrköping and Linköping, but there are more towns in the country.

When it comes to the production of biofuels, it is simply a matter of investing. We will have a need for biofuels for aviation, for roads, for power production and for many other applications in society, so we should just start production. The demand is there. But we do not need to create a situation where we destroy large parts of the country because one cannot afford to transport the food that is produced. That is also a fallacy in this. But that there will be a need for biofuels in the future stands beyond all doubt. It is simply a matter of investing. The consumers are out there, not only in Sweden but also in the rest of Europe and the world.

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

LINDA WESTERLUND SNECKER (V)

Mr. Speaker! There is only one climate policy framework in Sweden, and that is for domestic transport. Emissions are to be reduced by 70 percent by the year 2030. That is why the industry is transitioning. That is why the sector is transitioning.

It was seven parties that were part of this thing – this is what we are going to do; this must be done so that emissions will decrease in Sweden! And there was one party that did not believe in this. It was your party, Member of Parliament Thomas Morell, and now you have convinced the entire Kristersson government to completely ignore the climate policy goals.

What the government is doing is deceiving the industry. One is deceiving all travelers in all of Sweden by giving incredibly unclear messages about new main lines. No freight carriers or passengers know what applies anymore. One has also deceived all car buyers and the entire car industry by removing bonus-malus overnight.

It is obvious that with the government's policy, the climate goals will never be reached. It doesn't matter how many charging stations are installed, because it is the fossil fuel car that this government and, above all, your party, Morell, clings to.

This makes me very thoughtful and concerned about how the transport policy climate goals can be reached. The fact is that this government has deceived all commuters, everyone who wants to travel in Sweden, and above all, the entire industry.

The food that Morell speaks about, the delivery of goods that must arrive for Sweden to function, will not arrive at all because the Sweden Democrats have won over all the other parties to a totally climate-denying policy.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, member!

Transport is vital for our society to function, and the truck plays an immensely important role in that work to provide us with food for the day, clothes on our bodies, houses to live in, medicines at the pharmacies, medical equipment at the hospitals, and whatever it may be in question.

But the truck will not be the only mode of transport that is important in this. The railway is also an important part, and the railway can advantageously take the long-distance, heavy freight. But the truck is needed at the ends, and then those trucks should be operated in the best possible way.

One can look at the map from Filipstad up to the inland of Norrland and enjoy counting charging stations, both for passenger cars and for heavy vehicles. There are not particularly many. We want to increase the expansion rate for the charging stations. But that requires both energy, obviously, and that these stations are installed.

I said in my introduction that a manufacturer of trucks will deliver vehicles next year, but there is not a single charging point for them. This is where it lags behind and a change must occur. But we cannot remove the economic conditions for the companies by breaking them down purely economically, because then we will never get any electric trucks out on the road.

We will not get any electric cars either because the prerequisite for both companies and private individuals to be able to afford to buy these vehicles, or vehicles powered by biofuels of any kind, is that there is money. If the money is not there, it won't happen.

Just as a piece of pure information, I can say that a chassis for an electric car, a truck, costs 5 million today - 5 million, and then the build is not finished.

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

LINDA WESTERLUND SNECKER (V)

Mr. Speaker! I felt that my question was not about the cost of chassis on trucks but about the climate policy frameworks and achieving the environmental goals.

But, absolutely, we can state that what Thomas Morell says is that there are no charging stations, so it is not possible to charge anything in Sweden at all. There are only a few points in Sweden. Trucks cannot drive either particularly far with their cargo or particularly much cargo. Neither do the trucks work particularly well, therefore. That is what Thomas Morell says. But we are still going to electrify.

Then I just want to inform the Chamber about what is electrified today: the railway. The railway runs on electricity. Unfortunately, there are high electricity prices now, so it is probably quite expensive to run even the railway. It is sad, but what is needed to transport goods, Thomas Morell, is the railway. That is what the industry wants. That is how we can transport far and large. A truck cannot compete with a long freight train. It is a pure fact.

Still, this government does not want to build a single small piece of railway in Sweden. They are failing the industry, which is transitioning to meet the climate policy frameworks that we in this chamber have established because they are vital. They are failing every job commuter, every grandmother who wants to meet her grandchild over the Christmas weekend, every part of society with the budget that we are discussing today. We will not succeed in reaching the climate goals, which are absolutely necessary for our future. We will not have food in our stores, because it cannot be transported. We cannot even travel to work, because there is a standstill on the railway which is completely congested. How is this supposed to work at all? And Morell talks about the price of the chassis on a truck that cannot even be driven or loaded.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, member! It is not without a certain comedy in the argumentation. I have not said that it is not possible to charge. There are no charging points—that is a world of difference. The truck I am talking about goes 50 miles on a charge, provided that one can charge it. The transport industry wants to buy this type of vehicle. But society has not kept up with expanding electricity production—we have scaled it back, for the record—and charging stations have not been built.

Then the member says at one moment that we are subsidizing so that people will destroy the climate with their cars. In the next moment she says that grandmother cannot visit her grandchildren. The argumentation does not hang together.

We have said nothing other than that we of course want to get people to travel by train and that freight should go by rail, but then the railway must function. I usually say that I lead SM in train delays, because every other time I travel by train, it stands still. It is signal faults, switch faults, overhead lines that have fallen down and so on. The thing is, there is no money for maintenance. Instead, the opposition would bury 104 billion in a high-speed project, while the ordinary railway does not move even five kilometers per hour.

One must see the whole. One must look at what the conditions are in urban areas respectively out in the countryside. What does the business sector need? What do we as private individuals need? How are we to get our food production to work? We must get society to function every day of the year.

I am the first to say that we must think about the environment. But one must do it at a pace that allows society to keep up. So it will not be with the old government's policy.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thomas Morell talks a lot about there being no money for railway maintenance; it is a recurring issue. We all know that a lot of money is needed for railway maintenance. It is stated in all reports. Everyone involved says that more money is needed. The member is stuck on the railway because the maintenance is overdue.

Still, the new government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is cutting back on maintenance - removing 750 million kronor. It is said that this is being done because the Transport Administration does not have the possibility to spend the money. We know that the Sweden Democrats and the member in the debates have stated that the Transport Administration is an organization that does not function and should be broken up and that they are not capable of handling things.

Trafikverket's argument, that they cannot do away with the money, then becomes something that one simply buys. It surprises me, because if there is something this government should do, it is surely to tell Trafikverket: Do what you are supposed to do! You have known that this money exists. It has been there for a long time; you just have to use it.

If you talk to the industry, those who perform the maintenance – Trafikverket does not do it themselves, others do it – they say that it is not a problem to use the money. We can maintain and do these things. Then the government withdraws 750 million kronor, which means that the Swedes are left standing there waiting for their trains. They are sitting in the trains and are not getting through.

This is incomprehensible. I cannot understand it. If the government and the Sweden Democrats had been serious, they would have spent more money on maintenance and ensured that the authorities do what they are supposed to do instead of blaming that the authorities cannot get rid of the money. It is incomprehensible.

I simply wonder how Thomas Morell can explain this.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question. It is very simple. We want to split Trafikverket - bang! - into a railway authority and a road authority. Then we will get better structure in the operation of the different modes of transport. As it is now, one has a mountain of consultants, and one switches between road and railway operation. Everyone who is even slightly knowledgeable about how these systems work realizes quite quickly that it is completely different things to operate a railway and to operate road traffic. It requires completely different competencies to build a railway than to build a road. Then one cannot have an agency that handles both things, because one loses competence.

It was exactly this that happened because Trafikverket itself sent the money back. One did not get clean work for them. It is not the government's or our fault. It was Trafikverket itself that chose to do so.

We think it is important that we get a structure that works on the railway side and on the road side. We want an agency review to be conducted and this to be reviewed so that we get a transport authority that works, so that the trains run and the maintenance on our roads works. It is what we all depend on, both the member and I myself.

We want food on the table, clothes on our bodies and houses to live in. We want the doctors to have equipment when we arrive at the hospital, that there is medicine at the pharmacy or whatever the question is. We want the industry to function so that we get in tax revenue so that society functions. This is an interest we all have. Then it must work, regardless of whether the transport goes by road or rail.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit surprising that the member accepts what the Transport Administration says, when everyone who performs the work says that the money was needed and can be used. There is so much that needs to be done so that our trains can run and so that people can get through and will not have to stand out there and freeze and miss work or arrive late to the transport committee or whatever it is.

Everyone is affected by this, and yet the government withdraws the money for maintenance and lets Trafikverket be left with this. It is clear that one must ensure that they have the money, and then one must point with the whole hand and say: You shall use them for what has been said. They have known that the money exists. Those who are to do the work exist. One simply has to pull that load and ensure that we get maintenance of the railway and get this to work. It is a mantra: We shall remove high-speed trains and other things so that we can maintain the railway, but the government withdraws the money for precisely the maintenance. I think it is so strange.

I must also comment on this with the reduction obligation, which is now to be strangled – if you succeed in that and the EU does not save us from your grasping hands. I clearly perceive it as the Sweden Democrats not standing behind the environmental goals we have for the transport sector, because if we are to reach them we need the reduction obligation. It is evident with all clarity from the budget.

The interesting part here is that if we are to get production of biofuels for transport in Sweden started, there must be a clear demand, and there must be a long-term perspective. The only thing you are doing is pulling away the long-term perspective that actually existed. You were in the starting pits to get a number of facilities started to create Swedish biofuel, and then you take it away. I think that is irresponsible.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member! If we start with the railway, it was Trafikverket that sent back the money. We did not withdraw them. It is they themselves who have returned the coins.

When it comes to pointing with the whole hand, I think there would be a hell of a fuss at Trafikverket if we politicians stepped through the door and pointed with the whole hand. That cannot be allowed, even if we might sometimes have the desire to do so. But one must not do that. On the other hand, one can ensure through other channels that there will be a better order.

Back to the reduction obligation. We have no own production today. We import 75 percent of the material that then becomes biofuels. There is a demand across all of Europe. The aviation industry will have a great need for biofuels. For those who are interested, they can simply start up and manufacture. The demand is out there; it does not need to be steered with a reduction obligation.

We must ensure that we have both the conditions to conduct business and the opportunities to live and reside in the entire country. But it costs 16,000 kronor to fuel up a truck today, to transport the food we get on our tables. That does not work. Then one must think: How do we do it instead?

That we are to reach the environmental goals and leave behind a planet that is livable is absolutely certain. But one must take it in the right order so that it does not become counterproductive and backfire. I assert that Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna do not have the knowledge needed for how to reach the goals.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! The turn has now come to expenditure area 22, which we now have the privilege to debate.

It is no secret that I, as a member of the Centre Party, would have wished for a budget with significantly more liberal and green policies, not least considering all the challenges we face regarding developments in the world. Many families are hit hard by rising prices in the communications sector and on food, and by rising interest rates. There is very little where things actually become cheaper.

People in the countryside are often car-dependent and many times have small margins. They cannot use public transport, because there is none. Therefore, we need to have a policy that looks a bit different for a country that looks like Sweden.

In and around our larger cities, there are fantastic opportunities to get around without a car using public transport. But in large parts of the countryside, there is no alternative to taking the car to work, the grocery store, the children's school, and leisure activities. At home in Skaraborg, the County Administrative Board has even advised families to drive their children to the school bus because there are wolves in the surrounding area.

This affects us in many different ways, from the small to the large.

Speaking of the big picture: The self-sufficiency of food in our country affects everything from food prices for the individual to our total defense. We are also exposed when our farmers, who are responsible for food production, are hit by cost shocks on fertilizer, feed, electricity, and fuel in the wake of Russia's appalling war against Ukraine.

At the same time as prices for fossil energy are soaring, we see how the climate crisis is expressing itself increasingly directly in extreme temperatures and extreme weather. The need is therefore growing to environmentally, economically and security-politically create opportunities for people and companies to free themselves from today's dependence on fossil energy. We cannot lower our ambitions but must continue forward to avoid a climate catastrophe in the coming decades. That is what we owe all our children and grandchildren.

That is why it is so strange that the government is abolishing the most powerful incentives to shift the vehicle fleet towards emission-free cars and opposes the inclusion of biofuels in the tank. Climate emissions are now expected to rise instead of decrease, and Sweden is thus abandoning its role as a leader and role model in climate policy - and that with a liberal Minister for Climate and Environment! It surprises me very much.

I am convinced that people want to be involved and contribute to the climate transition and become free from fossil fuel dependency. Therefore, the Center Party proposes in its budget that the climate bonus for cars be reintroduced, as it has been one of Sweden's most successful climate measures. It has contributed to the fact that the proportion of rechargeable cars now accounts for more than half of all newly registered cars.

With only one day's notice, the government abolished the climate bonus but retained the increased vehicle tax, which had been used to fund the climate bonus. While large-scale battery production is planned in Sweden, the government is blocking many families' ability to afford to purchase a rechargeable car.

Centerpartiet wants to reintroduce the climate bonus but limit it to cars that cost less than 500,000 kronor. Thus, the climate bonus is targeted at those who otherwise would not be able to afford to buy a rechargeable car.

Mr. Speaker! The countryside needs delivery and not empty promises. The rapidly rising fuel prices are, as stated, pressing many families. But the government has in its budget not been able to deliver on many of the promises it gave during the election campaign. Despite trumpeting that they were so united, they have in the budget work not been able to agree to realize these promises.

Instead of fulfilling the clear promise of lowering diesel prices at the pump by 5-10 kronor, a reduction of 40 öre compared to current levels is now proposed. We perhaps should not discuss the high-cost protection in this debate, but it should have been in place in November but is now delayed until February. When it comes to the companies, we do not know.

The budget proposal also contains no suggestions to strengthen the crisis support for Sweden's farmers or to long-term strengthen the competitiveness of agriculture. I am fully aware that the Committee on Environment and Agriculture is to debate after us, but given all the promises that were made, it is strange that one has not been able to deliver to the countryside.

Now, powerful reforms are needed that strengthen the conditions in the countryside. It is not possible to compare the areas in Sweden that have developed public transport with the areas in the countryside where one is completely dependent on the car. Politics must therefore be different because the reality and the conditions are different.

Centerpartiet wants to lower the price for those living in the countryside by 3 kronor, and we want the travel deduction to be increased for those who have a long way to work and lack public transport. Here, the government has truly underperformed for the countryside.

We must also increase the production of Swedish biofuels. The Sverigedemokraterna member says here that one can simply start manufacturing, but that is not how it works. When the blending of biofuels in regular diesel is reduced to the EU's minimum levels, it is hoped that this will affect the high diesel prices. But it also leads to billion-dollar investments being put on hold because the companies do not see how they can produce competitive green diesel when the policy does not provide clear signals.

Policy should instead encourage these investments so that Sweden becomes independent of both Russian and Saudi Arabian oil and so that, in the long run, a new industrial branch is created that can supply Swedish transport with green bio-based fuel. By utilizing waste products from both the forestry industry and agriculture, Sweden can produce more fuels from renewable sources.

The other day, the industry and a number of members in the committee discussed renewable fuels for both aviation and shipping. A clear message was that the industry is calling for long-term rules of the game, and I hope that this is addressed in one of the government representatives' speeches.

Centerpartiet considers that a long-term strategy is needed to increase domestic biofuel production with the goal that Sweden should become a net exporter. Furthermore, an investment support for facilities that produce renewable fuels within the framework of Industriklivet should be introduced and a long-term production support created.

It is very important that we all help each other to, in different ways, create the conditions for this production in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: the Centre Party sees the whole country, and for us, the five transport measures are interconnected. We invest in increased maintenance and expanded railways. We also invest in alternative financing options because new main lines are needed. We invest in electrification, renewable energy, more public transport, and further investments in IT and broadband expansion. We need transport efficiency and a smart transition to climate benefit.

This is connected. That is why it becomes very strange when it is said that we should break up authorities so that the different types of transport will connect better.

Centerpartiet is not participating in the decision but has submitted a separate statement.

I want to conclude my speech by wishing the Speaker, the Presidium, and my colleagues in the Committee on Transport a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year with safe travels.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! There were many beautiful words. I can nevertheless state in total that the Center Party has actually performed a small sleight of hand. You are pulling the fuel support for the countryside into this budget. In that way, one tries to hide the fact that one is actually cutting back on, among other things, investments in new infrastructure.

My question concerns another issue. Many appreciate being on the water in their spare time, and more have discovered the joy of being out on the water during the pandemic when they have chosen to stay home for their holidays. It also means that the risk of more people ending up in distress at sea is great.

I wonder how the Center Party has thought when reducing the support to the Sea Rescue Society in relation to the government's budget, given the increase in recreational boating that we actually see.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Maria Stockhaus for what she said about the beautiful words.

We have reduced a grant that contains very many different things. It does not actually say there that we are reducing the sea rescue for those who are in need of sea rescue.

We have a fantastic sea rescue that works very well along our coasts, and it is incredibly important that it continues to develop. But there is nothing in our budget that says we should cut back on sea rescue. On the other hand, there is a proposal from the government to expand a budget item quite significantly, and there we have not seen the same need.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is a reason why the government has made this expansion, and it is because we see that more people are out on the water and that there is a great need for sea rescue. But here you choose, in order to make other investments, to overall reduce the infrastructure budget in order to make investments in other areas and actually risk people's lives and health by not ensuring that there are sufficient resources for sea rescue. I think that is quite remarkable if one wants all of Sweden to live and if people should have the opportunity to enjoy our fantastic waterways in their spare time.

I therefore still wonder how the Centre Party intends for the sea rescue to be able to meet the increasing interest in recreational boating when you are now cutting this budget despite the fact that recreational boating has increased.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to repeat that it is about a budget item that has quite many different parts. When it comes to meeting the increasing need for sea rescue, which the member claims exists, the Center Party has at no point proposed that sea rescue should be reduced.

I have myself experienced the joy of the sea rescue arriving when I was in need of sea rescue, and I see it as incredibly important that this activity can exist along the entirety of Sweden's long coast. But in terms of the increase that the government has proposed, I also cannot see that one could not make redistributions there in order to have a continued strong sea rescue along Sweden's coast.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There were a few things that I reacted to in Ulrika Heie's speech, and it concerns public transport. The rail-based public transport and that which runs in urban areas is electric-powered. But out in the countryside where I myself live, the buses are powered by diesel or something else. There, the costs are driven up to such a mild degree that the companies cancel routes.

Those who live out in the countryside have high fuel prices for their cars. And they get the message that they can take the bus instead. But when there is no bus running, what do you do then?

This is a consequence of the policy pursued by the previous government, namely that it becomes difficult for people to live and reside in the countryside. They cannot afford fuel for their own car to get to and from work, and the bus has stopped running because the fuel is too expensive. The effect of this is that inflation is driven up, food prices rise - everything we buy becomes more expensive - and interest rates rise.

This primarily hits people out in the countryside, because there is no range of collective transport there to the extent that exists in large cities.

The policy pursued by the previous government, where the Centre Party has been a cheerleader, strikes directly against people who do not live in Söder in Stockholm. One must have the perspective that the country is significantly larger than the big cities we have. There are masses of people who live, work, and reside where the alternatives do not exist. And you are pulling the rug out from under these people.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions. I do not quite know how I should handle them because the member represents a party that has not presented a budget that promotes rural travel and which presents proposals for travel deductions that benefit city dwellers who have relatively short commutes to work, and who also have public transport, but which do not benefit the countryside.

The buses in the countryside stopped running a very long time ago, Thomas Morell. It is quite a few years since buses stopped running on our smaller road networks. Then the car has been important. Precisely for that reason, we have also ensured that the driver is given an opportunity to be part of the green transition thanks to the reduction obligation. It gives us all the opportunity not to feel like environmental villains even if we have to take the car if we do not have access to any form of public transport where we live.

That is why it feels so strange to be asked what one should do when the bus doesn't run by a person who stands behind a budget that has no rural initiatives and no initiatives concerning making biofuels or even regular fuels cheaper. I do not think the member felt particularly satisfied when a reduction of nearly 10 kronor at the pump was promised and it ended with 40 öre.

The reduction obligation is something I perhaps do not need to go into now, as it is very clear what the party that the member represents stands for.

With Centerpartiet's budget proposal for the whole of Sweden, with the investments that we have linked to the countryside and linked to public transport to be able to transition to other fuels in the future, it would become significantly better for all the people who live in the countryside.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. In his speech, the member said that long-term rules of the game were a prerequisite for both companies and private individuals to know what they have to act according to. These rules of the game must not be such that they undermine the conditions for people to live and reside in the countryside. But one does not see the consequences of the policy that has been pursued. And the effect is not that the environment becomes better from the policy that the previous government pursued. The only effect was that it is almost impossible to live, reside, and operate in the countryside, where we have many companies.

The member comes himself from Skaraborg, which is a county that has amounts of small businesses out in the bushes. There are an enormous number of small companies out in the countryside in Skaraborg, and for all intents and purposes also in other parts of the country. But they find it harder to manage when the transports become expensive. It is expensive to heat the premises. In some bakeries, they do not even have the means to bake bread because the electricity is so expensive. This is a direct consequence of the previous government's way of handling this. A policy has been pursued that is directly harmful to the country, for individuals, for companies, and ultimately for the environment because one withdraws the economic conditions to truly transition and achieve a different production. But one does not see and does not understand the consequences of this action, and it is highly remarkable.

I sincerely hope that at least the Center Party will get back on track and understand what must be done to create a momentum so that both people and companies can operate in a healthy market and feel involved in achieving a better environment. And it is not just about carbon dioxide. There is much else to tackle as well.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have at no time heard the member refer to any report showing that the environment has not improved during the past years. I have seen nothing else.

We all know that prices have risen, but the new government and the party supporting it have still not managed to provide any answer to the challenges that exist. There is no high-cost protection for any entrepreneurs who are having problems with their bakeries. No parts have come that could provide opportunities for people in the countryside to lower their costs.

The talk about long-term rules of the game and seeing people out in the bushes does not show up at any single point in the budget that lies here, and that is the one we are debating. When it comes to the parts with a connection to transport, one instead cuts back on various forms of, for example, maintenance to the railway, which we nevertheless have to say is a part of public transport.

We want it to work in many different ways, and we know that many bus companies today prefer to run on pure biofuels. They very much want to run with HVO 100 in the tank, and they are proud to be part of the green transition. This government and its coalition partners are not providing the conditions for companies to continue with this when it now withdraws the possibility of taking further steps to create investments in renewable biofuels in Sweden.

Questions of this type, i.e., that we would not see the consequences of past policies and that companies out in the wilderness do not survive, surprise me very much. Thank goodness there are entrepreneurs who understand how to act even when it comes to difficult situations, even if the political parties leading Sweden have not done so in their budget.

I thought, then, that they were somewhat strange questions, but I have tried to answer as well as I can.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! How lovely to be able to spend a Saturday exactly one week before Christmas Eve together with everyone here and discuss the important infrastructure!

Mr. Speaker! Infrastructure is a fundamental part of our society and our economy. Sometimes I am surprised that when our voters are to grade election issues, they do not include infrastructure as one of the most important issues. This is because it affects people's ability to move and to communicate, and it also affects the opportunity for our companies to grow and create jobs.

Therefore, it is pleasing that this government has presented a strong budget bill that invests in our infrastructure. It contains investments in our entire transport system, and it will lead to better and faster connections between different parts of the country - which in turn can increase growth and create jobs.

Just this matter of seeing the whole of the transport system is something the government has taken a firm stand on. It is about a system where all four modes of transport - car, train, boat and flight - are self-evident parts that have different strengths and function differently well for different purposes. We are not a government that pits modes of transport against each other, but we want to create an efficient transport system where all modes of transport have an important place.

Mr. Speaker! No matter how much money is invested in infrastructure, the needs will always exceed the resources available. Furthermore, we currently have a cost development and a skills shortage that risk delaying and increasing the cost of important investments. Our task as politicians will be to prioritize, and we will prioritize ensuring that the infrastructure we already have in place functions by investing in the maintenance of both roads and railways. Our focus will also be on building away bottlenecks and ensuring that work commuting and freight transport function.

The investments we are planning for today will not be completed until many years from now, and it is important that we account for technological developments. We will see self-driving cars, and the first will probably be self-driving trucks that run on electricity and can perform transports around the clock, regardless of, for example, rest periods.

We also see that all modes of transport are transitioning, and we must also account for that in our transport system - that all modes of transport actually become fossil-free. It is a future that some of the parties in the opposition do not seem to take any account of at all. One example is that there is a significant difference between this government and the previous government when it comes to how one views aviation. We believe that aviation is necessary for accessibility within Sweden and between Sweden and other countries - and we see that aviation is transitioning.

For example, the airline SAS's new fleet of aircraft consumes 30 percent less fuel than the planes they replace, and BRA recently made its first flight on 100 percent biofuel. The interesting thing was that the only politician who was on site then was I. This happened this spring, and no one from the then government was present. Not even Miljöpartiet, who one might think would have an interest in that we now actually have the possibility to move towards fossil-free aviation, was there.

Sweden also has a company working on developing electric aviation as well as companies developing hydrogen solutions for aviation. We believe in aviation and want to ensure that there is a well-functioning airport infrastructure in Sweden, as well as good access to Stockholm from all parts of the country.

Mr. Speaker! The budget therefore contains a continued investment in financial support for the increased number of emergency airports that was decided in connection with the pandemic. We look forward to what the investigation that is now looking at the airport infrastructure for the entire country will conclude. Many municipalities and regions across the country also breathed a sigh of relief after the government's clear announcement that Bromma will not be closed.

Mr. Speaker! A question that many within the industrial and transport sector have raised for several years is the need for new icebreakers. With the large investments in new industry being made in northern Sweden, the need is acute. Without icebreakers, the transports to and from northern Sweden risk failing.

The previous government was passive, and it was thanks to an announcement from here in the Riksdag that the funding for the icebreakers was included in the national plan. With this budget, Sjöfartsverket receives an authorization to order new icebreakers, and it is expected that the first new icebreaker can be launched and tested during the winter of 2026/27.

Another important part of our budget bill is the investments in Sweden's broadband network. It will make it possible for more people to access faster and more stable internet connections, which is a prerequisite for people and companies to be able to take advantage of the digital services and tools that are available. One example is the AI solution that writes texts. I have tested it myself, and parts of my speech are actually written by the AI that is now available completely for free.

There are fantastic opportunities with digitalization, but as a country, we have unfortunately lost momentum in that development compared to other countries. They are pulling ahead. A well-functioning digital infrastructure is the foundation for all of us to be able to take part in the opportunities that digitalization provides. The Government will also discuss an increase in ambition regarding our investment in digitalization and its opportunities.

Mr. Speaker! I have read through the opposition's various budget proposals, and one can observe that it is far from a united opposition we see here in the chamber. It is quite fragmented.

The Social Democrats make very few changes to the government's budget proposal while the Green Party borrows everything for everyone and spends money as if there were no tomorrow—and not in an economic situation where we have high inflation. The Centre Party inflates its budget in the area by including fuel subsidies for the countryside, which actually do not belong in this expenditure area. They hide the fact that they are actually reducing the investment in infrastructure by almost 1 billion.

Overall, the budget for 2023 is a strong investment in infrastructure, and it is an investment that will benefit both our economy and our society. By investing in our infrastructure, we create the conditions for a better future for us all.

With that, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask Member Stockhaus a bit about this matter of stopping new trunk lines, something that is completely incomprehensible given the capacity shortage that exists.

Since I entered the Traffic Committee, I believe that most of the visits I have made and the visitors I have had have concerned the anxiety regarding what is going to happen regarding this. How long will we have to wait for enlarged labor markets? It is therefore about enlarged regions – that as a human being one can choose where one wants to work and where one wants to live thanks to us expanding the labor market regions. In 1970 we had 187 labor market regions; in 2020 we had 60.

A central part of succeeding in expanding the labor market regions is the infrastructure. The Sweden Agreement actually laid the foundation for what we see today with new main lines, and it was a Moderate Prime Minister who was behind that.

Passenger traffic has increased very much, as has freight traffic. Freight traffic, however, cannot increase further due to the capacity shortage. An example was taken up earlier from the rostrum. Today, it is 1,400 buses that pass every day at Kallebäcksmotet in Gothenburg. The city has had to rebuild its infrastructure because one cannot take the train from Borås to Gothenburg.

What is the Moderates' vision for the future? How do the Moderates believe the solution to the capacity shortage should look? In the business community, there is great concern.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gunilla Svantorp, for the questions!

I believe that the business community expects us politicians to make wise priorities and ensure that the money we invest is used in a sensible way. We must, therefore, focus on things that are socio-economically profitable.

The high-speed railway project has received extremely sharp criticism. Even if one increased the cost for carbon emissions sevenfold, one would not be able to make this project work in terms of socio-economic balance.

We want to build rails, and we want to expand the labor market regions. However, we want to see that construction takes place on the system that exists today. For example, neither Alingsås-Göteborg, which is the largest bottleneck in the Swedish system, nor Uppsala-Stockholm are included in the near term when it comes to investments. These are the biggest bottlenecks in the system today. Uppsala-Stockholm affects all traffic from northern Sweden.

We must start from the system that exists and not from any kind of pipe dreams about large prestige projects that cost exactly as much money as they please. Furthermore, they will not solve any problem at all until possibly towards 2050.

We want to invest in rail. We want to invest in building on the existing system, removing the bottlenecks and focusing on commuting - not on Stockholm residents being able to get to Gothenburg and Malmö faster.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! "We must build on the system we have," say the Moderaterna. Is this the vision for the future? What is actually the Moderaterna's vision for the future? It must surely be to see beyond what we have here and now. One must be able to do two things at the same time.

In the year 2029, the Fehmarn Belt link will be completed. What will happen to the trains that arrive there? Will there be a stop? Does the Moderaterna have any view at all on this? What will happen? How are we going to connect the rest of the world with Sweden if there is a stop when one arrives here?

I think it is a bit exciting that people only talk about us building on what we already have. We do need new capacity. We need new tracks, so that it is possible to move freight and so that we can expand the possibility that exists for people to move between different cities. There are more cities in Sweden than Stockholm; I just want to remind of that. When Member Stockhaus in her speech spoke about aviation, she said that it is important that we have good access to get to Stockholm. It is however also important that we have good access to get to the rest of the country.

I am a bit concerned. When the Moderaterna ruled last time, one of the first things they did was to stop the Norrbotniabanan, which is as far away from Stockholm as it is possible to get. We see today that it has taken a very long time to get started again. Now there is a great concern that it will come to a halt for something that is important for very many people in our country.

Maria Stockhaus did not answer the question. What are her alternatives to new trunk lines?

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am, frankly, a little surprised by Gunilla Svantorp's way of arguing. Building on what we have does not mean that we are to have exactly the same capacity as we have today. It means that we expand the capacity, for example from single track to double track, which doubles the capacity on sections, for example Alingsås-Göteborg. This is also needed on other sections.

During the election campaign, they went around laying tracks and cutting ribbons a bit everywhere, but the one who looks at the national plan sees that it is a bit of the emperor's new clothes. It sounds great, but it is scheduled for 2033, with 15 percent funding. That says nothing and increases no capacity.

There is also a very great concern from the business community regarding how we handle investments in our infrastructure. We have a national plan where most of it is pushed into the future or is scheduled late. There is very little funding, and with the cost increases we have, it falls over the edge and thus does not happen.

In that part of the plan lie the Norrbotniabanan and Uppsala-Stockholm. I would say that people in northern Sweden have every reason to be very worried when they look at the national plan and at how the previous government handled this issue. It is also about the fact that one has basically ignored nine reports from the Swedish National Audit Office which point out the major problems that exist within Trafikverket, which also causes us to have problems carrying out necessary infrastructure investments.

Our vision is a transport system for the whole of Sweden where all four modes of transport are included and where accessibility is good for both freight and commuting throughout Sweden.

(Applause)

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

LINDA WESTERLUND SNECKER (V)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Maria Stockhaus can run some deeper machine learning on her AI. She actually forgot to mention the Left Party's budget. It might be because we in the Left Party are investing 170 billion more than the government does in its budget, and that is why it is nice to forget about this.

My question to the member concerns the climate policy framework. It is obvious that the goal in it will never be able to be reached with the policy that the government is presenting. Seven parties were in complete agreement that the goals in this framework must be achieved. We must reduce emissions from the transport sector by 70 percent, and it must happen by 2030 at the latest.

What is the government doing then to achieve this? You remove bonus-malus over a day. You remove the transport-neutral travel deduction and betray all travelers in the whole of Sweden.

Industry accounts for a very large part of the emissions. Nor does much happen there, rather it is a few charging stations that perhaps are to be put in place. We have just heard, in the exchange of remarks with SD, that the trucks could not drive that much and actually could not charge anywhere at all.

Furthermore, they have not succeeded in lowering the price of gasoline at all, and now it costs an incredible amount. And when it comes to electricity, we have ebb prices.

It is not going very well for this government in reaching the goals in the climate policy framework. I would like to hear an honest answer from Maria Stockhaus. How is Sweden going to reach the climate policy goals for the transport sector?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! I was not quite aware that it was a climate policy debate we had here instead of a debate on the expenditure area transport. I can still try to address some of what Linda Snecker raised.

I would say that the Left Party's budget is an all-to-all budget with loan financing as if there were no tomorrow and also no economy affected by high inflation. This is something for which one takes no responsibility at all in their budget.

If we are to make a difference regarding the climate, we must do things that have an effect. Something that the previous government has received a lot of criticism for is precisely that what they implemented had no effect. If one had, for example, invested in expanding charging stations for trucks, the trucks would have had an opportunity to charge. Vänsterpartiet is just like Miljöpartiet. We are not going to drive cars at all - so it is not interesting to build charging stations, especially not for heavy traffic. But if the previous government had done more regarding this, we would have had charging stations for heavy trucks, and those who buy heavy trucks today would then have had the opportunity for fast charging across the entire country. But there, one chose not to do enough.

We also need to ensure that we have electricity produced in a fossil-free way. Vänsterpartiet is indeed complicit in that Sweden has phased out nuclear power and is now instead running Karlshamnsverket at full capacity when it is cold because there is a lack of electricity.

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

LINDA WESTERLUND SNECKER (V)

Mr. Speaker! I did not hear a single answer to my questions. Instead, there was a sense of surprise over whether a climate policy debate is ongoing, as if it had not struck Maria Stockhaus that the transport sector also emits and that the infrastructure must benefit the whole country and also be favorable for the climate.

"All to all," says the member regarding the Left Party's budget, but the government's budget gives nothing to anyone! No one gets anything—neither the travelers nor the industry.

With all respect for the previous government, I completely disregard what it did. I want to know what the member's government is doing to achieve the climate policy goals, but Maria Stockhaus does not answer that. Instead, there are excuses about that party doing this and that party doing that, and about the fact that there is no more nuclear power.

I did not live when the referendum took place, but others in this chamber did. I find it very difficult to see that it is the Left Party's fault that there are no nuclear power plants in Sweden right now. But there are some who are responsible for that, and it is the government that is in power now. It is responsible for ensuring that the entire infrastructure functions in Sweden.

The budget we are debating today means that one cannot travel by train and also does not know which main lines will be built. A separation between passengers and freight must occur in Sweden. There is a queue, and it is not possible to arrive on time because freight trains and passenger trains crowd onto small, small tracks that are not maintained at all. A separation must occur here.

More railways are needed to be able to reach the climate policy goals. Maria Stockhaus is given a chance to answer how the government will reach the climate policy goals for the transport sector.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! Electrification is an important part of transitioning the transport sector. It is also important to ensure that there is fossil-free electricity. Unfortunately, it takes some time before new nuclear power plants are in place, but Vänsterpartiet has historically been involved in decommissioning existing nuclear power. Even though Linda Westerlund Snecker was not born when the referendum was held, the member must nevertheless be able to take responsibility for her party's policy on this issue.

There are very many places where it needs to be expanded to double track so that capacity is increased. But building high-speed railway so that we from Stockholm can get to Gothenburg and Malmö faster does not help the train traffic in the whole of Sweden. It does not help those who stand and freeze on train platforms in Örebro or Vänersborg to get up towards Stockholm or anywhere else in Sweden.

If one imagines that a high-speed railway is to be built, everyone talks about it as the great, fantastic environmental project. But the problem is that when you build a railway—especially if you use the new construction method that everyone glorifies, namely land bridges—incredible amounts of concrete and cement are used. This means that one builds up a gigantic climate debt, and when it is finished somewhere around 2045, one is supposed to start paying it off. But with what, if all modes of transport are fossil-free?

One must see the whole, but I think there is an idealization of building railways. No consideration is taken into account that it also has environmental consequences. It is not the solution to everything, but it is the solution to very much. The government wants to ensure that we build on what we have and that existing railways function.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to the discussion taking place here, it is obvious that the parts of the railway projects that are far in the future will not be realized. This concerns, for example, Ostlänken and the plans for Göteborg-Borås and Lund-Hässleholm. Alingsås is important, but it is obvious that when Member Stockhaus speaks about this, nothing is said about these being built. The plans for the new main lines needed in the southern part of the country have been permanently halted.

To ensure redundancy in the system, new main lines are needed. We need these transports, and we need to ensure that the Swedes will get through even in the future - 2030, 2040 and 2050. We cannot pull the emergency brake now and stand here and watch, and then do something sometime far in the future. In that case, it will take ages before we get the main lines we need.

This is incredibly regrettable. Reinfeldt was still a progressive politician with visions, but this government shuts down, scraps, and removes – even the railway maintenance. It is so strange.

I must comment on what the member said about Miljöpartiet and cars. It is a bit comical. Stockholm city won the prestigious Laddguldet award a few weeks ago, which is awarded to the city that is furthest ahead when it comes to expanding the charging infrastructure for cars. It was a project that I initiated politically together with Moderaterna and which has put the city at the forefront. The car traffic that is needed shall run on electricity. To claim that Miljöpartister do not want cars is to stand here and lie.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is claimed quite often that the government is not interested in building railways at all, which is not true. What we want to do is to ensure that railways are built where they are truly needed, and that they are built as cost-effectively as possible.

When we are to prioritize the use of tax money, we must look at what is socio-economically profitable. The high-speed trains are not. The main lines are not socio-economically profitable. The price tag when the Sweden negotiations were made was completely different than today. It is important to focus on ensuring that the money is used in a wise way.

In today's railway system, the two worst bottlenecks are Göteborg-Alingsås and Stockholm-Uppsala. Neither of them is included in the national plan except for a small part that will not affect traffic particularly much. Uppsala-Stockholm is far off in the future, towards 2033, with a very small share of the funding completed. These bottlenecks will persist. They are important to focus on. Uppsala-Stockholm also affects traffic in all of northern Sweden.

We want to build railways, build further on what exists and build double tracks where there are single tracks to increase capacity. It is faster, more cost-effective and more socially and economically profitable than the prestige projects with high-speed rail.

When it comes to cars - sure, it is fantastic that there is charging infrastructure in Stockholm. Many who live in the inner city do not dare to have an electric car, however, because it is difficult to charge. But now we are talking about the whole country and about fast charging for heavy traffic. The previous government did not do much, which means that the transition will be delayed. They did not dare to invest in rechargeable, heavy trucks. It is sad that the previous government did not tackle that issue and ensure that this was put in place so that there could be fossil-free transport on the roads as well.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The stretch to Alingsås and the four-track line to Uppsala are important for both regions, for the main lines, and for the accessibility of rail transport. But now Stockhaus claims that Ostlänken, which is planned for a maximum of 250 kilometers per hour, is a high-speed train and that Göteborg-Borås and Lund-Hässleholm also are. But those are normal main lines - the trains obviously run at high speed, but they are not high-speed trains.

It should reasonably be the case that the government says yes to them, but obviously, one is now saying no to new main lines that can provide good traffic so that people do not arrive late to their jobs. It is regrettable.

I must also comment on what is stated in the budget and what has been said here regarding aviation. The flights that are needed and that need to remain—a large part of the flights that are needed actually—will, of course, transition to fossil-free fuels. It is good that BRA has flown with fossil-free fuel at some point, but it is strange that they do not do it more often, since the planes obviously can handle it already today. They should do it more. The market can solve that.

The Moderates, the government, the Sweden Democrats and that entire group want to keep Bromma Airport despite the fact that, according to all investigations, it is not needed. If national aviation is to function, it needs to be gathered at Arlanda and consolidated. That way, one can get aviation that works. But instead, the government wants to keep the airport at Bromma and thereby deny the Stockholm region a large number of homes. It is regrettable.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that the speed on Ostlänken has been reduced to 250, largely because a number of Moderate municipal councilors have been clear that one cannot build a railway and just drive past a lot of towns where people live who need to be able to commute to work. It is very good and important.

An announcement from the government regarding the three sections will come eventually. When it comes to Ostlänken, progress has been made and the focus is on commuting. When it comes to Lund-Hässleholm, planning for high-speed railway is still ongoing. That one is therefore more uncertain, even though more capacity will certainly be needed on that section as well.

I would like to say that we need aviation not just as it is today, but we may need more aviation in the future. The more aviation transitions, the better it becomes. It is an efficient way to transport, because one does not need to build as much infrastructure between locations. A landing strip of two kilometers at both ends is sufficient. Then one can reach different parts of the country in that way. It is an efficient way to transport people in relation to building both railway and road, actually.

When it comes to BRA's flight with biofuel, their wish is to move forward and be able to fly on 100 percent biofuel now that they have proven that it is possible. However, it is not that simple for the market to handle it. It must go through quite a few permit processes before one can fly passengers on 100 percent biofuel. The important thing is that they have shown that it is possible. They are prepared to take everything it involves to get it approved.

Regarding the question about Bromma and Arlanda, it is interesting. It was clear that many across the country were desperate when it came to the idea of closing Bromma. It is difficult to understand as a Stockholmer. But it has to do with the accessibility to Stockholm that Bromma creates. If one is to move that traffic to Arlanda, one also needs to expand and rebuild Arlanda. But that is something Miljöpartiet is not prepared to do either.

Aviation friendliness will not work if Sweden is to have growth and accessibility to the entire country. This government has a completely different view on aviation. I believe the whole country welcomes it.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

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

Mina and the member's paths have crossed in other committees previously. I am confident regarding the member's competence linked to digitalization, not least that which the Center Party often refers to as a fifth mode of transport. This concerns broadband and those parts. In that regard, I do not feel that I have much to ask questions about.

I am, however, concerned about what I perceive as a Stockholm perspective, that people from Stockholm have nothing to do in Malmö or Gothenburg or at least should not come there particularly quickly. But that is not what we are talking about, I think.

I mentioned the distance between Göteborg and Borås. It surprises me to hear the member call it, as I understand it, a prestige project and that one thinks Alingsås-Göteborg is more prioritized. It is about ten years of work, the Sverigeförhandlingen and so on. An incredibly large number of politicians, officials and companies have invested an enormous amount of time in it. Here it is simply dismissed as a prestige project.

We see simultaneously that incredibly urgent infrastructure investments need to be made. Earlier, Fehmarn Bält was mentioned and the possibility that when it opens, goods can be brought into Sweden from the south by rail but also by road.

I want to ask the member: In what way is it socio-economically sound to throw away ten years of work? And in what way can one show that they hear what is being said in southern and western Sweden, where there are extreme needs? The Stockholm area has actually been favored for quite a long time.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! Whether any region is more favored than any other, I wish to leave unsaid. Everyone claims to be disadvantaged. People calculate in slightly different ways.

The high-speed railway was truly a prestige project from the beginning. One could travel quickly between Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. It would benefit those of us who live in the three cities, but it would not benefit those who live in between. Now the project has changed over time, and there are parts of it that we absolutely must take advantage of among the planning processes that have been carried out.

When the price tag has risen by I don't know how many hundred percent from the original calculation, can we Moderates wish that someone somewhere pulls the handbrake. It is also something the Swedish National Audit Office has been clear about. They criticized precisely that there were no control stations along the way where one began to question whether the project was worth continuing with, because the cost became incredibly high.

It is important that we look at where there is a lack of capacity. That is where we need to focus. Now the Port of Gothenburg is being expanded, but it is realized that most of what comes from there will need to go by rail because Alingsås-Göteborg does not have the capacity that is required. And all rail traffic from northern Sweden gets stuck in Uppsala. This also applies to the commuting traffic in the region between Uppsala and Stockholm where they are not getting four tracks, which is needed.

It is on the two sections where we have the greatest capacity shortages. When we have to prioritize and have limited funds, we must look at where the biggest problems are.

When it comes to Fehmarn Bält, it is interesting. Several have highlighted that connection. One big problem there is that it is single-track through large parts of Denmark. It will therefore result in a stop long before one reaches the Öresund Bridge. Furthermore, Trafikverket says that the capacity can be increased by making adjustments in the bridge piers so that the traffic heading to Sweden can handle the increase that Fehmarn Bält entails. New main lines for high-speed trains are not needed to manage that increase.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answers, Member Stockhaus!

I still want to continue trying to get clarity. The member mentions the capacity increase as an important part. My view is that it has been one of the pillars in the Sweden negotiations. Let us then stop talking about high-speed trains and instead talk about the new trunk lines and capacity increases where they are needed.

I am becoming a little worried when the member does not acknowledge the need for increased capacity in Western Sweden and southern Sweden in the way I would have expected. What I understand is that Stockholm-Uppsala is now significantly more important than any other part of Sweden. There, trains coming from the north are received in any case.

What is the member's message regarding Ostlänken, Lund-Hässleholm and Göteborg-Borås? Will there be a retake from the government? And will it be extended by five to ten years due to the retake? Will it be delayed?

These are labor market regions where people need to move. Let us not just take the endpoints. It is actually planned for a number of stops along the way. Should those parts not be given the opportunity to attract both residents and labor in the way that was the whole idea of the Sweden Agreement?

What is the message to everyone who lives along parts of Ostlänken and Göteborg-Borås, where double-decker transport for labor commuting runs every four minutes, which we have already said several times today? Västsverige is today Sweden's fastest-growing and absolutely largest growth region linked to industry.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is important to look at the transport system as a whole and make priorities based on that. That means looking at where we have the greatest capacity shortages and addressing them first when prioritizing.

Many talk about the new main lines as a quick solution and as if we will now be able to commute. But we are talking about 2045, 2050. What will the transport sector look like then? This is a project that will not be in place now even if there were a re-tender in the near future. It lies incredibly far in the future.

When it comes to definitive decisions regarding exactly the three sections, the government will return in the near future regarding what will happen.

I certainly also mean Alingsås-Göteborg in Västsverige. Large amounts of money have been spent on dredging out the port in Göteborg to be able to receive the very largest ships. Now there is a big problem. All the capacity that is expanded in the port will need to go by truck, because there is insufficient railway capacity due to the narrow sector between Alingsås and Göteborg.

When it comes to transporting goods and people northward by train, Uppsala-Stockholm is the stretch where it is most congested. Then there are other stretches where there is single track and which also need to be prioritized so that we can get better capacity in the entire system.

Now the focus is on southern Sweden and everyone who lives there, while northern Sweden has largely been forgotten. The investments in northern Sweden are so far ahead and are so low-funded that they will not be completed during this planning period.

We need to review where the money does the most good and where we get the most value for money in terms of the socio-economic impact. That is how we must prioritize. It is difficult to prioritize. We will never have enough money to cover all needs. But it must be about the socio-economic profitability and where society gets the most back from the investment. It must be those investments we invest in, not investments like the high-speed railways, which have proven to be extremely unprofitable. It is the wrong way to invest money.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have a party motion where the entirety of the policy is visible and which is being handled in the Committee on Finance. Therefore, we abstain from taking a position in this matter, but we have a specific statement which I refer to.

Just as has been said before, we are discussing communications, transport, and policy for the information society, i.e., infrastructure, both physical and digital. But I thought I would start by talking a little bit about freedom.

Freedom can be about being who one actually is. It can be about being able to acquire knowledge. It can be about getting a job and getting a salary of one's own that one decides over. It can, of course, also be about moving within the country and outside the country.

For previous generations, the car meant a very great freedom. For those who are perhaps a few years older than I, the train travel meant a very important freedom. For most, the driver's license is something that implies a great sense of freedom. And for some, perhaps especially youth in the countryside, the A-traktor is a very important symbol of freedom, especially for those who live where the bus does not run so often or almost never.

The state is an enabler of freedom and the feeling of freedom. The state is also a very important social builder. We shall have a Sweden that holds together. One tool for that is a well-functioning transport system with many different modes of transport. That includes cycle paths, roads, the railway, which we have talked about quite a bit so far today, shipping and aviation. Everything is connected.

In the national plan, which is adopted every four years and forms the basis for what we are discussing, we talk about what we want to happen 4, 10, 20, and 30 years ahead. Infrastructure policy is something very long-term, in the same way as research policy, the area I was involved in previously. Something I have encountered during my time in the Transport Committee is a genuine desire for long-termism and that we stick to what we have said we are going to do. A national plan for infrastructure does not just appear suddenly, but it is built on those that have existed previously.

As I have said before, it is very important that we stick to what we have said in the national plan, not least in order to be able to expand our labor market regions. Above all, perhaps it is important for the freight, so that we can move freight from road to rail and shipping. Everything that is produced in our country is to be sent out from here in one way or another. Much is also to come here. Since we do not produce, for example, our own food yet, we need to get it in.

Public transport is very important for very many - so that one can get to work, so that one can get to preschool and pick up the children after one has worked, and so that one can visit friends and acquaintances. It is particularly important given the climate challenge.

We think it is very important that the young people in our country develop a habit early on to use public transport where it is possible. Not everyone can, but for those who can, it is very important. Therefore, in our budget, we allocate 500 million in searchable funds so that one can be able to offer free public transport journeys for young people during the summer. That they should be able to take summer jobs a bit away from home and be able to hang out with friends and acquaintances is very important.

One thing that we in Sweden are very good at is road safety. It is important that we maintain that. It is important that we also ensure that our zero vision remains alive. When we arrived here today, 178 people had died in traffic so far this year, and every single one of those people is, of course, one too many. It is important that we maintain the road safety issues, in the same way that we must maintain the work that the previous S-government performed for professional transport and fairer conditions. No person should also have to die because they are working on a road. We also see that happening. One gets hit because the traffic is zooming past a little too fast. It is important that we ensure we maintain those issues.

The transport system is, just as we have discussed earlier today, absolutely crucial for us to be able to reduce emissions. We have the goal of reducing by 70 percent by 2030 in relation to 2010. It is worrying, I think, that the government representatives do not speak more about this. They answer our questions, but they do not speak about it themselves. I look forward to and hope that the remaining speakers will speak about the importance of us not handing over that responsibility to our children and grandchildren, but instead taking action on the issue right now and continuing the work that we have done.

We must dare to invest in that which builds Sweden stronger. We know that infrastructure belongs to those things. We need more railway, better roads and more shipping.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to say a few words about digitalization. The goal we have for digitalization is that we should be the best in the world at utilizing its possibilities. It is a goal that commits us. Something that is very important to me is that we also ensure that everyone is included. We know that there are far too many who today stand outside of society and outside of digitalization. That they do not get in can be because they do not see a need for it or because they cannot due to a functional impairment. We really need to become much better at that. We also need to become better at getting people to see the advantage of being digital. We need to invest much more in that.

I have previously sat on the Education Committee, where we have talked a great deal about data and how we use it every year. Now I have come here to the Transport Committee, where we are responsible for this issue. How do we use data? How do we ensure that many can use the data that we produce through digitalization? How do we ensure that we can support the innovations that will come? There is a lot we have to do. We look forward to the inquiries on this that will come, not least regarding what a national ID system should look like. That we at the state and national level ensure that it is we who have the responsibility for a national ID document, I think is very important.

Mr. Speaker! I refer to our special statement.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! My view is nevertheless that the Social Democrats are trying to be a responsible and governing party. If one looks at expenditure area 22, it differs very little from the government's proposal.

My question to Gunilla Svantorp instead concerns the investment in high-speed railways. As a responsible party, one should reasonably be interested in that the money one invests is used in the best possible way where the socio-economic calculation points to a plus. It absolutely does not do that when it comes to the high-speed railway.

Furthermore, one can see the two biggest bottlenecks we have in the Swedish railway system in the national plan. One is included, but far ahead with very little funding. The Göteborg-Alingsås section is not included at all. This means that there will continue to be problems in the system. Here, one could achieve a difference significantly faster than with the new main lines.

The big question is: How can one, as a responsible and state-bearing party, stand behind such a project? If one makes an investment, one reasonably wants to get back at least the same money as one invested or, hopefully, more. There are a number of infrastructure projects that point to pluses. But just this one has a very large minus.

How can the Social Democrats justify that, despite the price tag having increased as much as it has, they continue to insist on carrying out the project?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question! It is a very important question. It concerns, not least, the cost increases, which have skyrocketed enormously. It is very important. I really look forward to the assignment that Trafikanalys has to look at precisely the cost increases. What needs to be done to stop those cost increases?

If I am not completely misinformed, it was still the case that the Öresund Bridge was not socio-economically profitable when it was planned. Today, it is a cash cow for the state. Denmark has a different financing system than ours. They reinvest everything they get out of the Öresund Bridge today into new infrastructure.

When we began to talk about new trunk lines, it was still under an Mledd government that we had the negotiations. At that time, one did not quite have the view that member Stockhaus has today.

Those in the business community whom I have spoken with, and it is almost all the business community that exists around in the areas where construction is to take place according to the plans, say that it is absolutely crucial for Sweden's growth. Sometimes one must also dare to look a bit further. That was clearly done when the Öresund Bridge was built.

I believe that there would be very many projects that would stop and never be completed, but which in the end would have become very important, if one were to base it entirely on the principle that Stockhaus thinks we should have.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are, of course, also other considerations to be made. But with such an enormous minus as the project has, it is remarkable that one has not pulled the handbrake earlier.

Businesses and municipalities along the routes say that it is absolutely crucial for the development in their regions. I do not think it matters who you talk to in the whole of Sweden. When it comes to every single railway stretch and road segment, municipalities and businesses in that area will say exactly the same thing. That is where our difficult task lies. It is to prioritize.

When the Sweden negotiations were made, the high-speed railway had a completely different price tag than it has today. The National Audit Office has also been critical of how we handle infrastructure projects in Sweden. There is nowhere on the way where one makes reassessments.

When the price tag has risen as much as it has, one must dare to pull the handbrake and say: It is not reasonable with the enormous cost increase that we have seen when it comes to carrying out this project. We can see that those funds will do greater good somewhere else. It is difficult to do as politicians. But at some point, it is our responsibility.

If one wants to be a responsible governing party that is careful with the taxpayers' money, one must ensure that the money invested goes to the right things. It will not be enough for everything that all municipalities and businesses in different regions in Sweden talk about.

We must then prioritize. What infrastructure do we already have in place today? Where are our bottlenecks? How can we build them away to create more capacity in the entire system?

Then the new main lines for high-speed trains are not the solution. They cost far too much money, and they do not solve the problems we have in the Swedish transport system.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can only state that our parties have completely different views on this specific issue.

It is exciting when Member Stockhaus speaks about priorities. When the Moderaterna ruled last time and I sat in the Education Committee, the Moderate-led government chose to spend 19 times more on tax cuts than on schools.

When it comes to that matter of prioritizing, no one really knows what we are going to see. Will there be even more tax cuts? We already see in the budget that exists now that they are investing in those who earn the most.

That matter of priorities is important. For me, priorities are about ensuring that Sweden is tied together and that we get larger labor market regions so that more people can choose where they want to live and where they want to work somewhere.

There, new trunk lines are extremely important. This applies in particular so that we can increase capacity and get more freight on our railways.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I jumped when the member spoke about freedom. It is about freedom for people to be able to travel and move within the country and also outside.

The consequence of the previous government's policy is that people have had their freedom curtailed. If one speaks with people who live and work in the countryside, one hears that they do not have the opportunity to go and visit relatives. They cannot afford to have their children participate in leisure activities. Some have even resigned because they cannot afford to travel to work.

I do not see that as a freedom. I cannot conjure that image before me. Instead, people have been placed in a situation where they have very difficulty managing their everyday lives. If one looks at the budget proposal coming from the Socialdemokraterna, it is a poor consolation for those living out in the countryside. There are no answers to those questions there.

Then we also have the question of the goods being transported by train. Goods are to be lifted from road to railway. This can be done with advantage in order to transport the heavy goods over long distances.

But the previous government's policy instead led to the goods being taken off the trains and onto cheap transports. It was those who were lying around and driving illegally in Sweden. They have now found a new market due to the situation we have with high fuel prices. It is attractive to purchase transport from those who smuggle in fuel and lie around and drive illegally in Sweden.

Here one can clearly see traces that the previous government did not understand the consequences of its actions. One also cannot discern from the budget proposal that you have even come to the realization that it has those consequences.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! It was a general political contribution, one might still say. It was not just about the traffic issue.

It is exciting to hear the Sweden Democrats' representative standing there and saying that we Social Democrats do not understand how ordinary people are doing. Yes, we do. That is why, in the budget that I refer to and that we present in the Finance Committee, we prioritize investing in welfare significantly more than the Sweden Democrats and their comrades do.

Welfare, in fact, benefits everyone regardless of where they live. It is extremely important. The investments in welfare mean that one can also give more money to the regions, which in turn can put more money into public transport so that you, regardless of where you live, can move around in your county. These are extremely important investments.

There, you Sweden Democrats have chosen to place yourselves in the lap of the Moderates. They will always ensure that those who are best off are also those who receive the most money. Tax cuts whenever possible will be what is prioritized.

How that, Thomas Morell, can lead to people in the countryside getting it better, I and my party do not understand. Therefore, I think perhaps that the Sweden Democrats are deceiving. They say one thing, and then they do something completely different with their policy.

It is important that Thomas Morell can show: What is it that you have done that the countryside will benefit from in the policy that you have just said yes to and that you are largely involved in governing? What is it that the countryside will benefit from?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions from the member! First and foremost, we have a long-term plan, but it is not possible to solve in two months the problems that the previous government created. One must see the whole in a longer perspective.

There we want to free up resources to invest in roads and railways so that people can live and reside in the whole country. That is one thing. But for the welfare to function, our infrastructure must also be the supporting part of the activities that take place. Without a functioning infrastructure, there won't be much of a welfare either. It is an absolute prerequisite for our societies to function.

The members of the committee touched upon this regarding fair conditions within the commercial transport sector. I have, for the most part, lived my life in the commercial transport sector since I was a child, and I have seen the development. In several debates here in the chamber, I have put forward the importance of having a functioning control activity out on the road. Some of this falls under the Committee on Transport, even though the Committee on Justice has the majority.

The previous government was more than lawfully paralyzed when it came to introducing measures. Measures were taken in the legislation, but they were not followed up by ensuring that anyone was brought in to do the job. Therefore, we have today received a situation with an activity out on the roads that destroys the prerequisites for sound business. In the end, we do not get the effect that we can lift freight from road to rail - the long-distance and heavy freight. It is cheaper to buy a truck transport, and even the state engages in that type of business. It is deplorable.

This is due to the fact that the previous government did not have the ability to see how things in society are interconnected and what measures must be taken to achieve a society that works for everyone who participates in it.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to remind the member of the reform package for Swedish wages and Swedish conditions that the previous S-government has implemented. We have new rules that strengthen control, as the member himself said. We have sanction fees, possibilities to seize vehicles if fraud is detected, and so on. There is a whole range of measures that the previous S-government has taken, regardless of what the member says now. Then there is, of course, more to do, and that is a good thing.

I was a bit taken aback when the member spoke about the Sweden Democrats' long-term plan forward. It is very good that there is such a plan. The question is only how it is synced with the Moderates' long-term plan forward. Sometimes these two parties are very different, and sometimes they are very similar.

The question, therefore, is what will happen with the Sweden Democrats' long-term plan moving forward. We will have to see when the Moderates are then going to lower taxes as much as possible for those who earn the most. One can be a little worried about that.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's expenditure area 22. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal.

Tomorrow, Madam Speaker, is enlighteningly the fourth Advent. Christmas is undoubtedly soon here. It is a wonderful holiday, and by far the holiday when people in Sweden are out and about the most.

Statistics show that during Christmas and New Year, 70 percent of Sweden's car owners use their car, and over half of these journeys are longer than 20 mil. The train is also a very popular mode of transport. A total of 13.7 million mil are traveled by Swedes over Christmas and New Year. Many of us will therefore be out traveling; that is one thing for sure.

And just safe are some things we hope our roads are. We hope that they are salted, sanded and passable so that the risk of accidents is minimized. We hope that we can trust that the train we take arrives at the appointed time.

Unfortunately, that is not the case today. We have a large maintenance debt on the road network. Many of the country's roads are poorly maintained. The roads are in poor condition and have passed their best-before dates. There are many residents in the countryside who had hoped that the road they use would be fixed and put in order, but instead, the speed on the road section is lowered. That is the answer to those of us who live and work in the countryside: instead of fixing the road, they lower the speed.

It is directly hostile to the countryside. It takes longer to get to and from work, and companies operating in the countryside lose a lot in competitiveness. I have spoken with people who have traveled around. My colleague who sat in the committee before me has traveled around Sweden, and he says it is terrible in some parts, for example in the inland. This must be fixed.

That is why it is so important that we have received a new government with clearly set goals: The country's roads shall be refurbished and ensure a safe and competitive infrastructure. It is an immensely important signal to all cyclists, bus drivers, car drivers - yes, everyone who needs good and functioning roads.

It is also important that the railway is upgraded moving forward. It is good, Madam Speaker, that the government is also investing in charging infrastructure throughout the country. Access to charging stations shall be good, and this shall be a good alternative for all residents regardless of where they live. It is also very important for the environment.

There are many important issues and challenges for the new government ahead. I truly look forward to these four years and to working together with you in the committee.

I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Speaker and all members a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! That was a short and snappy contribution from Member Oscarsson. I nevertheless have a couple of questions that I would like to ask, linked to the fact that I actually expected more.

There was a very great joy that all the country's roads would now be renovated, that there would be charging infrastructure throughout the country and so on. These are, of course, well-intentioned investments. But I think there is a big difference between this and the different posts of Member Stockhaus and Member Oscarsson. When it comes to the country-wide perspective, not least linked to the railway, the Member mentioned that the railway is to be renovated. But we have also heard that we cannot be certain about the stretches Göteborg-Borås, Hässleholm-Lund and Linköping-Stockholm with the new government.

Therefore, I would like to ask a question. The member represents a party that holds both the position of Minister for Infrastructure and the position of Minister for Rural Affairs. Member Stockhaus says that the money that would have been invested in the high-speed rail project should be invested elsewhere. What are then the government's priorities regarding the railway during the coming period? Should it be invested elsewhere, or will we in the near future hear about continued investments in these different parts?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks, Ulrika Heie, for your important questions! I will begin with the last question.

I thought it was very clear when the minister, just a few days ago, was out speaking specifically about the investments. What is clear is, on the one hand, that there will be answers, hopefully before New Year, and on the other hand, that the answer will certainly contain things that will be positive. For example, the minister was clear regarding Ostlänken, where he says that 7 billion has already been invested in this. It is clear that it would be wasted money if nothing comes of it. More than one such answer perhaps I cannot give in that question right now. But I still think it is quite clear.

So then, just as my colleague said here earlier, we say no to this high-speed railway that has been talked about. We see that it is an incredible amount of money. We who sit in the committee also know that it is an ever-increasing bag of money the more years have passed. To invest in something that we do not know exactly what it will become of, we thought was a bad proposal.

We see that it is deficient across the entire country, as I said before, not just between Stockholm and Malmö and Stockholm and Gothenburg. We have the whole of Norrland, that entire part, which needs to be fixed. I think it is very good that this government is now actually putting its foot down and saying that we need to help each other to get things in order across the whole country. It is a big job. It will require a lot of money, and it is much better than spending that money on a high-speed railway.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Then the question arises: Would it not be quite good, when one has invested so many resources over such a long period, to also open up and see what other financing solutions there could be when it comes to investments in new railway infrastructure in Sweden? That is what I am very curious about. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to have the Minister here, and I can understand that – a Saturday before the fourth Advent. But since the member represents the same party as the Minister, I would still like to ask about the view on other financing solutions and the possibility of also being able to do these parts there. What else does the member mean by the clear signs that this is a budget for the whole country?

I am surprised that there are no reductions in fuel prices as was promised before. There is also no news to business owners regarding high-cost protection on electricity. Regarding the travel deduction that is now being launched, they do not take the new one but keep the old one, and then it is about cars near large cities getting the opportunity for an additional travel deduction.

In what way does it benefit the countryside and the whole country that one does not take advantage of the opportunities that exist to strengthen the countryside's various conditions? I am thinking in particular of what we are both very aware of, namely that the car has a very great significance, while at the same time the car is part of the transition.

The new government is also removing the climate bonus, which you do not think should remain. What does Magnus Oscarsson say about that? What is the real reason that the initiative is not being continued, as it seems?

And so we have the reduction obligation. My impression has been that the Christian Democrats have been a party that, over the years, has moved forward its positions on the climate and environment area.

It is my questions to the member that I have right now.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Ulrika Heie, for your questions! I also think, just as you are touching upon, that this is probably an interpellation question that you should ask the Minister. I believe it is better that you do so in that question.

Regarding the second point you raise, I think it is interesting that you ask what initiatives we are making for those living in rural areas. You mention, for example, the travel deduction. I live in Ödeshög myself – it is not a huge city yet, I can say. Those who live at my home say: How great that it is being raised! One person wrote to me: It is terrible that it is still 18.50. I work at Väderstad AB, and this will not work for me.

We have heard what people in the countryside are saying: Help us, this is not working!

It is the same thing when it comes to us lowering the reduction obligation. I heard the member say in their speech here earlier that it has become more expensive for the consumer and that it has increased for families with children. That is exactly why we say: Well, wait a minute, the reduction obligation is something that we ourselves came up with, and we want to lower it to actually ensure that more people can live and work in the countryside.

This is perhaps the short answer, but there is much more that can be said.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Member Oscarsson is talking about the road potholes. We all know that it is neglected and that things need to be done. It concerns the whole country and wherever one is. Big city, countryside, rural areas - a lot is needed!

What you are doing now in the budget – this has been talked about before – is that you are pulling back from railway maintenance. I have understood that the Christian Democrats protect the railway and its maintenance and argue that it is needed. It is strange that one makes this drastic move to pull back from a place where there is such a great need and instead doles it out in another area, rather than prioritizing so that there is money for both.

One problem with the road network in Sweden is that it is heavily worn down and that incredibly heavy transports are driven there. Furthermore, we are now increasing the weight of the transports with the BK4 transports at up to 74 tons, which chew up the road and create incredible problems. Now we are going to spend masses of money on strengthening roads and replacing bridges and removing tunnels and so on.

The really big problem with this, apart from the fact that it is an enormous amount of money going towards this, is that these trucks also choose to drive on roads where they are not allowed to drive. And then I wonder: Would it not be smarter to ensure that instead of having these incredibly heavy vehicles, we invest the money in railways and ensure that the heavy transports can run there and that we have lighter vehicles, so that we do not constantly have this problem with the roads being eaten away by the weight?

It is my question to the member.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Helldén, for your questions! Absolutely, it is very interesting what you raise about us having a lot of wear and tear on our roads. And that also shows itself when one looks at this that many roads have not been fixed.

I also mention in my speech what it looks like in Sweden. When you travel around the country, it is actually appalling. This is what this government has understood and is trying to do something about - that we have a debt in that our roads look the way they do. That is why we are investing an incredible amount of money for this.

It is clear that when one sees this, one can think that we can build railways instead. But we cannot build railways to every part of our country, in which case we have trucks. We can now also have heavier trucks on our roads.

We still think it is important for the countryside that we actually invest in our roads now. It was also a matter of Trafikverket actually saying themselves that they could not make do with all the money, and that is why we removed them. For the coming year, one can of course investigate this further: If you get more money, what can you do for this?

The answer the government received now was, however, that they could not do away with more money. In that case, one takes from that part and puts it on the road network where there are enormous holes to be remedied. I believe it is very important that one now actually steps up, repairs bridges, fixes what has been neglected, and begins the journey. It will not end next year, I can promise you that, but it has at least begun.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I have understood that you are siding with Trafikverket and that you are therefore removing money from railway maintenance. It is only to be regretted.

But the problem with this wear and tear on the roads is about the load-bearing capacity. What is happening now when one is going to increase the classification of the roads so that they can take heavier transports is that one is also rebuilding. One is spending masses of money on fully functioning and good infrastructure because one wants to get heavier things there, instead of ensuring that we maintain the road network we have and keep the weights down. One should not go up to this type of weights.

Furthermore, we have the problem that they drive in places where they are not supposed to drive. It is purely devastating when you are driving on a road out in the countryside when there are heavy transports there. It goes so fast, and it is such enormous weights that eat up the road.

The question is really: Should we devote ourselves to rebuilding fully functioning infrastructure instead of spending the money where the problems are?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your question, Daniel!

I believe that we still see the issue in a similar way. We see a problem in Sweden. We have very neglected roads. We have a debt of maintenance that has not been done. One should not blame everything on old governments, but one could have hoped that more had been done over the years. A lot of money has been missing. Instead, investment has been made in new roads, and that should of course also be done. But we have a country that needs good roads so that we can get around.

People live and work, as has been said, in different parts of our country. Then it is important that our roads exist and that they are kept in order.

Daniel Helldén asks if it is foolish for us to let trucks drive, if we need to prepare bridges and so on. I believe it is important that this is done. Trafikverket has said that this is something we can do.

We need to upgrade our roads for the future. Now the government has begun the journey with these funds, and we hope that further ahead we will be able to say that it was now that it began and that it was now that a new start was seen for our country and for the country's roads.

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

LINDA WESTERLUND SNECKER (V)

Madam Speaker! It is a wonderful feeling to put on the suit and the jacket and head to the Riksdag on a freezing Saturday in December. As usual, I took the bus, the tram, and the train through what unfortunately is one of Sweden's many bottlenecks on the railway: the one between Norrköping and Stockholm. It is a part of Sweden where the Kristersson-Åkesson government really does not want any train to arrive on time. We see it in the budget that we are debating today, and I live with that reality: never arriving on time.

I have, during the past weeks, sat on trains that have lost power and had to be restarted in the forest outside Simonstorp, as well as trains that have not arrived at all because of signal errors. Then the trains disappear, as you know, and then one has to find something else.

This is the reality for commuters. It is not possible to rely on the trains today. It is assumed that you should perhaps book both one and two trains in advance. I know many of my colleagues who have done that today to make it in time for the debate we are having now - I see an Östgöte waving out there in the chamber.

It has become completely impossible to commute by train. You cannot leave the children at school and expect to be able to pick them up, because you do not know when you will get home.

That the trains do not arrive on time, that there are not more trains, and the problems that exist on the railway are due to a few things: There are too few tracks, it is too crowded on the tracks, and the tracks that exist must be upgraded.

This can be addressed by building new main lines and maintaining more of the existing tracks. However, the government does not want this. It would be needed in many places in Sweden, including my railway section Ostlänken - the part that the government seems to want to abolish or perhaps investigate a bit more. It is somewhat unclear what the government actually wants; it does not seem to know itself. It is, however, clear that we East Swedes and Södermanland residents are not to have a labor market region that extends either to Stockholm or to Jönköping. It is, in any case, a very clear signal from the government.

That it is crowded does not only affect us commuters, it is also the most business-unfriendly thing I have witnessed. The industry is transitioning and is well aware of how much emissions the transports account for. There are good business opportunities here to profile oneself as green and also take responsibility so that we reach the environmental goals.

This is what the industry does. This is what Scania does, which this week was out criticizing the government for its laxity regarding the environmental goals. But the government is doing everything it can to stop Scania's development.

Sweden needs railways. Sweden needs fast trains. But above all, freight trains and passenger trains must stop trying to squeeze onto the same tracks and instead be able to run on separate tracks.

Yes, infrastructure is expensive. But then it is better to build infrastructure that benefits both ordinary people and industry and that also meets the climate goals, which railways do, than to build motorways that increase emissions and exist for those who can afford a car. And no one can afford a car anymore because the government lied to the Swedish people and claimed that the petrol price would be 10-15 kronor lower at the pump. What did we get? Was it 40 öre? Yes, that was it.

The government doesn't even seem to have learned to grasp the EU legislation. One seems to believe that the reduction obligation can be negotiated a bit with the EU, and then it will sort itself out.

My conclusion is that we should not trust Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson when he wants to build motorways instead of railways. We should not trust Prime Minister Kristersson regarding the price of gasoline. Nor should we trust Energy Minister Ebba Busch regarding electricity prices. Nothing at all of what the government said before the election has become true after the election. Everything has just become chaos, and some environmental goals we will never reach.

Now, however, Madam Speaker is very tense about what the Left Party wants. I would very much like to talk about that.

I want to emphasize that the Left Party's starting points for infrastructure policy are the vision of an equal society and the fact that the world is in a climate emergency. The climate transition must go significantly faster than it does today for us to reach the climate goals. Therefore, we must transition the transport system to accessible, well-functioning, and sustainable transport.

The transport sector accounts for a large part of the emissions. Our focus - in contrast to the government's, it should be added - is to reduce the transport sector's emissions by 70 percent by 2030, just as the climate goals say and just as the transport sector has said it should be done. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet - hold on now - is allocating 170 billion more than the government on upgrading and construction over the next ten years.

There will be new main lines, which are to be loan-financed. That is the only way for us to be able to build new infrastructure at all. It is not possible to build infrastructure and maintain some kind of annual household budget and believe that it will fix the thing, just as no one saves their kronor to buy a house. You go to the bank and borrow. That is how you finance big things.

Vänsterpartiet allocates 60 billion more than the government for the maintenance of the railway because it is truly needed. I am not alone in raising this in this debate; we all observe that the railway that exists must be upgraded, serviced, and become significantly better for us to even be able to get around.

Vänsterpartiet allocates 9 billion more for road maintenance than the government because the roads out in the countryside are not good. We have also noted that. The roads that exist must become better. In addition to that, we finance the Norrbotniabanan, the new Ostkustbanan, four tracks Alingsås-Göteborg and double tracks Helsingborg-Hässleholm.

Since it is so incredibly good to travel together, we also want to halve the price for public transport tickets and introduce an investment support to ensure new investments in public transport vehicles.

The government seems to truly loathe when we travel together and reduce bad emissions. The government would rather that we cram every job commuter into a fossil car, where they are to sit alone and drive to work. That is, so to speak, the government's big dream of how we should transport ourselves in Sweden today. But in contrast to this, Vänsterpartiet wants the mode-neutral travel deduction system that the vast majority agreed on just a few months ago. Now, the government instead wants it to only go to men who drive a car to work.

We think this is not a good idea. We in Vänsterpartiet like equality. We like justice. And unlike the government, we also want to reach the climate goals.

With this, I wish to refer to the Left Party's special statement.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate the 2023 budget for expenditure area 22 Communications. One year ago, we stood here and debated the budget for 2022. At that time, there was a hope that we were seeing the end of the pandemic and that things would return to normal. Many companies within the transport sector had been hit hard by the pandemic, not least aviation, public transport, and many travel companies. We envisioned a time of recovery and that we would quickly get the economy moving again. Then Russia started a war against Ukraine.

Focus has been on countless supports to help Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. The war also has a major impact on the infrastructure area, as the energy crisis results in dramatically higher fuel prices and electricity prices, which affects the transport area in a long range of areas. The expected recovery after the pandemic was replaced by an energy crisis that again increases the economic pressure on the transport area. It is against this background that we shall see this budget for 2023.

Madam Speaker! The Government sees that reliable and environmentally friendly transport and a modern infrastructure are important for jobs and sustainable growth throughout the country. The transport system is a fundamental pillar for the country's development. The Government's budget therefore contains a continued large investment in maintenance and investments in railway and road. A greater focus has been placed on road maintenance, which receives an extra billion to begin paying off the maintenance debt that actually impairs traffic safety and leads to reduced speeds and affects the countryside above all.

The Government considers it important that we address the skyrocketing costs for infrastructure projects, so that we obtain accurate calculations when the projects are included in the national plan. The previous government ignored nine reports from the Swedish National Audit Office which urged the Government to address the skyrocketing costs.

The current government considers that we must cancel the project for the new main lines for high-speed trains. This project is an example of how the costs have increased dramatically. They have gone from an original 120 billion to today being more than three times that much. Sweden cannot afford to invest nearly 400 billion on a project where one only gets back approximately 50 percent of the invested funds. We lose 200 billion by building the high-speed lines. The government is now reviewing the decision and how it affects the construction of the three ongoing sections. An announcement will be made in the near future.

The Liberals want to build to facilitate work commuting and freight transport. We want to build away bottlenecks. The worst bottleneck in all of Sweden is the Alingsås-Göteborg stretch. The Liberals see that there is a great need to expand that stretch. It is 4 miles that costs approximately 20 billion. For this, we could get strongly increased freight transport and a doubled long-distance traffic between Stockholm and Göteborg, in addition to what the expansion can do for local traffic.

Climate is one of the Liberals' three focus areas. In the transport sector, road transport accounts for over 90 percent of domestic emissions, and it is here that measures make the greatest difference. The electrification of our road transport is a focus for the Liberals. We need to rapidly expand the charging infrastructure.

The Liberals see the lack of charging infrastructure as the greatest risk that companies and private individuals will not choose an electric car at their next car purchase and that the climate transition stalls. One must be able to charge the car where one lives and where one travels if one is to dare to buy an electric car. In the budget for 2023, there is therefore a major investment of 1.4 billion over three years to strengthen the charging infrastructure in Sweden.

In order for us to manage the transition of road transport, the production of biofuels also needs to increase significantly. We must utilize the raw materials for the production of biogas, not least manure, which still produces climate emissions. In the past week, the government received a positive notification from the EU that the clean biofuels shall be tax-exempt during the next four years. Most important for road transport, however, is the electrification, as biofuels have a greater value for other modes of transport that have a harder time transitioning, not least aviation.

As I began by saying, we find ourselves in a restless world with an ongoing Covid disease, and we see the impact of the climate, not least from forest fires and floods. The government is therefore allocating over 60 billion to 27 preparedness airports in order to maintain the level of our preparedness within aviation.

The government is also investing an extra 300 million, a total of 530 million - thus over half a billion - in strengthening civil defense and crisis preparedness in the entire transport system.

The Liberals believe that we must invest in all modes of transport, and aviation has an important function for our international contacts and for holding Sweden together. At the same time, the climate transition is proceeding in full force. Swedish Heart Aerospace is developing electric aircraft for production in 2028. Biofuels already exist, and electrofuels for aviation are under development.

The majority of airports are operated fossil-free today. Several charging stations for electric aviation have been installed, and in Skellefteå, a training of flight pilots with a focus on electric aircraft will be started during 2022.

The government believes in aviation's important function in society and that Sweden should continue to have a leading position within aviation development. We Liberals want to see a continued investment in research and innovation for fossil-free aviation, not least for electric aviation. The government also wants to preserve Bromma, as the airport has an important function to fulfill, not least as a hub in Swedish domestic aviation but also for the development of electric aviation.

The number of unmanned drones is growing exponentially, and here, development of rules is required so that the activity can grow in an orderly manner. The Government is investing 30 million in the ability to manage unmanned aviation in Swedish airspace, as it needs to be strengthened and contributes to increased flight safety.

When it comes to shipping, I can mention that 90 percent of international freight goes by sea. The importance of Swedish shipping for Sweden cannot be overstated. Therefore, it is also naturally important that shipping's passenger and freight transport can function even in the winter. Ice-free shipping lanes are required, and the government is therefore investing in the construction of two new icebreakers. The increased fuel prices mean that the Gotland traffic faces significantly increased costs. The government is therefore allocating 200 million to cover the increase according to the agreement and preliminarily also 50 million for 2023.

Finally: With better digital connectivity, freedom increases across our country, while the burden on our roads and railways can be reduced as more people can work remotely. We also help the countryside in many ways regarding the development of welfare services. To strengthen the expansion of broadband, where we want to see a focus on the particularly vulnerable areas, we are increasing the appropriations by 600 million kronor.

Madam Speaker! We Liberals believe that all types of transport are needed, and it is by utilizing the special advantages of each type of transport that we achieve robust transport in Sweden.

I would like to conclude by voting in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! In Member Gellerman's speech, the climate is pointed out as an important issue. I know that the Liberals protect the climate and want us to meet the climate goals by 2030. It is a focus area within the party and in all the documents that exist there. You also have the Minister for Climate and Environment.

But then I wonder about the transport area. In the budget that you have and in all the decisions that are coming now, you want to remove the reduction obligation, remove the travel deduction, lower the petrol price and do everything to ensure that fossil fuels are the main ingredient in the vehicles that travel on the roads.

Now you say that you are going to invest in charging infrastructure everywhere, and people shall drive electric cars. I do not think anyone thinks anything other than that we should switch to electric cars. But today we have 4.5 million fossil fuel cars rolling, and a large part of them will be rolling until 2030, which is the year when the goal is that we shall have reduced emissions by 70 percent.

We know that we cannot electrify the vehicle fleet by 2030 to the extent that we meet the emission target for the transport sector. I therefore simply wonder how the member thinks one is to meet the climate goals by 2030 – those goals that the Liberals have said they stand behind and that they have said they will safeguard. How is that going to happen?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Daniel Helldén! When it comes to the climate transition, the Liberals see it as a whole. We must solve all parts. I have a background in the business sector. One must ensure that there are no weak links in this system. In order for us to be able to achieve a sustainable climate transition - which will continue for at least three decades - we must have growth in Sweden, so that there is money for the companies so that they can transition. But perhaps above all, we must have energy, fossil-free energy, to manage the transition. Then we can take measures within respective areas. But the foundation is that we have energy.

Miljöpartiet has, when they were in government, stood behind the fact that we have decommissioned six nuclear power plants. We have halved the number of nuclear power plants in Sweden. We now see clearly what consequences that has. There lies one of my great fears – that we will not manage the climate transition. As a result of this, we have very high electricity prices.

We stand very much behind electrification and are driving it. This means that we must get private individuals and companies to buy electric vehicles. But if electricity prices now increase sharply because Miljöpartiet has shut down six nuclear power plants, it makes people hesitate to buy electric cars, because the operation becomes too expensive for it to be able to compensate for the price of electric cars.

We see this as a whole, and now we are beginning to transition the system that is actually the very foundation for the entire climate transition.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! What is a bit strange is that Helena Gellerman does not answer the question at all. How is the government going to manage to reduce emissions from the transport sector by 70 percent by 2030? How is one going to manage the accumulation of carbon emissions that will occur if you postpone something until the very end? I do not think it will be until the end, because you have no idea at all how you are going to lower the emissions.

Yes, we want electric cars, but replacing 4.5 million fossil fuel cars by 2030 is not possible unless you are going to perform magic. How is that going to happen? I don't understand that, and I'm not getting an answer either. I ask and ask, but there is no answer.

The Liberals say that the goal for the transport sector by 2030 is fixed. It is almost 2023. That means there are not many years left. We are to manage the transition in the seven years remaining, but the government has no idea. When this mandate period is over, we will be at 2026. Then there are four years left to solve these problems. I am deeply concerned that we will be standing there and have not succeeded with anything in this area.

My question is - again: How are you going to manage the reduction of emissions from the transport sector, and above all passenger car traffic, up to 2030? This is the really, really large part of the emissions we have.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I began with the overall part in my previous answer. I think it is interesting to note that there are calculations showing that, as a result of having shut down six nuclear power plants and not having enough electricity, we are increasing emissions by 8 million tons per year. That is as much as passenger car traffic emits. That is what we can start by noting.

The second part concerns all these measures. We have many things that we want to do. I was involved in developing the reduction obligation. There, I very clearly stated that if we are to have the high levels, we must have a completely different level of production of biofuels. So that has not happened. That is one of the reasons why we see the high prices. The production of biofuels must be in step with the reduction obligation. Otherwise, prices will skyrocket. Then we come to the point that the country must have growth. If households and companies do not earn money, we have no transition.

When it comes to bonus-malus, we fully stand behind the fact that we have removed the bonus part. The Liberals are for [the fact] that in a technological transition we should invest a lot of money at the beginning so that we get the transition started. But when 50 percent of all cars that the Swedish people buy are chargeable, the state should not be there meddling. Then the market should handle it. On the other hand, we want the malus part to remain. One reason why we stood behind bonus-malus was that it was supposed to balance out. But it has not balanced out, because electrification has gone much faster than even we suspected it would. Then we must keep the malus part to pay for the deficit that exists. We have paid too much bonus for this system.

I can go into all these parts. We have a policy where we actually try to take a holistic approach so that we can manage the climate transition.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Helena Gellerman, for the speech! In both the speech and in the exchange of remarks, the business sector and the business sector's conditions were highlighted so that it can grow in a good way.

I shall say something, as a very small sub-point, in response to Maria Stockhaus's earlier question. I was a bit surprised to receive a question about the sea rescue in a previous speech. It was said that we tried to hide that we had cuts. I must say this: We have cuts in this area, and that is because we do not raise the tax on work and so on, which is a typical liberal and bourgeois policy. So I have said that.

But now I am thinking about the possibilities for business and growth. Helena Gellerman says that the distance between Alingsås and Göteborg is very important. We share that view. Then she says that the high-speed lines are, so to speak, to be removed, I perceive. That is where the important labor market area is, and the stretch with Göteborg-Borås which is a huge bottleneck from a commuting perspective. We all probably enjoyed the Lucia parade from Gräfsnäs this morning, but the railway between Göteborg and Borås is basically the same as that museum railway with a steam locomotive that we saw then.

I share the view that Helena Gellerman raises regarding the climate goals and the important parts concerning maintaining and obtaining more railway. Then it is another bottleneck. How do the Liberals view the new main lines that we nevertheless must get done?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! As a member, I am passionate about railways and roads throughout Sweden. But as I said in my speech, we have opinions regarding cost control when it comes to the main lines. They have become three times as expensive. It is not justifiable to continue expanding them if we are going to lose 200 billion in social benefit. For these 200 billion, we could have built a huge amount of railway in northern Sweden. We can build Gothenburg-Alingsås, we can build a crossing to Denmark, and we can also build a railway from Gothenburg to Oslo.

We must look at the public benefit, and the Liberals' priorities lie on work commuting and freight transport. From that perspective, we naturally stand behind that we should build Göteborg-Borås. It is very important, just as has been raised earlier during the debate. We cannot run more buses into Göteborg; we must solve it with the help of rail transport. Furthermore, the railway between Göteborg and Borås would give us rail transport to Landvetter, which is Sweden's second largest airport. We need to facilitate transport there so that not everyone needs to take the car as it is today.

We support canceling the high-speed railway, but we want to strengthen the main lines. Regarding the three ongoing sections, the government is analyzing them on an overall level. An announcement will be made in the near future.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! For a while it felt as if it was going to become worse than I thought, but now it feels positive that it was not a complete stop for Göteborg-Borås.

It is, however, incredibly important that it is not delayed and that it gets the opportunity to be built. We are talking about a growth region, and these issues are incredibly important for the sake of the whole of Sweden.

I will not go into the reduction obligation, but the members have said that there is a commitment regarding the climate goals, and we shall try to reach them. Many times it is suggested that it might be possible to solve it somewhere else. None of us believe that there will be a huge amount of nuclear power by 2030, and then it is sometimes pointed out that agriculture and forestry could perhaps account for part of this debt, or what one should say.

How does Helena Gellerman view this? Is it something the Liberals are raising? One did not vote against it in the EU when looking at those questions just now. How does Helena Gellerman see that we should reach the climate goals that we have set for 2030?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Ulrika Heie! Generally, I think that this is a transport debate and not an environmental debate. The questions surrounding the forest will be in the Environment and Agriculture Committee's debate later.

When it comes to the forest, we generally stand behind the fact that we must find a balance. We still collect 40 million tons every year from the forest. But we also use 80 to build houses and also for biofuels, which is very important. We want to push for that we should use the forest, among other things, to create biofuels, so it is a matter of having a holistic approach and a balance between continuing to have a large uptake in our forests and using the forest so that we can create biofuels and prevent our emissions.

It is not like black and white. One cannot say that one should do one thing or the other. Those who do it view the issue far too simply. In every issue, it is a prioritization between different parts.

The Liberals see that we must strengthen the business sector, because if the business sector does not make money, we will lose many of the jobs, and then the entire society will fall into a downward spiral. And since the transition is to continue until at least 2050 or 2060, we must have an economy that allows us to manage it over decades. Therefore, a powerful business sector is important.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin by saying that we are not participating in the decision but instead have a special statement.

We need a robust, sustainable and fair transport system. To reach that requires courage, decisiveness and wise reforms. Unfortunately, in the government's and SD's budget, we see a decommissioning and a dismantling of common sense. Nowhere can one find reforms that lead forward. Instead, it is the handbrake on, a sharp turn, and a return to the previous century's fossil society. The regression is unparalleled. We see how the government throws away the planning for new main lines, drains railway maintenance of money and removes the funds for the national ticketing system.

In order for Sweden to be able to transition to a fossil-free society, new railways, new main lines, and smart public transport are needed. Passenger traffic is growing but suffers from recurring delays. Swedes really want to travel by train. But then the government says stop. While the people stand on the platform and freeze, 750 million is snatched away from maintenance and put toward potholes.

It is about railway maintenance that everyone knows is urgent. The only thing we know from all the reports on the railway's status is that the railway suffers from a maintenance debt. If there had been any backbone in the government, they would have pointed with the whole hand and told Trafikverket: Maintenance! Do what you are mandated to do! Instead, they blame Trafikverket and take away the money. This is this government in a nutshell.

Miljöpartiet restores the funds for railway maintenance, invests in smart solutions for public transport and builds railways. We need new main lines to the south, in Borås and in Jönköping. We need fast railways to Oslo, four tracks to Uppsala and double tracks on the new Ostkustbanan. We start the Norrbotniabanan. All of Sweden needs sustainable railways.

The government and SD now also declare in the budget that Bromma Airport shall remain. They are hugging a neglected airport like a teddy bear. Everyone knows that it is a hindrance to the aviation that is needed. The aviation that remains after the pandemic, after a changed work and travel behavior when business aviation shrinks and after the boom with smart digital solutions, needs to be concentrated at Arlanda.

The consolidation of aviation is best for Sweden, but a teddy bear is obviously what the government wants to invest in. Bromma shall of course be closed down!

The transport sector shall meet its goals of a 70 percent reduction in emissions by 2030. It is a goal that has been established. The Prime Minister says it is fixed. The Minister for Climate and Environment emphasizes it. But the government's budget speaks a clearly different language. With surprising clarity, the budget states that the climate goals for the transport sector will not be met with this policy. It tears up the decided travel deduction, lowers the reduction obligation, lowers the fuel tax, removes the electric car bonus, and pays out more money on roads. It is a long list that, according to the government's own budget, ensures that the climate goals are not met.

I must congratulate SD on an exemplary political victory. I regret, however, the sorrow for humanity.

The saddest thing is probably that the travel deduction is being scrapped. It was a brilliant reform that all parties stood behind half a year ago – all except SD. Here we see a trend.

The transition we need to sustainable transport, where public transport users, carpooling, and new smart mobility solutions would receive a strong economic incentive, should be scrapped while the enormous waste of tax money that the old system entailed is made permanent.

A full 3 billion will go to fraud so that SD - who talk about law and order - can appease car-driving, wealthy city dwellers. It is they who win the most from the system and not, as is claimed, those living in the countryside or in rural areas with small resources. No, what we see with this government is an inverted Robin Hood policy.

In the Green Party's budget, we maintain the decided travel-neutral travel deduction, and we allocate funds for reduced tax in rural areas to compensate for the increased costs for fuels. We maintain bonus-malus but lower the level for what a car may cost to receive state support. We provide incentives for low-income earners so that they can lease electric cars, and we add a scrapping premium of 20,000 kronor on cars older than 15 years. These are funds that can be used for smart travel.

We are going to transition the transport sector. We are going to move over to electric vehicles. We will, during a transition period, during the time we phase out 4.5 million fossil fuel cars, mix in biofuels so that climate emissions are reduced. It is our duty.

But we must also invest in the alternatives, in public transport, walking, cycling and smart mobility solutions. We see in the government's budget that the urban environment agreements are being drained of money. The funds that could have gone to public transport investments, to tramways and to smart cycling solutions are being taken away and are said to go to charging infrastructure.

It is important that we expand the charging infrastructure, not least along the national road network, our national roads. But it must not happen at the expense of investments in the alternatives to the car. That is devastating. These investments must go hand in hand, and for the transition to work, we must protect walking and cycling.

Trafikverket must take responsibility for cycling in the country. We cannot let them continue to build away the possibility for unprotected road users to travel in the countryside. Two-plus-one roads must not be built without replacement solutions, and we shall create service-oriented cycling. Cycling is not a big city privilege but must be a national possibility for everyone.

The pandemic hit public transport hard. We are now in a situation where cost developments are spiraling out of control at the same time as public transport is the lifeline for everyone who cannot afford to get a subsidized car. Public transport is also the hub in a sustainable mobile society. Therefore, Miljöpartiet is allocating an extra 5 billion to public transport.

Miljöpartiet takes responsibility for a transition of the transport sector, invests money in sustainable mobility, ensures that trains run on time and sends the money to those who need it. That is where our policy differs from the government's reverse Robin Hood policy, a policy that is branded by SD.

Miljöpartiet invests in climate-smart solutions, wise incentives and sustainable infrastructure expansion, all to break the fossil track. The government scraps reform after reform that leads in the right direction, and they do not know how to solve the equation.

Madam Speaker! I wish I could say "forgive them; for they know not what they do".

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! A question that I believe Helena Gellerman raised in her speech but which we have not discussed is the question of standby airports.

The pandemic and also the forest fires that have hit Sweden have clearly shown the need for emergency airports throughout the country, airports that are ready for socially important transports around the clock. It is a matter of life and death, of people who quickly need to reach, for example, hospitals and of opportunities to save houses and homes if there is a fire out in the country.

We also have a new security situation which also increases the need for preparedness throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! I wonder how the Green Party justifies cutting compensation to standby airports. It is a cut that creates the risk that some of the standby airports we have today will be forced to close.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, the question of standby airports is interesting.

What we can see is that we have airports so that it probably suffices. There are areas where something might possibly be needed, but there is a large number of airports.

The strange thing is that those who look at the maps of this can see that in many places, one wants to push in more where there are nearby airports. Many times, one has an idea that it should be a standby airport, but in reality, one is investing in something else.

We make the assessment that these extra investments are not needed. It is possible to use the airports that already exist, and we expect that it can function in a good way.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Only as late as today did the government issue a statement regarding changes to create a better geographical distribution so that it is not too crowded between the airports.

But this is actually about life and death. It is about how far I have to a hospital that is open so that I can be flown to the nearest hospital if I need specialist care. It is about being able to live in other places in the country than in Stockholm. Here, it is easy to get to a hospital by ambulance. That is not the case everywhere.

More airports are needed, and there is a reason why it was expanded to 27 airports during the pandemic. It was because it was seen that people were becoming seriously ill and could need to be transported to hospitals quickly.

Furthermore, we can face forest fires and other incidents that require there to be airports nearby so that we can quickly stop the fires and reduce the destruction of houses and homes, as well as of large forest areas.

The proposal from Miljöpartiet means de facto that we go back to ten regional airports. It means that we worsen the opportunities for equal healthcare out in the country.

It also means that if a region wants to prioritize and keep its airport, the region and the municipality must step in and finance that it shall be open around the clock. If one wants that service for its inhabitants, one has to cut back on something else, and it is often in regions where municipalities have poor finances to begin with. Then it is school, healthcare and elderly care that one needs to cut back on to manage this. It is not reasonable.

The reasonable thing is that the state guarantees that there is access to emergency airports throughout the country. Why does Miljöpartiet want to remove that possibility?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Our assessment is that the number of standby airports is sufficient.

What we have seen in the aviation area regarding medical transports is that some regions have gone and invested in jet aircraft, which likely require some changes regarding the airports. It was a failed investment; one should not have done that. They have problems with these aircraft.

We have a fleet that has managed this in a good way. It has worked in the entire country. It has not been a problem for healthcare with these airports.

It is our assessment that this is not needed. There are better things to spend the money on than to start up new airports.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have a question for Member Helldén. It concerns a visit to the committee last week by representatives from Gotland. They represented agriculture, business, and very many residents and naturally raised the very high price for them. To a direct question about what is important for the people of Gotland, they said: It is important that we have Bromma Airport, which for us is the most important umbilical cord to the mainland, and that the ships that run maintain high speed.

I thought it would be interesting to hear, the member, if Miljöpartiet understands that the people of Gotland feel in this way about the future.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! This may lie somewhat outside the budget debate. Those who listened to the comments made heard that a problem with Bromma is that one does not get out into the world. The concentration of air traffic at Arlanda provides that possibility, even for the residents of Gotland. There is an idea that Bromma is good. It takes longer to get from Bromma into Stockholm city than it takes from Arlanda to Stockholm city during rush hour, which is the most common time to arrive there. If there is anywhere the flights should be moved, it is therefore to Arlanda. It is good for the residents of Gotland and for the rest of the country, and it is good for the flights that remain.

When it comes to the Gotland ferries and the issues there regarding the expensive fuel, we can note that LNG, fossil gas, has been removed, and they have simply pushed in oil gas to lower the costs, instead of reducing the speed slightly. Our view is that this speed was not needed.

It is said that it is needed for the freight transport that takes place. There is no reason to have that speed when traveling from Gotland to Stockholm - or Nynäshamn, which is the port located closest to Stockholm. I cannot comment on what it is like with Oskarshamn, but it is said that in order to be able to transport carrots from Gotland down to Helsingborg, one needs to maintain high speed so that one then has time to get up to Stockholm with them. Why don't they drive them directly to Stockholm then? It is very strange.

One does not need this speed, therefore. One saves an incredible amount of fuel by not maintaining such high speeds. In a time like this, when there is a shortage of fuel, it is expensive and we must manage the climate emissions, that is how it should be done.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Helldén, for the answer! I thought the people of Gotland were very clear that it was precisely this that was important to them - it is their way over to the mainland. I think it is good that everyone on the island has now heard what Miljöpartiet is advocating.

Are you prepared to build, for example, an additional runway at Arlanda, as was discussed? That is also important to get this done. These are important issues.

Then I am also thinking about this with the reduction obligation; I cannot just leave it, but I will move over to it. Today it is at 30.5 percent, but by 2030 it has been talked about that it should be up to 66 percent. Today there are many out in the country who say: Dear someone, how expensive it is to refuel! Then it is, therefore, 30.5. What will it be then moving forward? People talk about perhaps 4-5 kronor more - exactly how many we do not know. It will be very much money.

It would be interesting to hear what Miljöpartiet says to all those who live and work in the countryside. I am thinking of farmers, who are having a tough time today. I am thinking of the fields; as we heard earlier, it costs 16,000 to fuel a truck. I am thinking of all the bus companies. It is a very large amount of money, and it is only a foretaste compared to what it would be like if Miljöpartiet were allowed to decide. Now they are not allowed to, and then we will slowly move in and by 2024 have a different percentage.

But my question is: What does Miljöpartiet say about this?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We say, first of all, that we shall meet the climate goals. The government currently in power will not; the budget shows this quite clearly.

Then we know that many, the entire population actually, are affected by the high energy prices when it comes to transport by car. The government devotes itself to subsidizing gasoline and diesel and maintains an old travel deduction. All this points to the fact that most of the money goes to the metropolitan regions and a large group of Stockholmers. It is completely wrong. Instead, one should ensure that there are targeted grants that are accurate. This government does not manage that.

In our budget, we have a tax deduction that one can receive when living in certain types of rural areas, which is a support that goes to everyone, instead of the government spending a large amount of money on a lot of Stockholmers who do not need the subsidies. I think it is sad to see this development.

I must comment on this with Bromma versus Arlanda and a fourth runway; there are three today. All investigations show that it was not needed. All reports show that aviation is at a low level, and the development curves and the structural change that has occurred regarding aviation show that it was not needed.

Communications

What we need to do at Arlanda is to adjust the terminal buildings and do what the Arlanda investigator called a "streamlining" of the terminals so that it goes fast, so that one can slip through like at Ikea and avoid walking through shops and other things so that it becomes more efficient for those who travel. It would be very good for the people from Gotland. They will get there, take a fast train into the city and be faster into Stockholm city than when they fly to Bromma. I think it is more about some idea of seeing the beautiful Stockholm from the air before landing in Bromma. I can understand that, but it is not so good for either Stockholm or the climate.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

Agriculture, rural areas and food

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