Communications

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

Infrastructure is an important part of our lives and an absolute prerequisite for us to remain a welfare state in the future as well. Infrastructure is quite simply the bloodstream in our society and gives people freedom of movement, whether it is a matter of commuting to work or leisure activities. That the country's entrepreneurs are in need of fast and efficient transport most people must be aware of: Food on the table, clothes on the body and a roof over one's head do not come through a magic spell.

For several decades, the maintenance of our roads and railways has been deprioritized. Several regions assess the deficient infrastructure as one of the biggest barriers to growth, and in many parts of the country, the infrastructure risks becoming a bottleneck for jobs and growth if maintenance and upgrading are not prioritized.

Instead of necessary maintenance and tuning measures, previous governments chose to focus their attention on new investments in main lines for high-speed trains, which were criticized for high costs and lack of control.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, emphasize the role of infrastructure in Swedish society. Our strategy for a competitive infrastructure does not only extend 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 it is people or goods that are to travel by road or rail or by air or maritime transport, the infrastructure must be robust in all seasons.

Communications

Sweden is an elongated country on the edge of Europe, and thus the entire country is in need of an infrastructure that meets the requirements for efficiency at any given time. For large parts of the country, aviation is important to strengthen industrial development. Aviation is fast and efficient for business travel, rescue flights, firefighting flights, police flights, and not least for defense. That we have a well-functioning infrastructure for aviation is of utmost importance for the entire country.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats stopped, together with the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals, the extremely cost-driving project with high-speed trains. We prioritize instead strengthening the Swedish railway network. The efforts shall primarily be directed towards increased maintenance to ensure the railway's robustness. Where required, bottlenecks shall be built away so that the railway's capacity can increase. The project with high-speed trains was a cuckoo that would have seriously damaged the country's other infrastructure. Now the Sweden Democrats prioritize, together with the government, work commuting and freight traffic.

In the bill, the appropriations for the development of the state's transport infrastructure are increased to 36.9 billion. It is a much-needed increase in the appropriations. It is far from sufficient but still shows a clear will to increase the appropriations to strengthen an important part of our society's circulation.

The appropriation for the maintenance of the state's transport infrastructure is also increased, to 34 billion. This is of the utmost importance in order to somehow process the maintenance debt that exists.

Madam Speaker! I shall also say a few words about the authority responsible for our roads and railways, namely Trafikverket.

In the last few days, my phone and email have literally been flooded with messages from desperate drivers out on the country's roads. The maintenance of our winter roads has literally collapsed. The only ones who obviously have not understood how bad the situation is are Trafikverket. The situation we have out on the roads has caused several drivers to call for a safety stop as they feel they are performing their work with their lives at stake. Eight years with the previous government shows a complete failure when it comes to the anti-skid measures on our roads.

The situation is not better for the railway. That the railway does not function in a satisfactory way is something many stranded passengers can testify to. In the last few days, several radio segments have dealt with switch failures that have caused a large number of delays in train traffic. Worse is that Trafikverket has been aware of the deficiencies but still has not replaced the switches.

Now it is time to review the Transport Agency's organization, because it stands beyond all reasonable doubt that the agency is not fulfilling its mandate.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to summarize the importance of a functioning infrastructure. 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 important digital infrastructure should also be mentioned here. Politics must take into account people's actual conditions and not build on utopias that are only adapted for people who live in larger cities.

Sweden needs a new infrastructure policy that takes into account the needs of the entire country. Road traffic has its given place in people's everyday lives, regardless of whether they live in Malmö, Jönköping, Sveg or Vilhelmina.

The railway is important, not least for industry. Here we see the opportunity to develop our railway in the whole country. The important thing is not the speed but the operational reliability - simply that the train runs.

Aviation is an incredibly important part of our infrastructure and an absolute necessity in many places in the country. Most likely realize that aviation plays a key role in our country's preparedness. Firefighting aviation, ambulance aviation, and police aviation are important parts when it comes to saving lives and property.

Shipping is a key player for our country's prosperity. One realizes the importance of shipping's significance when one sees the enormously large amount of cargo that shipping handles every year. To develop and strengthen Swedish shipping is an important goal for us.

Together with the government, we in the Sweden Democrats look forward to developing the infrastructure - on land, in the air, at sea and digitally.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to hear Thomas Morell's speech. As usual, it was an area that was completely non-existent and which was not mentioned at all, namely the environmental and climate issue.

One might think that is a bit strange, as the Sweden Democrats have, according to the government, made a major turn. It was a grand press conference where it was stated that the Sweden Democrats now stand behind the national climate goals - both the goals that are long-term until 2045 and the goals that are in the near term.

Since we did not receive any answers in the motion, the big question is how these goals are to be reached. There is not much time left. We are now in 2023 and soon 2024, which means six years left until 2030. The goal that applies, which the Riksdag has backed and passed and which is therefore the decision that we have to follow, is that we shall reduce emissions from transport by 70 percent by 2030.

This is also crucial for us to have any chance at all of reaching the long-term goal, namely to reduce emissions to net zero by 2045 – it is only 22 years away – and that we also manage to meet the commitments that the EU has required from Sweden and all other member states. This means that if we do not reduce emissions from transport, we will not have a chance to meet either the national goal or the EU's requirements for Sweden, which could result in substantial EU fines.

At the same time, the policy that the Sweden Democrats are now pushing through via their cooperation with the government points in a completely different direction. Electrification is slowing down because the electric car bonus has been removed. At the turn of the year, the reduction obligation will be lowered, which means that we will significantly increase the use of fossil fuels and that emissions from the transport sector will increase by 50 percent as early as next year. What does the Sweden Democrats' plan look like to reach the goals for reduced emissions from transport?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Per Bolund! This is somewhat interesting, because it is quite obvious that the member has not read the Sverigedemokraternas motions.

For our part, it is important to move a large amount of freight by rail, if we are talking about land transport. The heavy long-distance freight can advantageously go by rail. That is actually the reason why we want to equip the railway so that it functions and so that the industry has confidence in rail transport. Then the train must run. If one books a train set and is going to transport their freight, it must not be the case that it is delivered to the customer only to the extent that the railway functions. That does not work. It is one of the reasons why we have focused on maintaining the railway.

The second thing is that we want to strengthen shipping, because it can then take a large part of the cargo from the ports. Then one can relieve the road system. But we will not get away from the fact that trucks have to be included at the beginning and end of the transports. How do we want to solve that then? It is about increasing electrification, but then one must start at the right end. One cannot run backwards into the future.

I come from the heavy transport side, so I know what enormous effect we need to electrify heavy transport. There are no possibilities to do that today, for two reasons. One concerns the production of electricity, and the other concerns getting the electricity to the recipient. I can elaborate on this in my next speech.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Thomas Morell, for a clear demonstration that there is no plan! What Thomas Morell mentions are the small trickles of traffic emissions. The large source of emissions, that is, private car traffic, is not mentioned with a single word. Aviation emissions are also not mentioned, for that part.

It is completely obvious to everyone who is in some way informed on the issue that the measures that Thomas Morell mentions will in no way bring Sweden anywhere close to reducing emissions by 70 percent. There is no chance at all with the measures that Thomas Morell proposes.

Obviously, the Sweden Democrats have no plan. One might think that is very unfortunate because they are fully engaged in tearing down climate policy measures and reforms. In that case, one should at least have some kind of idea or thought about what should be done instead. This is to give a walkover, or to speak in the Finance Minister's voice: If we do not reach the goals, we do not reach them. It is simply a resignation.

It is also somewhat striking that a government basis that is now engaged in significantly cutting back on railway investments and railway maintenance talks about shifting freight to the railway. Our authorities and experts are clear that it is full on many tracks, especially on the long stretches. There simply is no capacity. But the government has no plan for how it could be possible to obtain capacity.

Thomas Morell speaks about electrification, which is striking because the policy that Thomas Morell has pushed through now with full force leads to us reducing electrification. The pace is slowing down. Fewer electric cars are being sold than before the Sweden Democrats gained influence over Swedish politics. To then highlight electrification as a solution is, as said, quite striking.

When one asks Trafikverket, they also say that electrification is not a solution. It is not enough. Even if every car sold from now on were an electric car, the traffic goals for 2030 would still not be reached.

Again, Thomas Morell: What is the Sweden Democrats' answer? How are emissions to be reduced by 70 percent by 2030?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now we have heard something completely unique in the chamber: an environmentalist saying that the railway will not solve the problems with the environment. I never thought I would hear that. It was exciting!

Let us go back to this with electrifying freight transport. I have many friends within the transport industry, and several of them want to buy electric trucks. But the problem is that there is no power for them. The trucking companies cannot connect to the power grid, because the power grid cannot handle that power load. It is not like charging a passenger car battery; it requires significantly more power to manage this. The trucking companies can therefore not invest in an electric truck, because there is not enough power. One must start at the right end to get any momentum in this.

There is another part to this as well, and that is the economy. An electric truck is more than twice as expensive as a traditional truck. Customers today are not willing to pay for the cost increase, and the haulage companies cannot buy trucks to keep in the yard.

One must understand the connections, and the transition must occur at a pace such that society keeps up and people are willing to pay. Operating a trucking business is not the same as operating a scouting activity. A truck is a production apparatus. It must generate money, as in all other industrial activities. We must start at the right end, and Miljöpartiet has not succeeded in that. And we believe in the railway, unlike Bolund.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! Almost 100-year-old switches and 400 delayed trains - it is at times completely deplorable on Sweden's railways, Thomas Morell. Trafikverket is fully aware of how old the switches on our railway are and exactly how large problems they cause.

When it comes to contact leadership changes, no one in the Transport Committee is very impressed by Trafikverket's planning. I have long pursued a policy for the railway to transition to more state-run maintenance. We see how contractors do not manage the maintenance and how Trafikverket does not have control over its own facilities.

This is something that SD has also pushed for. Here we have a common view with the rest of the opposition in the Committee on Transport and Communications. Earlier this year, you in the Sweden Democrats had the opportunity to change this and push through your policy, even though the government does not agree with you or us on it. You could have agreed to a declaration together with the opposition parties, but you did not do that. Instead, you went back to the government and began to negotiate. I do not really know what you got in the negotiation, and I am very curious about that.

But today we are going to debate precisely the traffic issues and the difficulties on the railway, which is my issue. Why did the Sverigedemokraterna not ensure that one of Sweden's largest agencies was put in order? Trafikverket must ensure that they handle the maintenance, and they cannot have thousands of different contractors that they do not dare to set requirements on when it concerns, for example, using modern machinery. Why did the Sverigedemokraterna back down from their own policy when they had the chance to push through even more policy?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! No, we did not join the initiative. And why? It was not good enough. That is the simple answer.

One of the biggest critics of Trafikverket stands right in front of the members. I do not think that Trafikverket manages its mandate, and I have been extremely clear about that. I usually say that I lead SM in train delays, because I am never anything but delayed when I travel by train. The railway does not work; one can go out and ask the passengers on any platform.

This is not sufficient. It is perfectly clear that Trafikverket is not fulfilling its mandate. We have heard in radio segments over the last few days that Trafikverket has known that the switches are not functioning and that they have been in poor condition. But are they being replaced? No.

Then we must set clear requirements for Trafikverket. Now they must ensure that they achieve efficiency in their operations. It is clear that the organization itself does not function, but it does not help to throw a bag of money at it. That is why your proposal did not measure up in our eyes.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite hear the answer to my question. It was perhaps a bit more evasion when it comes to the Sverigedemokraterna not wanting to pursue their own policy when they have the chance to do so.

It is a quite obvious answer to the voters of the Sweden Democrats: It is rather easy to abandon one's own policy if one can get something else in return. The Sweden Democrats may have made a very good deal; you have obviously received something else in return that determines that you back down from Trafikverket managing the maintenance under state management. We, as legislators and taxpayers, would then have enormously much more control over what Trafikverket did. We would ensure that Trafikverket can place demands on contractors, use the contact management machines, and ensure that the time it takes to change track switches is shortened from several days to three hours. The technology exists, but the agency does not have the ability to place these demands today. We do not have that control, because Swedish railways are broken-privatized.

A huge amount of maintenance is needed. The government says that they are investing in this. Vänsterpartiet is investing 5 billion more on railway maintenance than the government.

The Sweden Democrats say on one hand that they are investing in the railway, but on the other hand, they are deviating from their own policy – it is not a very impressive handling of the situation. We are all sitting on delayed trains, and it is a huge problem, for the commuters and for the freight industry.

I do not think the Swedish people should trust the Sverigedemokraterna in this matter, because we need to reorganize the entire railway system. Regarding the major reorganization of Trafikverket that the Sverigedemokraterna demand, I can tell you that I have been involved in reorganizing the Polismyndigheten. It was a terribly long and difficult journey for the entire agency. That is perhaps not where we should go.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I cannot help it; I have to comment on that last part. No, the reorganization of the police did not turn out well – I can agree with that. What did they do there? Well, they merged all the agencies across the country into one agency. What has been done with Trafikverket? Precisely the same thing.

Does the Transport Administration work? No, that is what we are concerned about. If you pump more money into an organization that does not work, why would you expect to get a better result? The fundamental problem is how the organization functions.

I can assure the members that this is something I have discussed with the department, because the way it functions today is not sufficient. But it does not help to give an organization that does not work more money. The only thing that happens is that more money is lost and less activity is achieved.

One must take a different path, and that is what we have chosen to do. This will resolve itself moving forward, so the members will get answers to their questions.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It is exciting to sit and listen to the debate!

I am going to ask a few questions on the same theme. I would like to go back to yesterday, when the Transport Committee had a fly-in day hosted by the Social Democrats. I thought then, when the member spoke, that I heard a criticism of the marketization of critical social infrastructure. It was a direct question that the member received. I think it is very pleasing that the Sweden Democrats express that it actually is not good that we have marketized critical social infrastructure such as the railway and aviation and furthermore the digitalization – not least considering the security policy situation we are currently in.

I will return to what has been said here in the speaker's chair earlier. Do the Sweden Democrats think it is reasonable with, for example, 52 actors in the railway system – as it was the last time I read; it is surely more today – fighting over far too little capacity? This is nevertheless what is the great challenge. Obviously, one does not think so, because one previously thought that we should retake a part of the maintenance in our own management.

I also wonder what steps the Sweden Democrats, based on what the member said yesterday, will take to identify what constitutes critical societal infrastructure. I heard the member say this yesterday and want to follow up on it today. What steps will the Sweden Democrats take when it concerns our area, that is, the transport area and physical and digital infrastructure?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! The question yesterday was about the radar system. We have the radar system in order to be able to guide air traffic in an efficient way. What is happening now is that a contract is expiring so that eight airports will not receive full radar coverage. One must then have longer time intervals between the aircraft that are to take off and land.

What we discussed was whether we should have a system where we release such an important part. It is also about the country's defense - about being able to guide the Armed Forces' aircraft. We perhaps need to reflect for a moment on how we stand with our radar systems when it comes to covering and securing the country's borders. That was what the question was about; it had not much to do with road and railway.

When it comes to the radar part, we probably have to give some thought to how we are going to handle it. We cannot have a situation where our defense, the ambulance flights, or whatever else it may be that is important has to wait its turn. That is not sufficient, and we must have a radar system that handles the situation here and now, in this second, and nothing else.

If we go back to what we are debating today, we must ensure that the operations of the authority responsible for roads and railways function. They do not function today – that is what we are concerned about. The Social Democrats want to go all the way and put more money into an authority that obviously cannot handle this. We say no to that. We must find another way.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! That is an afterthought. Our committee initiative was about reviewing the conditions for taking back in our own management, not about any money. That is just about being able to say: That is why we said no. But that is obviously not the case.

The Member wants to only discuss a small issue regarding the radar systems, but when it comes to defense, we have indeed signed agreements. Sweden has signed agreements with the USA, yesterday or the day before, regarding the ability to carry out troop movements. The Member knows just as well as I do that it concerns people and equipment that will probably be moved by train. If we ever join Nato, the same thing will happen.

Of course, we can review the radar system – it is good that we start somewhere. But this is about the big picture. What is the critical infrastructure that we actually should not hand over to anyone else, but rather say that the state is responsible for, so that we can be a safe and secure country?

Yesterday during the flight, we also heard very interesting reflections regarding the fact that it is the emission reductions that are important, not which mode of transport we use. We never hear the Sweden Democrats talk about this. I would very much like Thomas Morell to tell me and others watching this a little bit about how the Sweden Democrats intend to work with the issue of emission reductions, not least with a view to COP 28. One can think what one wants about that agreement, but what was nevertheless said was that it is the first time that fossil energy has been identified as a problem. Obviously, the Sweden Democrats have not done that, so how do the Sweden Democrats think about this?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am starting from the back again this time. Reducing emissions is important. We say that this must not be governed by which vehicle type or which mode of transport it concerns, but rather it is about the technology we use to reduce the emissions.

If we have a flight that is completely free from emissions, what is then the problem with the flight? I know that there are members here in the Riksdag who say that we should not fly. In that case, it is a matter of principle that we should not use the flight as a means of transport.

We do not think so. We think that we should fly - that we should use the infrastructure that exists even in the air. But then we must ensure that we reduce the environmental impact. This can be done by electrifying aviation or by flying on biofuels. It is a faster solution than going down to the ground, because there we do not quite have the same opportunity for supply with biofuels or electricity. We have not built out just that part.

I received a film yesterday from a trucking company that has a hydrogen car on trial. It is extremely interesting. Then there is water in the exhaust pipe. It is only a matter of being able to produce hydrogen.

Then we have this issue with how one formulates things. If it says that the maintenance should be taken back under state management, it means exactly that. There are advantages to having it outsourced even to subcontractors. It doesn't actually matter that much who operates the machine, but it must be done, and one must be clear on how it is to function. One must have clear management. That is not the case today. It does not help to move the maintenance back under state management if one cannot manage to steer the operations.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! There are a few questions I would like to ask Member Morell connected to a few different parts of the Transport Committee's area of responsibility.

The first point concerns an issue that the member dwelt on quite a bit. It concerns the maintenance of the railway. I would like the member to elaborate on this a bit. The Sweden Democrats supported the government's previous budget, which involved a reduction in railway maintenance. Now the majority writes in their text that the maintenance increased in 2022. That was the year the previous government submitted its budget. Then the majority says that we are at continued high levels. How does the member view the fact that a reduction was made, to then possibly put some back, and yet continue at roughly the same levels as the previous government had?

There is talk that there is a large infrastructure debt, not least when it comes to maintenance. It is said that the railway is lacking 60 billion. I wonder how the member sees this.

My second question concerns something the member mentioned on two occasions, if I heard correctly. The member said as follows: Not to forget the digital infrastructure. But it didn't become anything more, except for the very last thing he said in the speech, which was about digital.

Sweden is falling behind. The budget states that we should be the world's best country when it comes to utilizing the possibilities of digitalization. We fall down to fifth place and then to ninth place. We continue to fall down. How does the member view Sweden's opportunity to regain a leading position when it comes to utilizing the possibilities of digitalization?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the questions from the front, for the sake of variety. We are talking about this with the railway and the maintenance.

One can look at how the previous government structured investments and maintenance for the railway. They were extremely locked into this with high-speed trains. That was all it was about, nothing else.

What we have now had to do is to change course. One must expand where there are bottlenecks and renovate where the need exists. But it is not something one does overnight.

As the member has been able to read in the news, the infrastructure bill will also be included in the Tidö Agreement. Then we will have greater opportunities to influence and have a say in how it will be moving forward. There will be investments in the railway to remove bottlenecks. More money will also be allocated to maintenance.

We have, however, had to clean up after the previous government's way of handling the railway traffic. We see how it has turned out, with all the delays and deficiencies that exist in the entire railway system. This is not something we will change next week, but it will take the duration of the mandate and probably even a bit further into the future. But that we will make a change of course is absolutely clear.

We are moving away from the high-speed thoughts and instead want to ensure that we get a robust railway system that works even if it happens to snow a little or if a leaf falls onto the track. So that is not the case today. If it snows a little or a few leaves fall, the system stops.

I will have to take the digital part in the next post. I apologize.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Not to forget the digital infrastructure, the member said. It is probably safest that I do not ask about anything else before his final reply than exactly in what way he believes one needs to work politically. I truly hope that the answer will not be similar to that which concerned the maintenance, i.e., that it will take both this mandate period and the next before any change can be seen.

With the work that is taking place now, not least with the government's appointed AI commission, we will fall very far behind if there is not a political leadership that takes on the leadership role in this.

I cannot, however, skip the question about railway maintenance. The answer the member gave was about new construction. It was not about the maintenance.

Thomas Morell complains about the previous government and says that they only had high-speed trains in their sights. But that is not true. A lot was invested in maintenance, and maintenance specifically concerns the existing railway infrastructure.

The chairman says that we should invest in this from now on, when the Sweden Democrats are also allowed to join the Tidö cooperation when it comes to infrastructure. Then I wonder what it actually is that differs, more than a carpet-bombing of words so to speak to prevent us from hearing that it actually isn't any new policy but roughly as before and that, in other words, no changes will occur. This I say as a comment regarding the railway maintenance.

Now I come to my fundamental question: How could the member completely forget to say anything about the content of the digital infrastructure policy?

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now I shall try to answer. The infrastructure for digital activities must be expanded. We must also ensure that it functions across the entire country.

In the current situation, there are no more funds set aside for this, but we will work to ensure that it happens. We are dependent on a fast infrastructure on the digital side, even in the forests of Västerbotten, in Värmland, or wherever it may be, but it is not built out everywhere.

Since then, we have introduced a fairly extensive motion regarding AI. One of our members in the committee is the one driving that issue forward. We have fallen behind in Sweden - that is not to say - and we must regain our leading position. It will be part of the work, so that we can succeed in regaining the leading position.

We were very leading for many years, but we have fallen behind. It is not good. It is not good for our industry. We must regain our lost lead.

So I will come back to this regarding the railway. It is something of a hobbyhorse for me. Such a railway needs to be expanded. Take a stretch like Gothenburg-Alingsås, which is one of the most heavily loaded in Sweden. There we have a freight volume that is enormous today, and the port in Gothenburg is to increase. There is no capacity. This was neglected by the previous government. It wasn't even included in the plan that was presented.

There will be a change in this. We must get a system that works and can handle the quantities of goods that the industry needs to have transported. If this does not happen, the transports will be placed on the roads. Then one can calculate what it will be like in Gothenburg.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish economy and Swedish society are now facing many different crises at once. We are in a serious inflation and growth crisis. It stands out in an international comparison.

As a consequence of the economic crisis, a welfare crisis is now occurring in municipalities and regions that particularly affects the countryside and, not least, the school in the countryside.

At the same time, many Swedish cities are hit by a crisis regarding safety in streets and squares. It is about gang wars, shootings and bombs and about young people who are both perpetrators and victims. The climate crisis is becoming increasingly clear. Despite this, Swedish climate policy and the climate transition in our country are in crisis as a result of the Tidö parties' policy. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine continues to place high demands on the prioritization of our country's defense capability and the support for Ukraine.

Yes, there are very many different crises at the same time. Despite that, Madam Speaker, the Swedish economy is fundamentally strong. We have a well-educated population. We have forward-looking, innovative and strong companies. We have high employment, and we have maintained a functioning welfare state. But the economic policy is increasingly characterized by disorder and by a government that is unable to manage the ongoing crises.

It is through wise reforms - not populism - that Sweden and the Swedish economy have navigated through previous crises. But it requires that there is some force in politics that stands up for fundamental principles: It must pay to work. School and education are the foundation for prosperity in the entire country. We cannot begin to increase emissions if we are to prevent a climate catastrophe. And companies are our growth engine.

Centerpartiet takes up the baton from previous successful economic reforms and wants to bring this into the debate again, for it is a real crisis management.

Madam Speaker! A well-functioning transport and IT infrastructure is a prerequisite for it to be possible to live, reside and work in the entire country. It is also important that the business sector's freight transport functions in order to enable entrepreneurship and work in the entire country. Technological development, efficiency, digitalization, regulatory simplifications and a transition to electrified transport as well as an increased share of renewable fuels contribute to continued good communications in the entire country without the environmental and climate impact increasing.

Within the Center Party, we are pushing for Sweden to reach the goal of a fossil-independent vehicle fleet and emission reductions from domestic transport of 70 percent by 2030. In that work, the state infrastructure investments have a very important role to play.

From the Center Party's side, we prioritize increasing the maintenance and expansion of the railway. We want to invest in alternative financing solutions, electrification, renewable energy, more public transport, further investments in IT and broadband expansion, and improved mobile coverage.

We mean that all five modes of transport together create the conditions for transport efficiency and a smart transition to climate benefit.

Since we safeguard the development of the entire country, it is important that the resources invested in infrastructure are distributed across the whole country. I must say that the signals from the new government - if I may call the Tidö government that - where they talk about commuting and freight, feel worrying. The long stretches in our country are incredibly important to develop. I hope that we will see clarifications regarding the whole country in the infrastructure bill that comes next year.

From the Center Party's side, we want to invest additional funds in the maintenance of roads for the sake of the entire country. We therefore increase the appropriation by 250 million kronor more than the government's proposal.

Another issue that has been debated quite a lot during the year may seem small, but the more one becomes informed about it, the more one understands the great seriousness. It concerns the traffic to and from Gotland.

The prices for both passenger traffic and freight transport have risen dramatically. This affects both travelers and road traffic. And it threatens the competitiveness of companies, our food supply, and the island's attractiveness. It is therefore reasonable that the state mitigates the effects for Gotland, its population, and its companies. Therefore, we propose that the appropriation 1:7 Trafikavtal be increased by 100 million kronor more than the government's proposal to secure the ferry traffic to Gotland.

There are advantages to the government's proposal regarding a transition to deferred payments for the broadband support, but we also want to emphasize that the needs are very great in the countryside. Globalization and the digitalization of society bring people closer together, and digital infrastructure is necessary for people to be able to live and work throughout the country. For internet-based services to be usable everywhere, both increased coverage and higher transmission speeds are needed.

We also want to point out the deficiencies that exist regarding mobile connection on the busy railway sections. This leads to poorer opportunities to utilize travel time. From the Center Party's side, we are investing an additional 300 million kronor on appropriation 2:5 Reliable and accessible electronic communication.

These are the basics of the Center Party's budget proposal in the infrastructure area. It is an additional few hundred million for road maintenance. It is 300 million for reliable and accessible electronic communication, and it is 100 million kronor for transport agreements linked to Gotland.

Madam Speaker! We have been into the fact that we should be the best in the world when it comes to the possibilities of digitalization. One can read the committee's position for the entire budget. It appears more or less as a hymn of praise to the budget proposal. But there is also a part in the report that deals with following up on the government's policy. I would like to point out that there are quite sharp writings in that regarding the need for analysis from the government's side when it comes to this.

I would wish that the three government parties, in their speeches, become very clear regarding which analysis is being made in the matter of how we shall regain the leading position when it comes to the possibilities of digitalization.

Madam Speaker! From the Center Party's side, we have a higher budget framework. And since the frameworks have already been adopted, we choose to refrain from taking a position. We have a specific statement in the report.

Christmas is approaching. I must take the opportunity to wish the Speaker's Presidium a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! There were many crises. It was not only about the infrastructure, which I think we should try to focus on during this debate.

Madam Speaker! I am thinking a lot about Ulrika Heie's talk on digitalization. The Government has given a mandate concerning how we can reach the last households, those that are furthest away and which currently do not have coverage. It is a mandate that exists.

Since the broadband targets were set, a lot has happened with the technology that allows this to be solved in another way and achieve a connection much faster. Work is ongoing to ensure that all of Sweden can get a good connection. We share that level of ambition.

But we also know that the public sector in Sweden is lagging far behind. There are several international measurements that show that the Swedish public sector, when it comes to digitalization in general and AI in particular, lags very far behind. The public sector in Sweden is almost at the bottom of the league, one could say. It is quite serious, not least considering how much money one could save.

The Agency for Digital Government is a very important actor in supporting the public sector with digitalization. The member had a high level of rhetoric in their speech regarding digitalization. But the Center Party actually chooses to lower the appropriations to Digg, which is one of the government's and the country's most important actors when it comes to supporting exactly the public sector in moving forward in digitalization.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that Member Stockhaus listened carefully to my speech, where I emphasized precisely the broad picture in order to put the infrastructure into its real context and how we, through a continued investment linked to infrastructure issues, regardless of which mode of transport it concerns, also contribute to the understanding of and a solution to all the different crises that I spoke about. Just as the Member says, we are also investing heavily to reach the last households and appreciate the work that is being done for this.

I share the member's view that we have a great need for investments all around our country, because we have a rather diversified reality, if I may call it that, both geographically and in terms of knowledge. When the committee had an open meeting on AI, it was also partly about how we compensate for the largely decentralized operations. It was raised as a problem area during that seminar, and we need to find political ways in different ways to get there.

The Board has clearly understood that we are imposing an efficiency requirement on all agencies within this area. No one will escape it; it applies to all the different parts. We have therefore chosen to impose an efficiency requirement on all agencies, whether it concerns Digg, Transportstyrelsen, Trafikverket, or any other, and that is what must be adhered to in their operations.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I may find it somewhat remarkable precisely given what we heard at the hearing. What was requested was political leadership regarding these issues, and one way to exercise political leadership is to ensure that there are agencies that can support public Sweden with the digitalization.

I have discussed this issue with many actors for a long time, and it is very clear that the previous government, which the Centerpartiet supported, did not take this leadership. These questions were not on the agenda.

Regarding the AI issue, I encountered a great deal of frustration regarding the fact that it hadn't been addressed at all, but now things are happening. The AI Commission and AI Sweden held a large press conference yesterday where they presented a solution, not least for the public sector.

I still think it is extremely strange to have the high level of advocacy that the member has regarding digitalization issues and at the same time cut the money that is supposed to go to the agency that could actually help with exactly what the member raised earlier, namely to ensure that we, with the centralized model of governance that we actually have, can support municipalities, regions and other public actors in using digital tools more effectively.

The authority chooses to cut the appropriations to the Centre Party. I can think that it is a bit remarkable.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! It is extremely important that we regain much of what we have lost regarding digital capability and the use of the possibilities of digitalization. That requires us to have authorities that can do their jobs and are also equipped in many different ways.

One is almost tempted to also discuss in what way the school should be a part of that. We have both previously been involved in that issue regarding the possibilities of digitalization. But I will refrain from that in order to instead stick to what the member is asking about.

I am a bit surprised that it suddenly becomes so incredibly important to allocate money to the authority when it comes to this. It does not usually sound like that from the Moderates' side - that authorities should have more money for one task or the other. I believe that all authorities actually have to work with a large degree of efficiency so that resources are also allocated to what makes a real difference.

We from the Centre Party believe that all our authorities have the opportunity to actually sharpen themselves and consider how to use the resources in the best possible way moving forward so that the best possible results are also achieved from them.

From the Center Party's side, we consider it extremely important that we reach all people in the entire country. Therefore, we are allocating an additional 300 million kronor to increase the part concerning digital opportunities. We have cut some million from that authority, but one could well consider whether the remaining 300 million largely outweighs this so that one can actually make investments out in the country in the way that would be needed to once again be at the forefront.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I listened carefully to Ulrika Heie's speech, and I think it is very positive that she, as the Center Party often does, highlights digitalization. There we have many common interests – partly the expansion of broadband which we pushed through during the last parliamentary period, and partly generally how we can use digitalization in public operations. It is truly a common interest.

We also have many thoughts regarding the expansion of railways and roads, which we are in an incredibly great need of. It is about infrastructure but perhaps above all about maintenance, which we can see, not least during the first year of this mandate period.

But it is not enough to just allocate resources to railways and roads. We must also have the competence to be able to do this job. It is a priority issue; that is what we hear from the industry at almost every meeting.

That is why I reacted quite strongly when the member said that it should pay to work and to educate oneself, while at the same time one chooses to cut just the price and wage appropriations. If the enormous need we have to build more railway and road is largely a matter of competence, how then does the member think about the fact that one reduces the price and wage appropriations to most agencies within the area?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the positive words linked to the fact that we are highlighting digitalization and also the expansion of roads and railways! I share Member Gellerman's view that we, as two liberal parties over the years, both during the Alliance government and during the January cooperation and so on, have driven many important issues, including when it comes to maintenance.

It is very true that in almost all the visits we make, it is about infrastructure and skills supply that builds Sweden strong. Regardless of whether we are talking about the climate transition or any other part of business development, we see that there is a great need for skills ahead.

Something that I think the member is also very well aware of is that when one gives different forms of rationalization assignments, one usually distributes them quite evenly. At least, it is my experience from both the municipal and state level that one does not calculate up wages and prices. There is nothing that says how many employees an agency should have, so there is still a fairly large pot of money that can be used to build competence.

Quite often one hears the Tidö parties express dismay over how many employees there are in many agencies. In that case, it could be a matter of rationalizing so that one has exactly the competence that one needs and values it in such a way that one can take advantage of the fact that it is possible to make a career within our agencies, obviously with appropriate salary benefits and so on.

I truly share the member's view on the importance and need of skills supply. In that case, school and higher education also become important parts to bring into the context so that we can ensure that we build that competence in many different ways.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

We talk a lot about Trafikverket, if we take that authority as an example. One needs to digitize more of the infrastructure and use all the data that exists. If one is to succeed, one needs to attract that type of competence. As we all know, that competence perhaps costs a bit more than an average employee at Trafikverket because there is high demand for that type of personnel.

That is why I am concerned about the cuts to the price and wage appropriations. It does not rhyme with how the Centerpartiet wants people to work more with digitalization within all agencies, especially Trafikverket. At Trafikverket, there is a large database that contains a lot of data. But the agency does not succeed in utilizing all the data, and therefore they must make an investment.

For that reason, it worries me that the Center Party wants to reduce wages at the agency, not least because of the inflation. It does not add up. I would like the member to elaborate on this a bit.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

Our budget proposal means 300 million more for secure and available electronic communications than the government's proposal. We are cutting 1.2 million kronor from the agency that the member first mentioned.

When it comes to Trafikverket, we are cutting 6.9 million kronor.

One can still work with rationalizations within an agency. I understood the member's question as that if one does not increase the wages, one cannot attract competent employees, but that is not how it works. It is about in what way one constructs its agency. It does not appear in the regulatory letter exactly how many employees there should be in an agency or how much the wages can be raised during an increase. Here, the agencies can work with rationalizations of various kinds.

It is extremely important that we take to heart what emerged during the meeting on AI. It was revealed there that it is about how we compensate for the decentralized nature. We have, for many different reasons, chosen a decentralized system with municipalities of different sizes and many different actors. Consequently, we must in different ways consider how we compensate for the decentralized nature. The Center Party compensates by increasing the appropriation concerning secure and available electronic communications by 300 million kronor. We rationalize something in our agencies, but as a whole, these investments strengthen the ability to reach all people. Consequently, all people in Sweden will have the opportunity to be part of the digital development that we all want to see.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.

We all want to get to our jobs without getting stuck on a train that is standing still due to a switch failure or some other problem. I have the privilege of living in Stockholm, so I do not always need to take the train, but I know that many are subjected to great strain when they travel here every week.

We also want the goods we request to be available when we request them, and that presupposes a functioning infrastructure.

Unfortunately, we have a situation that involves delays for both goods and people. The primary reason is that the maintenance of our infrastructure has not functioned. The previous government's eight years of passivity, constant bargaining with Miljöpartiet, and inability to see the opportunities in technological development have damaged Sweden. They have chosen to cut ribbons and invest in prestige projects instead of prioritizing that the infrastructure already in place actually functions. The most socially and economically profitable thing we can do is to ensure that the infrastructure already in place functions.

We have a tendency in politics to focus on new projects instead of ensuring that those already in place are functioning. It is something that this government has been clear about, that is to say that we shall prioritize maintenance. We must ensure that both railway and road function.

Madam Speaker! If one compares the entire situation to a house, the previous government prioritized designing a glassed-in sunroom, even though the roof of the house is leaking, there is moisture in the basement because we have not prioritized drainage, the paint is peeling, and the windows are broken. It is time to start focusing on those parts and not on the glassed-in sunroom.

Now we have a government that wants to focus on people being able to get to work and that freight transport functions. This means that the focus moving forward will be on maintenance. We are already showing this in the budget for next year with more money for the maintenance of both railway and road.

Last week, an update of the Tidö Agreement was also presented. It includes infrastructure. We are to create a consensus, and we have largely a consensus on how we should jointly develop our infrastructure. It is a good basis for creating long-term perspective when it comes to infrastructure policy.

Madam Speaker! Since the government took office, much has been done in the infrastructure area. What has received the most attention is the halt of the socially and economically unprofitable prestige project with the high-speed railway. This has made it possible to prioritize other things, for example, measures on the Öresund Bridge to meet increased traffic from the Fehmarn Bält Tunnel when it opens in 2029.

Trafikverket has also been tasked with developing proposals to accelerate necessary investments in northern Sweden to meet the industrial investments being made in the north. Trafikverket's proposals in that report include, among other things, alternative financing models that we proposed during the election campaign and which the Social Democrats dismissed as impossible and likely illegal. The proposals are now being prepared, and a decision will be made shortly. It is a decision that we know the industries in northern Sweden are demanding.

We also have a completely different view on the entire infrastructure system. We realize that people need to use cars, and that means we must have roads without large potholes. Therefore, the government has chosen to invest more money in road maintenance.

We have also begun to address the extensive criticism that the Swedish National Audit Office has directed at Trafikverket. These are issues that the previous government did not address, despite eleven different reports from the National Audit Office. I know that Member Morell raised these questions in his speech. These are issues that we repeatedly discuss with the department, and we know that the department has recurring discussions with Trafikverket about streamlining its processes. The agency has received concrete assignments to streamline railway maintenance to ensure that we get more out of the invested money.

An inquiry has also been commissioned regarding the competitiveness of shipping. If I have understood correctly, the people who worked with shipping at the ministry were overjoyed. Their experience was that the previous government did not care about shipping at all, and now finally some light is being shed on shipping. The focus is placed on increasing competitiveness and getting in more Swedish-flagged vessels.

This government considers all modes of transport to be necessary for Swedish infrastructure. This applies in particular to aviation. At the seminar we participated in just before the debate, it emerged that aviation has felt sidelined and has not received any political backing or encouragement. The government has now significantly increased support for regional airports. An airport investigation has also been commissioned, and the proposals submitted by the investigation are now being prepared.

It is about creating a robust infrastructure for aviation that meets the needs of transport. We need to ensure that there are contingency airports that function and can handle necessary societal transports; it could be about sick people, forest fires, or other things. It is necessary that we have a good infrastructure with airports that function.

The era of flight shame is over, and the discussion about the closure of Bromma, Västerås, Karlstad, Örebro and Skavsta is over.

Now the focus is to finally start investing in expanding Arlanda. During the previous government's eight years, nothing happened in that area. An investigation was conducted on Arlanda, which the Arlanda Council produced a final report on, with many good proposals on how Arlanda's competitiveness could be strengthened. These proposals were thrown in the trash by the previous government. We see now that Arlanda is losing more and more flight routes to Kastrup and that Arlanda is becoming a feeder airport. We need to reverse that development.

We have also begun the work on a new freight transport strategy to ensure that transports can take place as efficiently as possible.

Madam Speaker! The transition of the transport sector is important for us in Sweden to live up to the climate goals that we set for ourselves and the goals that the EU has decided on. This means that many important investments in infrastructure for the transition lie in other expenditure areas.

There are, however, two important issues that affect us. It concerns above all the charging infrastructure. We must eliminate what is called charging anxiety so that people dare to invest in buying electric cars. We also need to ensure a secured electricity supply so that we can manage this transition. We need to invest in all four fossil-free energy goals to build a robust energy system – otherwise, we will not manage the transition.

We are now entering a year in which we will work on the next infrastructure bill. Now, Sweden must function. We want, as said, to equip what exists and ensure that we get value for the money we invest. We see the transport system, with all the four modes of transport, as a whole.

We in the government parties will during the next year - also within the Tidö cooperation - address this in order to create a robust system for the future in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! The Government says that one should invest in the work commute. I am very curious about who the Government thinks are commuters. Do you think it is the nursing assistant who should take the bus to work at the hospital or the health center? It is going to be very difficult with the Government's policy. We all know that the regions are on their knees and that healthcare is extremely difficult to manage right now. The nursing assistant may not have any hospital to take the bus to, and the bus will not run either. We will see cuts in public transport ahead because the State is not providing the money that the regions so desperately need to run public transport.

Is the government perhaps thinking of a different kind of commuting, such as the one that we Members of Parliament often engage in? I mean the long-distance commuting that involves sitting for quite a few hours on the train between Stockholm and Gothenburg or Stockholm and Malmö. However, it cannot be these commuters that the government is thinking of, because no new main line will be built.

We see how incredibly poorly the railway functions today. The switches are almost a hundred years old. We also see how Trafikverket conducts procurements. It results in unnecessarily long stops and single-track sections. It therefore cannot be the long-distance train commuter that the government speaks of when talking about investing in the work commuter.

Who is it that the government is actually investing in when one says that one is investing in the work commute? It is neither the one who takes the regional public transport nor the one who takes the longer-distance long-distance trains. Who is the government's work commuter?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I would say that this government is investing in both of these two. The buses need to run on roads where, for example, there are no large potholes. It can also be the case that the nursing assistant lives in a rural area, which means she needs to take the car because there are no buses where she lives. We have ensured that it does not become as expensive for her to take the car and that there are no large potholes in the road she takes to work. We have ensured that it is possible to take the car to work even if one is a nursing assistant and lives out in the countryside.

We are also investing in the commuting in the Mälardalen region and in all colleagues who commute into Stockholm. We want to focus on ensuring that the railway that Sweden has today functions.

The previous government, which Linda Sneckers' party supported, opted out of maintenance to invest in high-speed rail so that business travelers can travel quickly between Gothenburg and Stockholm and between Gothenburg and Malmö. We want to invest in everyday commuting on regular railway - not on high-speed trains that are to travel at over 320 kilometers per hour. We do that by ensuring that the railway that is already in place functions. Furthermore, it is significantly faster.

I know that in Linda Sneckers' party they are not so concerned about tax money - when I see the budget from Vänsterpartiet it sometimes feels like Vänsterpartiet has a printing press in the basement that others do not have - but it is also about using the money as responsibly as possible. We do that by ensuring that the infrastructure for roads and railways that is in place actually works and does not fall apart, which it does today.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! If the government wants the infrastructure we have today to function, I suggest that one votes for the Left Party's policy. The Left Party, for example, allocates 500 million more than the government on roads in rural areas. The Left Party allocates 5 billion more on the maintenance of the railway.

We want the railway to be used, but it will not be able to be used. The government, with its policy, will gladly be content with the commuter sitting on the long-distance train between Stockholm and Gothenburg traveling not only more than three hours but perhaps four or five hours because Trafikverket, which is to manage the maintenance, does not have the ability to procure the maintenance in the right way. The government is not interested in carrying out the maintenance you speak of in the way that it should be done.

I hear that there is at least one commuter that the government cares about, namely the car commuter, who receives both lower taxes and lower fuel prices. I understand that this is very welcome for many, but not everyone can afford to have a car. Not everyone needs to take the car either. There are many of us who gladly travel by public transport because we care about how we travel and - above all - because we care about the climate goals.

To make it better for commuters, the government should, for example, ensure that the urban environment agreements remain in place. They help municipalities and regions ensure that regional public transport is prepared in the best possible way. If the government cared about both short-distance and long-distance commuters, they would also build new main lines. They do not have to be high-speed main lines – I say this because the government has become stuck in a conspiracy theory about what high-speed lines are.

Build more railways! Ensure that the regions' economies get on their feet! Make it so that the nursing assistant can take the bus to the hospital instead of being forced to take the car to a hospital that might no longer exist!

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! If one is to have a well-functioning infrastructure, one must ensure that investments are made in maintenance. This government does that.

Something that I find noteworthy, given the history we have with the reports from the Swedish National Audit Office and other matters, is that the question of how the Transport Administration functions has come up now that we have a new government that has picked up the reports from the Swedish National Audit Office. If we are to have a well-functioning infrastructure, we must have a Transport Administration that functions.

I truly believe this was an issue that the previous government, including Linda Sneckers' own party, never ever addressed. It was not on the political agenda to try to do anything about the largest authority, with over 10,000 employees, which at present does not deliver but should for the money that we invest. It is not on the agenda at all.

I believe that the taxpayers expect us to ensure that we get a well-functioning infrastructure while at the same time being careful with the taxpayers' money. We must do the right things.

There is talk of shortening the time between Stockholm and Gothenburg by 40 minutes. We see the enormous needs that exist when it comes to ensuring that what is already in place functions and to remove some single-track sections to achieve better public transport between different locations. To then choose to invest in removing 40 minutes for business travelers who are going to Gothenburg and Malmö, I do not think is a good use of money. This government does not think so either. We want to invest in ensuring that what is in place - in the whole country - functions. It is not just about the routes Stockholm-Gothenburg and Stockholm-Malmö.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! When one, like myself, can look back on a rather long political career within many different areas, one realizes that infrastructure and infrastructure planning is something that connects them. It is important when one works with industrial policy or environmental policy or transport policy, as we do in the Transport Committee.

What we hear, primarily from business representatives, is that long-term perspective is crucial. They need to know what is going to apply.

Then it is interesting to follow the Moderaternas position on infrastructure planning, not least when it comes to new main lines. The Moderaterna started by being strongly opposed. We had a finance minister who called it science fiction technology even though many countries in Europe had already built or were in the process of building high-speed railways. Then they completely reversed, initiated the Sweden negotiation and said: "Now we go, all of Sweden together!" They negotiated with municipalities and regions that began to allocate land and plan for 100,000 homes, and Trafikverket began planning. Everyone was on their toes. What did the Moderaterna do then? Well, they completely reversed again and are now all of a sudden very much opposed again.

One wonders what conditions the Moderaterna provide for Sweden as a country to have even a slight idea of what is to come. How are industries planning for production to know how they should transport their goods when the Moderaterna switch back and forth on the issue? One wonders if this is a playground. Is the Moderaterna a governing party? How is one even supposed to be able to trust the Moderaterna on infrastructure issues?

Next year, an infrastructure bill is to be presented. How can anyone in Sweden trust what is written in it when the Moderates are constantly changing their stance and cannot make up their minds, and are actually deceiving the Swedish people and investors? The Moderates say go, and then they suddenly turn around. How can one trust the Moderates?

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! What one can rely on when it comes to the Moderates is that we are careful with the taxpayers' money. That is what the reversal regarding the high-speed railways is about. Regarding other infrastructure, one can be completely certain that the Moderates stand for the fact that all four modes of transport are needed and that we want to create a system that hangs together where all four modes of transport have a place, including aviation. We will also have a majority in the Riksdag when the infrastructure bill is adopted, which also creates conditions for stability.

When the decision on trunk lines for high-speed railway was made in the Sweden negotiations, the price tag was significantly smaller than what it is now turning out to be. It is about so terribly much money, and we see that the needs are enormously large in the entire transport system. Not least, we have a maintenance debt dating back several governments that we are now beginning to see serious consequences of. Sure, high-speed trains would have been fun; I would have gladly ridden Hyperloop. But I realize that it is very expensive and that we must use the tax money we have at our disposal in the very best way. There is no prestige in this for us, but since the price tag for high-speed railway has become so much larger since the decision was made, we have decided to build railway but not high-speed railway.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I could take Maria Stockhaus at her word and believe what she says if it were the case that the government invested more in the maintenance of the railway, but that is not what is happening. Cuts are being made. Even when it comes to investments, less is being invested than before. Therefore, there is not much behind Maria Stockhaus's words.

Regarding the cost, we have asked Trafikverket to prepare new proposals, and they show that it is possible to save a lot and make it cheaper. An alternative, if one wanted to have credibility in transport issues, would therefore have been to try to get new main lines because the tracks are full and it is not possible to get all the railway that the industry, among other things, needs.

It is interesting to look at how it looks in the rest of Europe. In fact, all other EU countries are building high-speed railways and new main lines. Our neighboring countries Finland and Denmark are doing it. It is only Sweden that, through the Moderaternas policy, is a desert when it comes to building new, modern railway infrastructure. This has almost ridiculous consequences. When the Fehmarn Bält bridge, which Maria Stockhaus mentioned in her speech, opens, it means faster transport from Malmö to Hamburg than from Malmö to Stockholm. How does that square with us having a transport system that binds together all of Sweden and makes the whole country hold together? It is miserable that the Moderaterna have succeeded in destroying infrastructure planning in this way and that they have not been able to create the consensus required for the type of generation projects that new main lines are.

We are all proud that we were able to build railways that connected Sweden and the large cities. Now, the Moderaterna have given up this ambition and choose to turn their backs on the railway in order to instead create illusions that it is possible to hold Sweden together with only other modes of transport. With the Moderaterna's policy, the railway will not meet either today's or tomorrow's needs.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Per Bolund says that the EU countries are investing. Down in Europe, there is high-speed rail between cities that are significantly larger than ours, so it is also a matter of how many people can be expected to travel by high-speed rail. UK is no longer part of the EU, and perhaps that is why Per Bolund did not mention UK. But there, they have pulled the handbrake for the exact same reasons as we have done in Sweden. It becomes too expensive and is not socio-economically profitable.

Those who live in the north do not consider that this binds Sweden together. It does not give them better conditions to get anywhere if the travel time Stockholm-Gothenburg is shortened by 40 minutes and Stockholm-Malmö by 35 minutes. They need a railway and road that works in their part of Sweden. But judging by Miljöpartiet's overall policy, they do not care particularly much about those who live in the north.

As I said earlier, the Moderaterna take responsibility for the taxpayers' money. We do not act as if there is a printing press in the basement. There is also no prestige involved. When such a large project as this turns out to escalate in terms of cost, we must pull the handbrake and consider whether there are other ways to use the money to strengthen Sweden's infrastructure so that we get better value for the money we invest.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I am quite upset by Member Stockhaus's descriptions. I think it is quite ridiculous to compare our policy with a house. Furthermore, the Member makes purely false claims about those who have previously been responsible for this area.

That the previous government was supposed to have been passive and not spent any money on maintenance is a pure lie. During Tomas Eneroth's time, the maintenance appropriation in the budget increased by 48 percent. To then say that we did not invest in maintenance at all is therefore a pure lie, and I thought the member was better than that.

I also reacted very strongly to the member claiming that we are hostile towards technology. During the time the Social Democrats were involved in governing the country, Sweden constantly ranked first on all innovation lists. But not anymore. How can one claim that we are hostile towards technology when so many innovations have been developed through our policies?

There is so much to say but so little time.

The Social Democrats' focus regarding the transport sector, in a society that is transitioning, must be about sustainability and capacity and that one should be able to live in all of Sweden. I would like to know how the member views this issue of being able to live in all of Sweden. We have just been to Luleå and heard that nine out of ten must use the car because the railway is not expanded there. We have also heard about all the assignments that exist. But when will the decisions come, member Stockhaus?

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I find it a bit difficult to understand why one turns against the comparison with a house. Our infrastructure with roads, railways, ports and airports is precisely like an existing house that one lives in. If one has a house where the roof is leaking, the windows are broken and the paint is peeling, one at least in my world puts money into getting it in order before building a glassed-in sunroom.

Building high-speed railways between Stockholm-Göteborg and Stockholm-Malmö is like investing in a glassed-in patio even though the house is falling apart. Switches break, people get stuck on trains, and there are large holes in our roads. I therefore think it is an excellent comparison when it comes to infrastructure.

We want the money to be used where it does the most good and, moreover, to do good as quickly as possible. New trunk lines for high-speed rail could, according to the latest forecast I saw, be ready first in 2045-2050 due to all the processes and not least how Trafikverket operates. It takes a very long time.

Maintenance measures can have an effect much faster. It is also possible, for example, to expand capacity with double tracks where there are single tracks. It is socio-economically profitable and makes people notice a difference in their everyday lives immediately.

Building high-speed railways between Stockholm-Gothenburg and Stockholm-Malmö only benefits those who are going to travel those routes. If the purpose is to get people off planes, most of them have already switched from planes to trains anyway. It has increased a lot. The extra 30 minutes would not yield particularly many more passengers. It is therefore an enormous waste of money.

I think it is strange that the Social Democrats, who in many respects see themselves as a governing party that takes responsibility for the money, do not see that the limit has been reached for what it is reasonable for this project to cost and pull on the handbrake. I actually find that difficult to understand.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I actually believe that the voters still see us as a pillar of society. That is at least what the figures show. On the other hand, it is quite uncertain how they view the Moderaterna.

Today, MP Stockhaus wrote an article about repairing first and building new later. Then one can really wonder how the Moderaterna think about social development where decisions would have needed to be made yesterday. We would have needed to make decisions on certain things a long time ago. But now Maria Stockhaus says we should repair what exists first and build new later, even though we know that thousands of billions of kronor will be invested, for example, in the north. It will also be invested in the rest of Sweden.

What everyone tells us, regardless of where we are - I assume it is the same for all parties in this Riksdag - is that they can do much, much more, but that infrastructure is lacking. Infrastructure is the bottleneck, the obstacle.

I must ask once more how the member and the government intend to ensure that what is happening now does not just land in a mass of investigations, but that decisions are also made that lead somewhere.

You have expanded the Tidö Agreement to also include the infrastructure bill. What can be discerned so far is that the positive for the Sweden Democrats is that they get to have people at your coordination office – but what do you get? That is what I am wondering about. And even more importantly, what does Aktiebolaget Sverige get out of it! Will we see even more increased emissions than today? The climate transition is really not the Sweden Democrats' priority. What do the other government parties get out of the expanded Tidö Agreement?

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if the member has read previous motions and other material from our four parties, but we are actually very close to each other regarding the view on how money should be invested within the infrastructure area. We are in complete agreement on the importance of investing in maintenance, and we are very clear that we want all four modes of transport to have an obvious place in the transport system. We agree that work commuting and freight traffic shall have the highest priority.

There are an enormous number of things that we Moderates have pushed for for a long time and which we now see a chance to get a majority for here in the Riksdag if we four parties reach an agreement. I believe that is what people expect. If there is to be any stability, long-term perspective, and wholeness in the planning, it is a prerequisite that one can get things through the Riksdag. We know now that we actually can get it. We are very, very close to each other.

It is remarkable to talk about all of Sweden living while simultaneously being prepared to invest enormous sums in high-speed trains. The latest calculations showed that more than half of the total infrastructure budget would go towards building the Stockholm-Gothenburg and Stockholm-Malmö high-speed trains. That is hardly looking at all of Sweden! The roads north of Stockholm have large potholes. There are many single tracks and poor switches. The Malmbanan is one example. The government has taken action on that now to speed it up.

Gunilla Svantorp also knows that when we receive an answer on a mandate, we need to prepare it and discuss how things should be financed in the best possible way. Decisions on the investments in northern Sweden will not be made too far into the new year. Intensive preparation is ongoing, just as with all other mandates. Therefore, very much will happen at the beginning of next year that I believe very many will be very happy about.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Stockhaus, for the speech! We both know that in eight minutes, one has to try to cover a great deal, and then the exchange of remarks becomes an opportunity to delve deeper into certain arguments and talk about what lies behind them.

I would like the member to elaborate a bit on ensuring good infrastructure throughout the country and on ensuring that the whole country truly holds together. In a previous exchange of remarks, the member specifically mentioned "their" and "their" part of Sweden. But for me, it is important that the whole of Sweden hangs together, and it becomes contradictory to only speak about commuting and freight.

The member also said that we will need to build a new railway. I am a bit curious as to where the member considers the new railway needs to be and in what way it is intended to act for that.

Something that has been topical in our shared everyday life in the Riksdag is the aviation issues. Both yesterday and today, there have been debates about aviation's challenges ahead. In their statement on the airport investigation, the member mentioned that it is now being prepared in the Government Offices. I would still like to ask a few questions about it.

Some are about renewable fuels. Does the member believe it will come out of the preparation that we should invest in renewable fuels in Sweden?

Regarding the second part, which is linked to biofuels, I wonder how the member intends to work for additional biofuels in order to be able to make the transition.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Regarding investments across the whole of Sweden, we see that new main lines for high-speed trains between Stockholm-Gothenburg and Stockholm-Malmö would cost infinitely more money than was intended from the beginning. They would eat up a large part of the cake available for investment in infrastructure. This would mean that other parts of the country would suffer.

In Sweden, there is an infrastructure system with roads and railways already in place. Thanks to this government, we have started talking about it instead of just talking about prestige projects.

It is important to talk about how we shall build upon what we have and increase capacity where there is a need for new capacity. There will be more capacity, for example, on the sections Göteborg-Borås and Lund-Hässleholm, but not high-speed railway. That reprioritization in Skåne gave the opportunity to invest in the Öresund Bridge connections so that we can better manage the capacity when Fehmarn Bält opens and more trains come that way.

One can look at our railway system and the places where it is red. I do not want to anticipate the discussions, but for example, Alingsås-Göteborg is one of the biggest bottlenecks we have. It is not included in the national plan today, except for a small stretch that would not affect things particularly much.

Another stretch that is completely red is Uppsala-Stockholm, which also affects all traffic from northern Sweden. I believe it was in three different election campaigns that Social Democratic prime ministers were out cutting ribbons, but it still hasn't started being built.

These are two examples of areas where we would need to invest and which affect all of Sweden's railway infrastructure. We also need to ensure that if one lives out in the countryside and is dependent on the car, which one often is to get at least to a public transport hub, one does not have to fear for one's life because there are large holes in the road when one is trying to get along.

This is about ensuring that all of Sweden can live. That is not it to invest in high-speed rail between Stockholm and Gothenburg or between Stockholm and Malmö.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! My question was not actually about the new main lines but about the additional need for new railways. This is what I intended, even though I misspoke regarding the main lines. We all see the red parts in the railway system and understand that we will need to make many large investments ahead.

I will ask about the last thing the member raised, namely about large holes in the road and how to handle that. I see that a number of reinforcements are taking place linked to individual roads.

At the same time as this increase is made, the mining tax is raised, which is something that those who are in charge of the individual roads are surprised by. If it is only to compensate for increased taxes, then it is not an increase of the grant in any real sense. It depends on in what way it is done. It is a tax that is being increased.

The second tax is the aviation tax. I mentioned aviation, but I did not have time to complete my entire question during the previous exchange because time passed so quickly. The aviation tax is also being increased, which is somewhat surprising when the Moderaterna simultaneously say that we must protect aviation.

I would therefore like to hear whether one will now, in the new Tidö cooperation, be able to go further regarding the different parts that are promoted when it comes to both the countryside, in the form of the possibility to gravel its roads, and the aviation tax, when it comes to strengthening aviation's possibilities and trying to reduce costs so that competitiveness can increase.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I thought first to pick up the thread regarding what I did not take up from the previous reply. It concerns biofuels and new fuels for aviation. It is very interesting.

I believe it is good that we now have a clear European regulatory framework. Aviation has the ability to cross borders, also internationally, and it is important that we do not have tougher conditions for aviation than the rest of Europe has.

Preem has already said that they will begin manufacturing SAF down in western Sweden, and then we have Liquid Winds' new initiative on e-fuel in Örnsköldsvik. I believe that clear rules of the game in a larger market than just Sweden is what makes one dare to invest in those types of fuels.

Furthermore, we see something that Swedish media unfortunately have not paid much attention to, namely that several flights have now been made with 100 percent biofuel in the tanks. It is fantastic for aviation that these big steps are being taken.

When it comes to the aviation tax, I believe that all four Tidö parties have in our programs that we want to abolish the aviation tax. We thought it was wrong to introduce it. Then one ends up in economic realities, and it naturally becomes a discussion about priorities. Especially considering what is coming from the EU now regarding aviation and the requirements that are being set, there is no reason for Sweden to keep the aviation tax.

Regarding what has happened in the aviation sector, the gas system was mentioned and that there is a debt since the pandemic. What the government has done there is to give the airlines the possibility to pay it off over a longer period so that it does not affect them too much. One simply gets more time so that the ticket price is not affected as much during this period.

So, things are being done to ensure that aviation's competitiveness is strengthened and, not least, to ensure that we have a robust airport system. This will become apparent when we present the results of the airport investigation. Some have already been presented, but more will come.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! It is indeed strange that something which is a prerequisite almost every day for all people in our entire country, except perhaps for a very few people, namely infrastructure, is mentioned so little, except in our committee, of course.

In other committees, in other politics, and in people's everyday lives, it is assumed that infrastructure just works, but unfortunately, it does not. We see this constantly. The trains are standing still all the time, more or less. At least that is what we who commute think. Something is wrong.

When we in the S-group in the transport committee are out on our travels, we are met in more and more places by the fact that the business sector contributes to reinforcing the infrastructure that is missing. They reinforce roads so that extra heavy loads can be driven and buy their own trains so that they can get onto the tracks, but still, they do not get the goods out as they want.

As I mentioned earlier, nine out of ten journeys in Norrbotten must be made by car because there are no trains where people live. One can wonder why it looks that way.

Another thing: When did we last hear a party leader, for example, say that infrastructure is absolutely crucial for Aktiebolaget Sverige to do well? We hear that very rarely. Why do I say this? Well, because I think it is important that we, in all our different ways, try to show how incredibly important infrastructure is for us to be able to live, reside, and develop in our entire country.

As we have heard from several previous speakers today, it is the budget for 2024 and expenditure area 22 that we are discussing. We Social Democrats have our own proposal, and therefore we have a specific statement. I therefore do not participate in the decision.

We have had a working group in the Committee on Transport, a follow-up and research group, which has looked at how the goal fulfillment actually looks for what the government has decided should be implemented. It does not look so good either on the transport policy level or for the part that concerns the information society. We are not reaching our goals. Just as someone said here earlier, one needs to analyze this much more. What is it that makes us not reach our goals? What is it we need to do so that we reach the goals that have been set?

We Social Democrats in the Committee on Transport, who were a completely new group during the previous parliamentary term, have prioritized traveling around and meeting many people in different places in our country. Not everyone has participated, but some of us have only during the autumn been in, for example, Malmö, Nyköping, Örnsköldsvik, Gävle, Ludvika and Luleå.

The common denominator for all these places is that there are problems in one way or another with the infrastructure and that one needs to consider how we should proceed to increase growth and exports in our country. This is also something that the business community, when we meet them, presses very hard on: How are we to ensure that we increase growth in our country?

When we meet the unions, it is of course about the jobs. The job is the prerequisite for being able to live, develop, and support oneself. They also talk very much about fair conditions, and for us, fair conditions are important. It is something that we must not forget to discuss all the time.

We have also participated in a number of seminars and debates on all types of transport. Something I would like to shut down immediately is the claim that we Social Democrats do not think all types of transport are equally important. We do. All types of transport are connected. It is obvious that that is the case.

Not least, it is noticeable in the social change and the social development that we are in the midst of, thanks to technological innovations and thanks to needs that exist.

When we were in Malmö, we realized that one of the important issues might be more about how urban planning should look where not everyone has their own car but where people share cars. How can one use the space in a different way, i.e., the space that is normally used to park cars? That is one example. One needs to consider how we actually encourage those who can share vehicles to do so. Of course, not everyone can.

What should the transport system actually look like? It must look different in our country because our country looks very different in different places. But it must also be very fair. We must constantly start from a justice perspective, that not everyone has the same conditions.

Then we have the huge question that we, regardless of party or committee, always have to work with, namely the question of the climate challenge. It is the defining issue of our time. In that case, we actually need to understand that the business sector today is ahead of us in politics, far ahead of us. What they want from us are decisions and long-term perspective, so that they know what they should invest in.

We Social Democrats are open to dialogue - of course we are. We have some things that we consider important, and I thought I would mention them.

It is about the state actually having to govern more than it has done. We must point out what is important. What is it that is critical infrastructure for society? What is it that we consider important, not just so that people can move around, but also for our country's security? Then it is not just about physical infrastructure. It is equally about the digital infrastructure. As technology develops and people acquire cars, other vehicles, and things that mean they are constantly digitally connected, it is about them being able to be connected throughout our entire country. Then you cannot have a lower speed in certain places because it is complicated to run digital infrastructure to these places, because then you automatically say that no one can live there. Today, we are dependent on being digitally connected.

Another thing that is very important is the supply of skills. Regardless of the industry of the companies that are visited, they highlight the supply of skills as their most important challenge.

For the transport sector, it is very much about vocational training that leads quickly to jobs. In that case, we think it is important that people can, for example, get a driver's license. Therefore, one of the two things where our budget differs from the government basis budget is that we think that money should continue to be spent so that people can take out CSN loans to get a driver's license. A driver's license represents both a freedom and something that makes it easier to get a job.

Another thing where our budget differs from the government basis's budget is that we propose 500 million kronor more for railway maintenance because it is important that we have a plan for how we can pay off the railway maintenance.

In conclusion, we are in the midst of a societal transformation that will provide us with thousands of new jobs across our country - new green jobs. There, if we take the chance, we can actually be part of leading the development as we have done for many years. But that may require a different planning process and decision-making process.

In conclusion, I would like to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to the Speaker's Bureau, to the committee offices, and to everyone else here.

(Applause)

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I jumped a little when I heard the member's speech and she said that we have problems with the railway today. Yes, we do. I am the first to underline that. But I also get the impression that it is the now sitting government that is the cause of this. It becomes a bit of a strange description of reality.

The problems we are struggling with are even recorded in the previous national plan. It states there that both the railways and the roads will be in worse condition in 2033 than they are now. And it was the previous government that had the responsibility when this plan was drawn up. With bold courage, they nevertheless chose to allocate funds to high-speed trains even though they knew that other infrastructure will deteriorate and that they will not have the money to maintain it at the rate at which it breaks down. This results in people out in the countryside having barely passable roads. The railway system is failing. We still have signal boxes in the railway system from the 60s. They have not been replaced.

There was all the time in the world during the eight years that the previous government was in power to do something about this. But one chose not to do it. Then I must ask the question: Why did you not take the chance when you had the ball in your hands?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question. It is a bit exciting to hear how representatives from different parties use very strong words. The member used the words "with full courage". We have heard that before, but not from the Sweden Democrats, but from someone else. "With full courage" we chose to invest in the main lines. Was it this that the member said? I shall not say what I think, but I actually do not think it belongs in a debate like this.

I believe that the previous national plan was about 900 billion kronor. That is quite a lot of money and quite many investments in transport infrastructure and in digitalization in our country. But we all know - the members also know - that we have a maintenance debt, an investment debt, which has accumulated regardless of what color the governments have been that have governed this country.

Then I can send back a question. Now that the Sweden Democrats are so clearly part of the government - they are even if they do not have ministerial posts - how will they then ensure that they govern the Transport Administration that the member would like to hit? It is still the government that governs its agencies. How will the Sweden Democrats ensure that they govern in the direction they want anyway? Will it be visible in the regulatory letters already in December what the Sweden Democrats want, since they are now part of the daily work in the Government Offices?

I have a question as well, but I will wait with it until my next turn.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I suppose I must thank you for the answer that I never received.

If one takes out the national plan, which the previous government was responsible for, one can read there in plain text that it will be worse both on the roadside and on the railway side in the existing network.

Then I must still ask the question: How can one then spend money on high-speed trains when there is a crying need to get the facilities that exist to function?

It is so bad today that both industry and private individuals avoid the train because they do not know if they will arrive on the same day they leave home. Last week it took me five hours to get from Skövde to Stockholm. I could have almost cycled in the same amount of time.

It is also time for the Social Democrats to examine themselves. You had the chance to do something about the deficient maintenance, but you did not take the ball. And now you are trying to make it sound as if this government is doing nothing.

But one thing I can assure you: As long as I am standing and breathing, I will work to steer Trafikverket.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I realized that Thomas Morell is not entitled to any more remarks and that I therefore cannot ask any further questions. It was foolish of me not to take the chance to ask my second question in my first remark, since the member can no longer answer.

In response to the question: It is very wrong to say that we did not invest in maintenance, given that we increased by almost 50 percent compared to what it had been previously. One must be able to do several things at the same time, and that is what we tried to do.

For us, it is very important to build Sweden together. One should be able to live, reside and work everywhere. We also have a vision of having greater capacity on the railway, which is currently insufficient. The main lines were and are an important part of increasing the capacity in the railway system.

One can claim that we did nothing or that we prioritized incorrectly, but we obviously do not think that is true.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I listened carefully to Gunilla Svantorp's speech. If you are now traveling around and looking at problem areas in Sweden, I welcome you to Western Sweden and perhaps specifically Gothenburg. If we look forward, especially regarding the railway, we can say that it is the most underdeveloped area we have in all of Sweden considering the need. The worst capacity shortage in all of Sweden is in Western Sweden between Gothenburg and Alingsås. Given that Gothenburg harbor by 2035, after dredging, will have an 80 percent increased capacity to receive cargo, we must ensure that the section between Gothenburg and Alingsås is expanded with two new tracks. My first question is: How do the Social Democrats view supporting an investment to build two new tracks between Gothenburg and Alingsås?

What the member raised about sharing vehicles, I found interesting, and I agree. Many do not have the means to buy their own car, but in certain situations, one might need to use a car. In these times, for example, one might need to buy large Christmas presents that one needs to take home. Sharing vehicles, I think, is then an excellent way. It is also a way to get closer to self-driving cars, which will be a real "game changer". It will become cheap to drive a car when self-driving cars become part of public transport.

I would like to know what the Social Democrats and the member of Parliament's position is regarding two new tracks between Gothenburg and Alingsås.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! The reason I did not mention Gothenburg was that I only mentioned the places we have visited this autumn. We have already been to Gothenburg a long time ago. We have, after all, sat in the Transport Committee for nearly one and a half years. But one needs to travel back several times. You don't have time to meet everyone at the same occasion. In the places where we have been, we have had exciting and interesting meetings with Trafikverket, the business community, and various other actors.

I believe that the important thing, in response to the member's question, is that we achieve an increased capacity. In previous prioritizations, it has been quite clear. As the member knows, I have not sat on the transport committee before and cannot account for how the prioritization discussions have been conducted and so on. But it has been important to listen to what the regions have said about their prioritizations in the work that subsequently led to the national plan. Göteborg-Borås has been one of the prioritizations that the region has put forward. It is possible that they have changed their minds today; I do not know. What the national plan was based on was the region's prioritizations at the time when we developed it.

It is important to have more capacity, but the most important thing for us is still that businesses, people, and political assemblies in different places know what is going to apply in the long term, so that one can plan, build, and invest accordingly. Today, no one at all knows what applies, because what was previously said is being broken. Then, of course, one can throw in new things and ask questions to us. But it is still the government that must state what is going to apply, and the member's party is included in the government. I should not be the one to state it, it is the government that must do it.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! If one sees oneself as a governing party, one should have an opinion on whether the worst capacity shortage in the whole of Sweden should be built away. The Social Democrats have been responsible for eight years. I know that letters were sent from Västsverige to Eneroth, from both the Moderate and the Social Democratic regional council, where Gothenburg-Borås and Gothenburg-Alingsås were equated. But Tomas Eneroth never presented anything regarding Gothenburg-Alingsås, despite the great needs.

I want to move on to a slightly different issue. The member raised the aspect of justice in her speech and that not everyone has the same conditions in different parts of the country. One should be able to live and reside everywhere. Therefore, I wonder how the member views the fact that the Social Democrats gave directives to an inquiry regarding the closure of Bromma Airport, a hub for the regional airports. They decided on directives where it stated: We shall close the airport – how shall we do it? What was to be investigated was not whether a closure was needed. Given the member's thought that one should live and reside in the whole country, I would like to hear if she has any comment on the inquiry directives.

This with the new main lines only concerned Stockholm-Gothenburg and Stockholm-Malmö. All other parts, for example the Inlandsbanan, were left behind – there were no resources for them. No major investment was made on the Norrbotniabanan or on Göteborg-Alingsås. It went from 120 billion to 400 billion in eight years. Then one must put one's foot down and say: This is not possible.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is very strange to claim that one must keep Bromma Airport in order to be able to live, work, and reside in the whole country. No, that is truly not necessary. Surely one must be able to fly from the rest of the country to some other airport. In the current situation, it is important that we concentrate our efforts on one airport, and that must be Arlanda. In order to be able to live and reside in all of Stockholm, it is important to build new housing, and in that case, the area where Bromma Airport is located is important. We still stand behind the idea that Bromma should be closed, because we believe that it is much better to concentrate our efforts on one airport. Furthermore, the people of Stockholm need more housing, which I believe many can testify to. In that case, one must also identify the places where more housing can be built.

Then everything is always about priorities, which the member will discover if she hasn't already done so. It is clear that the main lines were the first step and that one then wants to build up the rest of the country as well. But that we have not spent money on other things, as the member stands here and claims, is actually not true. Furthermore, it was during Reinfeldt's government that the expansion of the Norrbotniabanan was stopped. It is not we who have stopped it, but the government that the member's party sat in. One must at least stick to the truth.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 22 on communications. I say this with all those who are listening in mind, for example, the young people sitting in the gallery here in the chamber.

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

Finally, the country has received a government that acts so that all of Sweden can function! It is a clear priority for us Christian Democrats and for the parties in the government cooperation. It is of great importance that jobs and growth are protected throughout the country.

Sweden is a small and export-dependent country. In order for Sweden to have good opportunities to grow, live, and develop, large investments in the transport infrastructure are needed. It is both about safeguarding what we have already built by investing in maintenance and about investing in new infrastructure where it is needed, for example for the needs of companies.

Right from the beginning, the government pointed out that the investments should primarily facilitate commuting and freight traffic. And it is indeed an incredibly important issue, because we do not have to travel very far to realize that large investments are required in both the road and railway networks. Two-thirds of the railway is over a hundred years old, and large parts of the state road network were built before 1970. It is therefore of the same age as me, so you understand how old that is!

For several decades, the maintenance of our roads and railways has been deprioritized. The maintenance debt has been allowed to grow. These deficiencies affect ordinary travelers and the important industry, Madam Speaker, and therefore the maintenance of the Swedish road and railway network must be strengthened. We Christian Democrats and the government base therefore prioritize upgrades and capacity-increasing measures in existing railways, better road standards, and an expanded charging infrastructure.

Madam Speaker! The current government wants to invest in all four modes of transport - road, rail, aviation and shipping. They are not to be pitted against each other, on the contrary. They complement each other, and that is how we strengthen combined transport in Sweden. All modes of transport are needed for all of Sweden to function.

The government has shifted gears for the railway infrastructure. In December last year, we cancelled the costly project with high-speed railways because it crowds out other necessary investments. Trafikverket has investigated other cost-effective capacity improvements for Göteborg-Borås, Skåne, and Ostlänken.

A month ago, the government also decided that Trafikverket shall restart the paused planning of the Göteborg-Borås railway corridor with a new direction. The decision also opens up for providing, within the state's existing economic framework, the solution that a broad consensus can be found around in the region and among the affected municipalities. We know that the Göteborg-Borås corridor is important for, for example, work commuting. The decision means that there will be more regional benefit for the money and better conditions for work and study commuting.

The government has also tasked Trafikverket to begin planning for a number of important measures in the railway system in Skåne that increase capacity when the Fehmarn Bält connection opens. This is very positive. The measures are within the same cost framework as the cancelled high-speed project Hässleholm-Lund. For Skåne, the decision means that there will be more both regional benefit and freight benefit for the money by having two tracks between Hässleholm and Lund complemented with additional capacity-increasing measures.

In northern Sweden, it is important to meet the large corporate establishments and business expansions. Here, the government has tasked Trafikverket to provide proposals on how the projects can be accelerated.

Mr. Speaker! We know that the country's regional airports are struggling financially. Regional airports are important for, for example, the business community to be able to function in the municipalities all around Sweden. The parties in the government base therefore strengthen the state operating support from today's 103 million to 210 million in this budget. The time is over for casting flight shame on aviation; with electric flight and biofuels in mind, it instead becomes flight joy.

Another very important issue is AI. We see how important it is that Sweden is a nation at the forefront in these matters. The AI commission that the government has decided to appoint will be very important to strengthen Sweden's competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker! Previously, Sweden was a strong maritime nation. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case – ship after ship has flown out. Previous governments have not prioritized Swedish shipping. But that time is now over, and we want instead to strengthen Swedish shipping and make it more competitive. It is important to get more ships to become Swedish-flagged. In a restless time, it is a decisive factor that we have a Swedish merchant fleet worthy of the name. Therefore, the government has commissioned an inquiry into stamp duty and tonnage taxation.

In conclusion, I would like to wish all my colleagues in the committee, all the hardworking staff at the office, and Mr. Speaker a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There has been a lot of talk in the chamber about the new government prioritizing existing railways and that we are to get the railway system we have today to function better. Therefore, I want to ask about a project that I am very worried about given the consequences it will have. The project will start in almost exactly one year and then continue for a number of years forward, and it is about replacing electrical system lines and poles along the Västra stambanan and Södra stambanan.

Since it seems to be a favorite pastime to try to misunderstand each other in this chamber, I really want to emphasize that I am not against people carrying out renovations. What we need to discuss, however, is how we carry out those renovations, and that is also my question to the member.

The project that has been chosen - the direction taken by Trafikverket - means that the capacity on the Västra stambanan will be reduced by between 55 and 65 percent. This means that every second train risks being cancelled. One is moving from double track to single track, and every third weekend, traffic between Sweden's largest cities will be cancelled entirely.

The work will, as said, continue for several years. We already have railway passengers who are severely tested by trains that are cancelled or delayed, and with this plan for how the project is to be carried out, I am afraid that the last shred of confidence in our railway system risks being lost completely.

It is the Christian Democrats who, in the government, are responsible for the infrastructure by virtue of holding the position of Minister for Infrastructure. My question to Magnus Oscarsson is: Will the Christian Democrats allow this project to be carried out in the way it is planned, with the enormous consequences it will have for railway traffic in Sweden?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Per Bolund for a very important question. There are many who are currently wondering what will happen.

Per Bolund is correct that Miljöpartiet is not against investments, and of course, we know that. The investments need to be made, and the Swedish Transport Administration has also said when they came to our committee – that this is something that should have been done a long time ago. I actually dislike just bringing up what the previous government did not do, but I still want to convey in the chamber that the Swedish Transport Administration is talking about ten-year-old sins that should have been addressed. We can perhaps still agree that it is good that it is being done now.

The question, however, is how we are to proceed. Trafikverket has, as stated, been in our committee and held discussions, and I know that discussions naturally occur with the government regarding how they intend to do this. As the member is aware, it is not satisfactory that people should have to wait and perhaps feel that this will not turn out as well as they had hoped. We have, as stated, heard what Trafikverket says, and we will have to return when we know more after the authority has spoken with the government.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Magnus Oscarsson for the answer, even though I did not quite get an answer to the question of whether the Christian Democrats and the government intend to do anything to change these plans. It sounded more like one simply thinks that all the train travelers of the Swedish people should suffer, as it does not seem like one will lift a finger to get a change in place.

The important thing in this issue is that there actually are alternatives. There are other ways to do it that would mean it happens in a much more painless way. In fact, SJ, which is a state actor and therefore represents the entire Swedish people and the Swedish state, says that the way one has chosen is the way that harms traffic maximally.

There have been previous agreements with train operators that the work could be done at night. This would of course reduce the effects very significantly for road users and train traffic, but Trafikverket has backed out of that.

There are also methods by which one could do it much faster than with the one that has been chosen now. One could, for example, use thread-switching trains that make it possible to do it much faster. It would shorten the time from 24 hours for a train route to eight or even six hours.

Using the most modern technology is also, according to all assessors, what would be most socio-economically profitable. But it would require the government to give directives and be clear towards Trafikverket that innovative solutions and the best methods should be used, even if it might only be a state actor that can satisfy that and has the technology in place.

We must still be able to agree that it is better to use the technology that is best, even if only one supplier can use it, than to instead use inferior technology that takes longer and results in much greater traffic consequences for both freight and passenger traffic.

Again: Will the Christian Democrats just let this misery happen? Will you let the road users endure the torment and suffering, or will you act to carry out the renovation in the best and most efficient way?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks again to Per Bolund!

It surprises me, Per Bolund. The member is a former spokesperson, and the member has also been a minister. As a minister, one knows very well that one cannot simply judge, but one must be very humble and listen.

Then, of course, one can conduct talks from the government's side with the relevant state agencies. But one is very careful. One has nevertheless understood that one does not step in and judge and decide over the heads of the agencies.

I have, in any case, understood it when I in turn have had interpellation debates with ministers from the member's own government. I still want to have it underscored. The member may still know that it works in that way.

What the member is raising is undoubtedly infinitely important. Conversations are still hopefully taking place as a result of what we ourselves do from the committee's side. Discussions are taking place with the relevant Trafikverket. I think that it is also happening from the government with the conversations they have with Trafikverket. It will hopefully lead to the situation being reviewed in some way.

It is an important question. If there are too few trains and other transports, it will lead to much more serious matters.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, member, for the point in the speech if nothing else!

The whole country needs to get focus on this. Now the entire department and the two ministers, the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Infrastructure, belong to the same party as the member. It is important to be able to deepen the discussions on some of the issues that we need to take up.

The Member of Parliament mentioned how long we have had the roads in Sweden and compared it with his own age. The Member of Parliament mentioned the importance of strengthening the maintenance of those roads.

I think the member also has a past in the countryside. One can look at Östergötland versus Västergötland. You in Östergötland perhaps also have quite a lot of gravel roads left, so to speak, in Västergötland. But there are also many private roads.

We have many tens of thousands of miles of private roads. I would like to ask a bit. Does the member believe that the supplement for the maintenance of private roads will really be enough for anything connected to the inflation we have and the cost increases we see? The government is also raising the gravel tax. It is connected to the possibility of graveling our roads.

In what way does the member believe that there will be any resources that improve the maintenance? Is it not the case that the cost increases will mean that we will not even reach the level that we would need to reach? That was my first question.

My second question concerns what I appreciate the member raised, namely AI and the digital issues. In what way does the member analyze the fact that we have fallen behind as much as we have in being able to use the digital infrastructure in such a way that we are at the forefront? The member also mentioned that.

What else besides appointing an AI commission can solve it? What is the analysis behind it? What problem description does the member see?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Ulrika Heie, for good and important questions!

From the committee's side, we had an AI hearing not so long ago. It provided very much. Other parts of the Riksdag have also had various conversations and discussions about AI.

The chairman himself was in another exchange of remarks about how Sweden has nevertheless backed down very much in these issues. Someone also mentioned that we were at the forefront a few years ago. It is very sad that it is in that way.

The government's intention to appoint an AI commission is nevertheless important. In some way, one must start, and it is a matter of us getting momentum. I have a close relative who works with those issues. They say there that Sweden has not really been in the game. In some way, they have waited. What is the state doing, and how do you intend to act?

We see what fantastic opportunities there are with AI. One must also include that it can cause a great deal of trouble if the wrong people and the wrong states get hold of this. Sweden is nevertheless a country that can be at the forefront. What do I think about this? It is important that we demonstrate that we truly are a nation to be reckoned with. That is the answer to the member's question.

We have put a lot of money in our budget for private roads. It is something that I believe will be important for many who have private roads. We are going to invest in it. When this government says that we want to work so that all of Sweden can live, we mean that too.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, member!

I would like to deepen the reasoning a bit further. When it comes to individual roads, my question was: Will it be enough? Will it become anything more of the resources that the government is adding anyway, given the cost level we see and the inflation we have, and considering that the government is raising the tax in the area? I would very much like to see some more in-depth reasoning about that.

I am also thinking about what I mentioned. In our report, it states that we are not reaching the overall goal for the digitalization policy. Then the AI commission cannot be the only answer that the government has linked to how we are to be the country that is best in the world at using the digital infrastructure and the digital tools?

What else is in the government's toolbox besides appointing an AI commission? What does the further analysis look like behind the problematization that we nevertheless see in this area? I would very much like the member to be a bit clearer.

We have, as a committee as a whole, requested this. How are we to reach the goal we have set regarding digitalization? I understand that it concerns everything from digitalization to gravel roads. But these are incredibly important issues for the countryside. It somehow ties together the infrastructure where the road ends and the broadband must arrive.

In what way does the member see that it will be a real reinforcement and not just positive happy cheers about gaining momentum or doing things? Where is the de facto policy that will lead to strengthened competitiveness?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Member Ulrika Heie, for your questions!

Exactly what the member is touching upon is what we politicians often hear: You're just talking! It's just a lot of talk!

I completely agree with what the member says – we must ensure that if we say things, it must also be noticeable for people who live and work in the countryside.

Now we have, as I said initially, finally received a government that is not just talk but also action. Even if the member may not believe it will be so. I have great confidence that we mean business.

Then I received the question about AI. Naturally, it is the case that just one commission is not enough. But it is a good start, and it is an important start - because we have not had anything such before. It is important that that commission now produces things.

What do we have in Sweden? How can we take advantage of what exists? We have companies that are truly world-leading in this, and they underscore what we heard at the hearing a short while ago. They ask where we are. Is Sweden in the game? We also saw what enormous products can be produced.

This is something that I believe is incredibly important now. It is a beginning, a very important beginning, to see what we have in Sweden. If funds are needed, yes, then the commission will naturally highlight that to us in both the Riksdag and the government. I have confidence that it will be so.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! We have now heard a bit maniacally from all the government parties about how the high-speed train is the absolute most expensive and worst thing that could ever happen. It would erode the entire infrastructure. We would not be able to afford anything at all. And, hallelujah, it didn't happen! Now we are supposed to somehow reformat the railway and fix it in small, fragmented parts.

Now we stand where we stand. There will not be any high-speed railway. We can leave that entire debate there. There will also not be any new main lines, and that is stupid and bad. But if we want to build at least a bit more – for a lot of railway needs to be built in Sweden besides main lines – it will be necessary to have another way to finance that construction.

I have submitted a proposal for a committee initiative in the committee. At that time, no one really wanted to stand up for the fact that the issue is being driven, but there are many parties in the Riksdag that are driving the issue of either loan financing or some form of alternative financing.

We have now heard repeatedly from the government parties that this is something that is being looked at. That is very good, and I really want to extend my political hand in this. We must be able to jointly agree and have a consensus on how we are to finance the railway that is truly needed.

Magnus Oscarsson's party colleague Andreas Carlson is the Minister for Infrastructure. But even his party leader Ebba Busch has come out and said that the state must take greater responsibility for the large investments, whether they are in nuclear power or in railways.

As an opposition politician, I want to hear how the work is progressing and when we will actually see what the government intends regarding the alternative financing.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Linda Snecker, for a very good question!

Just as Linda is pointing out, much of the discussion in the chamber today has been about the high-speed railway even though it, as the member says, is a non-issue now. However, we have talked about it, and that shows that it is a question that will nevertheless be relevant a couple more times in the debates ahead.

As Linda Snecker is in, I and the government are very happy that we put our foot down. We saw that the money that was to be invested - which we thought existed but did not exist - needed to be put on something else.

In response to the member's question, it is very true, what the member was touching upon. I and we others are part of the government base. But, a secret, I do not sit at the government table where one can listen to everything that is said. I cannot answer exactly what is being spoken about now.

The only thing I know is what I myself have seen and heard, and that is what the member was getting at. We are looking at alternative financing. We need to invest more, without doubt. Sweden needs to get more robust and better railways and also better and in different ways more robust roads. The maintenance debt, which has been and is very large, must also be fixed.

The answer to the member's question is therefore that we will take this, and we will of course announce when the government is in agreement.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! It concerns me somewhat that there is no greater clarity regarding what the government parties mean by alternative financing. There are, after all, quite large differences.

My party can absolutely consider debt financing – that we do not do as we do when we borrow for smaller expenses that are to be paid off in a year, which we who have been municipal politicians are used to handling, but that we actually borrow in order to be able to invest for the future. We can also consider an investment budget, which the municipalities also have, in order to be able to make these large investments that are needed.

But I hear no answer at all from Magnus Oscarsson on this question, not even in which direction you lean. Is it towards loan financing? Is it more towards consortia, such as the Botniabanan was financed when it was built in the 90s? Then one teamed up with regions and companies.

There are many ways to finance infrastructure. I have all the respect for the fact that the member does not sit at the department's table every day, but he sits significantly closer to the department than I do. Above all, the member's three ministers are involved in both nuclear power, railways, and AI. They are KD ministers. I think you must have more dialogue about what the way forward should be.

If you don't have it, you really need to extend a hand to the opposition, because we have ideas on how we want to build railways when the government is not so keen on it. Those who want to include us are those whom the government should prioritize, namely Swedish business which also wants railways for green transport. And if the government cannot manage to talk about what an alternative financing is, I absolutely think we should sit at the same table so that we can tell a bit more.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Linda Snecker, for your follow-up questions!

It is absolutely so, member, that we have them for discussion. But, again, when it comes to decisions, they must still be made by the government.

I know, Linda Snecker, that the Government Offices are preparing how to fix this. But I was at a debate a few weeks ago where we talked about this. Then it was up, and I recall that the member flagged red when we talked about, for example, alternative financing from the private side. I might be wrong. In any case, I think it is important, what the member is getting at. How can we do this?

I know that the government will take responsibility. The government is also open to reviewing how money can be brought in for this, because just as the member is aware, it is needed to improve, above all, the railway network. It is a very important part that we will tackle, and I have full confidence that the government will solve it in a very good way.

(Applause)

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are investing in commuter travel and freight transport, says the Moderate-led government after a year earlier, together with the Sweden Democrats, having stopped the construction of new main lines – the measure that most clearly would have increased railway capacity for all trains and built Sweden's green industry into the future, and the infrastructure investment that regions and municipalities across large parts of Sweden had prepared for.

Now we are investing in work commuting, says the government. At the same time, Ekot reports that there are track switches up to 100 years old causing over 400 train delays.

Now we are investing in work commuting, says the government, and stands helpless when Trafikverket is unable to procure overhead line replacements with contractors who have modern machinery that ensures the replacements do not take several years with single-track operation on one of Sweden's most heavily trafficked sections.

Now we are focusing on freight transport, says the government, and are not listening at all to Swedish business which wants to build more railway, especially in northern Sweden where large investments were needed.

We are not going to pit types of transport against each other, says the government and lowers the tax on petrol and diesel by 6.5 billion and removes bonus-malus, whereupon electric car sales drop drastically.

Mr. Speaker! There will be no investments in commuting to work. If the government wanted to invest, the government would build more railway – we all know that the railway is full – and furthermore ensure that the regions' deficits decreased and the state investment increased.

Sweden's regions face major economic challenges. The regions expect deficits of 20-30 billion, and the debt burden will increase. It is the regions that are responsible for what I believe the government means when they say commuting, i.e., regional public transport. That there will be more buses and that they will run more often is more of a pipe dream than a reality with the government's budget.

Mr. Speaker! We see how infrastructure is absolutely crucial in crisis and war. In Ukraine, the railway has transported both Swedish Members of Parliament and ministers. In the subway near the Russian border, children go to school, because it is in the subway that it is safest. Food deliveries are made via freight trains to a population in crisis.

Infrastructure is not something a country can afford in good times. Infrastructure is absolutely crucial for our way of life. In some countries, the railway is literally the lifeline.

The government is, however, not interested in more people traveling by train or in the railway existing as an insurance in times of crisis; instead, it is the car that is most important. The number of drivers shall increase by lowering fuel prices. At the same time, the price for public transport users has only increased.

According to the Minister for Climate and Environment, what is most important are comfortable seats and wifi, not what it costs to take the bus - as if public transport passengers were completely insensitive to price and arriving on time, while motorists must be able to drive cheaply and arrive on time. It is a very strange policy.

This matter of electrification, which is supposed to manage the transition, take us into the future, and enable us to meet the climate goals, is also not exactly the government's strong suit. Ringhals flips, as it turns out, like when my children play disco with the light on in their rooms. New nuclear power will probably take 20-30 years to build. Then we have these small nuclear power plants, and none of them are really being used today. The government is also not allocating any extra funds for expanded charging infrastructure during 2024. Thus, even electrification is empty words from the government.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party wants to invest the society out of the crisis instead. We invest in real commuting. We allocate 4 billion more than the government for an expanded public transport system and 1 billion for electric bus premiums, something that the government has completely removed.

It is not neither the access to comfortable seats and wifi that makes more people travel by public transport, but the price and the offering. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet wants those who take the bus and the tram to also receive subsidies. Just as the government lowers the fuel price, Vänsterpartiet wants to lower the price of bus tickets.

We want to introduce a Sweden ticket, which would cost 450 kronor, for public transport. A regional card on Östgötatrafiken at my home costs 1,330 kronor today. Instead of us having to download different apps, register payment cards, and keep track of different fares and zones when we change counties, one card should work in all of Sweden. It is reasonable, and it would increase travel by public transport. What would it cost? Well, less than lowering the tax on fuels.

It is obvious that it is not possible to build more infrastructure with the current forms of financing. That is why Vänsterpartiet wants an investment budget. But alternative financing was also needed – for example, loan financing, something that Trafikverket also requests – in order to be able to build more railway. What the government thinks, wants, and considers right is quite unclear, as we have just heard in the exchanges of remarks. Building new is something they are, in any case, not really keen on.

Mr. Speaker! It is a budget debate after all, so I thought I would go through some figures.

Vänsterpartiet wants to invest 170 billion kronor in the upgrading and expansion of the transport infrastructure over the next ten years. We propose that the investment in new main lines be loan-financed and that sustainable transport be prioritized over the construction of new motorways. Future infrastructure must be guided by the climate goals and nothing else.

When it comes to the road pothole, we are allocating 500 million more than the government to maintain roads in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas.

We are allocating 120 million to educational initiatives to get more people to apply for jobs within the maritime industry and the railway. There is a major labor shortage here today. More bus drivers, sea captains, and pilots are needed, but also people in all these technical occupations that the construction of the new railway requires.

We are allocating 5 billion more than the government on the maintenance debt on the railway. We would, among other things, like to upgrade the Inlandsbanan, Dalabanan, Bohusbanan, Lysekilsbanan, Kinnekullebanan, Stångådalsbanan and Tjustbanan as well as the Kust-till-kust-banan and Västkustbanan.

We do not want to phase out the urban environment agreements, which create the very conditions for the municipalities to achieve good public transport. We believe they should remain, unlike the government which wants to remove them.

We are also adding 30 million more for operational support for charging infrastructure. We want an electricity bonus so that more people can buy electric cars at a more reasonable price. It is expensive with cars today, and it will probably continue to be so. Here we must provide a subsidy to get closer to meeting the climate goals.

We are finally adding 200 million more to Gotlandstrafiken than the government does.

Mr. Speaker! Everything is about priorities. Infrastructure is not a luxury in good times; it is the society's lifeblood. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet allocates a total of 15 billion more to infrastructure investments. We see it as necessary so that people can arrive at work on time, so that goods can be transported electrically on the railway, and so that public transport will become cheaper for the passengers.

I want to refer to our special statement.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the Left Party's budget proposal, it is clear that they do not consider aviation to be a good mode of transport. We would prefer not to travel by plane, and the environmental goals are the most important thing. In the Left Party's world, the two are not something that can be combined.

If one is to have that attitude towards a mode of transport that many companies say they need and that many people appreciate when they want to travel quickly between different parts of Sweden or out into the world, it is good if one has the right basis and makes decisions based on the right conditions.

Last week we were at a mingle at Transportföretagen. Linda Snecker was also there. She was then asked what proportion of the domestic emissions from the transport sector were accounted for by domestic flights. I think everyone in the room gasped when Member Snecker said 30 percent. In reality, less than 1 percent of the emissions from domestic transport come from domestic flights. I might have guessed 3 percent if I had been in Member Snecker's position, and that would have been high. But the difference between less than 1 percent and 30 percent is substantial.

What figures are actually at the basis of the Left Party's aviation policy?

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am not at all as accustomed to attending receptions at Svenskt Näringsliv as Member Stockhaus is. I was a little nervous. It is unusual to find oneself at as many receptions as I have understood Stockhaus to attend. It is clear that it created a certain feeling.

I am also not very good with figures and statistics. I come from the crime policy side and have not sat here for very long. Many in this committee are much more skilled at attending receptions and at figures and various things concerning climate and the environment. But I am learning.

I have, among other things, learned from the seminar that Stockhaus's colleague organized just now, at lunchtime, where we listened to the aviation industry. It was SAS, Bra, Norwegian and several others who said: No one wants to fly. Therefore, the airlines do not make ends meet. They are running at a deficit. It does not work. In the market economy we have, where supply and demand are supposed to rule, the demand is not large enough for all those companies.

I think it is very interesting that so few want to fly, that the airlines are not making a profit and that the airports are running at a deficit while the trains are full. And it is expensive to travel by train, because SJ's pricing inflates the prices. We don't even have to talk about how expensive the Christmas tickets are.

Since the trains are full, my party wants to follow the market economy, that supply and demand should match each other. I am a bit worried that Maria Stockhaus's party wants it as it is in another country, perhaps as it was in the Soviet Union, where it is not supply and demand that rule but where the state steps in and governs.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! The comments about the number of mingles are below even Linda Sneckers' level of debate. We receive exactly the same invitations to all mingles at various interest organizations within our industries. I believe that Member Snecker is well aware of that.

I did not receive an answer to my question. Member Sneckers' picture is that 30 percent of the emissions from domestic transport come from aviation. But it is actually under 1 percent. Part of the problem that the airlines in Sweden have, compared to how it is in other countries, is that the debate is completely biased here.

During the election year, Bra flew with 100 percent biofuel from Malmö to Stockholm. I was the only politician who was on site to celebrate the great victory that it represents for the environment and aviation. No other politician in this house or from the previous government deigned to come there, despite having received an invitation.

Virgin Atlantic flew across the Atlantic a few weeks ago on 100 percent biofuel. It was a small note about it on Rapport in the morning. Otherwise, it was completely dead. It is nothing that any politician brings up.

It is clear that the Swedish people believe that aviation emits as much as it did in the 50s and that it is the biggest climate villain in the entire world. That is not true. On a total level in the world, it accounts for about 4 or 5 percent, and it therefore accounts for under 1 percent of the emissions from transport in Sweden.

It is possible to purchase biofuel equivalent to one's own plane ticket. It does not cost particularly much, and one helps aviation transition. If the Swedish people were allowed to participate in a political debate that actually started from the truth, that is to say under 1 percent and not 30 percent which was Member Sneckers' guess at Svenskt Näringsliv, I believe that the demand for flying would look completely different.

This government intends to settle the flight shame step by step. And this is an important debate to have.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! I also think it is beneath all criticism that the member brings up something I said incorrectly at a mingle instead of what I say in the legislative assembly. This is not the best exchange of remarks I have been part of, and I have been part of quite a few and harsh ones, including in the justice policy.

Mr. Speaker! I did not hear Member Stockhaus answer my question regarding whether it is no longer supply and demand that should govern the transport market. In such cases, we truly have a paradigm shift to address, if it is to be about different moral questions.

We see that the Swedish people do not want to fly. The aviation industry has not recovered after the pandemic. No one is requesting flights anymore. The airlines are not doing well, and the airports are running at a deficit. In my home municipality, Norrköping, 300 million of our tax money is being spent to keep our small airport running. At the same time, there are also airports in Jönköping, Norrköping, Linköping, Skavsta, Bromma, and Arlanda. There are a huge number of airports that no one wants to use.

I travel, unlike Stockhaus, by train very often. The trains are full, and they have problems because it is too crowded on the railway. Here we have a huge demand for a mode of transport. Yet it is the mode of transport that no one wants that Member Stockhaus is concerned that no one wants and no one talks about.

It may be because aviation is no longer as interesting. A paradigm shift has occurred regarding how we travel and how we want to travel. The climate issue is much more important for the generation that is currently active in the labor market. That is good. We should have an infrastructure that people want to use, that is to say not aviation, which people do not want to use.

Here we differ. But I do not intend to embrace a transport solution for which there is no demand.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I had actually not intended to bring up flights versus railways in this exchange of remarks. But when the debate becomes such, it is indeed tempting.

I become a bit apprehensive when we discuss the level of aviation emissions and it is obvious that there is such a discrepancy in knowledge. If we are to have a discussion about how we are to reduce emissions and address the climate problems, we members of this house must have some kind of grip on how large the emissions actually are.

The committee was at the airport in Norrköping and you do not want to participate in paying for it. It says in your text that there is a need for emergency airports, but at the same time you do not want to promote and subsidize commercial operation of airports. Then I must ask: How have you planned for the emergency airports to be able to exist if there is no economy to operate air traffic?

Aviation plays an immensely important role in our country's infrastructure. And we are moving towards lowering emissions from aviation and reducing its impact on the environment. Emissions are low today, and they will be lower in a fairly near future. But we must stick to figures that we are sure of.

I was a bit startled when I listened to the exchange just now. I sincerely hope that it is not synonymous with the Left Party's view in these debates. Then it becomes problematic.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am proud that the Committee on Transport sees me as the new Jens Holm, the Vänsterpartiet's former chairman of the Committee on Transport and one of Sweden's best climate and environmental politicians.

I am pleased that you set high demands on me to be able to know incredibly much, especially when I am a lone member and responsible for all traffic laws, digitalization, mail, and everything else that this committee works with. I am proud and happy that you set that demand on me, but I will not be able to deliver every single figure correctly on the fly during different mingles; on this, member Morell was not even present and listening. I am pleased that the member has that confidence in my knowledge. I will need to learn more. That is always the case. The whole life is a learning process.

There will be a need for emergency airports - that is absolutely clear. And it is obvious that we have too many airports in Sweden today because the airports are not economically viable. I think it is bad that Norrköping's tax money goes to an airport that is used for charter flights. There is no other traffic today. The traffic that existed has been discontinued. Furthermore, we have the East Götaland aviation capital in Linköping, where Saab is located.

It would be very good to just have one airport in Linköping but not in Norrköping, Jönköping or Skavsta. We must be careful with our tax funds, Thomas Morell, while at the same time we must ensure that the preparedness is in place.

I am concerned about tax revenues, and therefore I do not think we should offer flights in the way it is done today because no one wants to fly anymore, in contrast to how it looks on the trains, which are always fully booked on the overcrowded Swedish railway. Therefore, we need to invest in what people want.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am also mindful of the taxpayers' money, but I am also mindful of our ability to defend ourselves if an attacker comes from the outside - and then we need to have standby airfields. They will not just appear out of nowhere.

Now I shall return to what actually caused me to request the floor. It concerns the stretch between Göteborg and Alingsås, overhead line replacements, and deficiencies in railway maintenance. This did not come as a surprise but is something that has existed for many years. Then one must ask why Vänsterpartiet has not acted earlier to increase the maintenance on the railway and, above all, been involved in considering how we should solve the need for overhead line replacements that exists on the Västra stambanan. You have been so fixated on the high-speed train and that part of the railway that you have completely missed the needs on the Västra stambanan.

Now we are facing a situation that is dramatic when it comes to passenger traffic and, above all, freight traffic. We have Sweden's largest port in Gothenburg. If we cannot solve the freight transport from there, we will have a traffic infarction in Gothenburg.

It would be better if you examined yourselves and reflected on why you did not see the opportunities to build an additional double track between Alingsås and Göteborg. I would like to hear an explanation for that.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet wants to build significantly more railway than the government parties do. We want to build railway with loan financing, we want an investment budget and we want to build new main lines.

Let us put that matter regarding the high-speed train aside for now, because it has become some kind of conspiracy theory among the government parties and something that completely blinds you from seeing the railway's capacity at all.

With the Left Party's budget, significantly more railway will be built. We are allocating 170 billion kronor more just for the renovation and expansion of the transport infrastructure over the next ten years. That is considerably more than what the government is allocating.

I must inform Thomas Morell that the Left Party has not sat in the ministries or in the government. We have had influence over certain issues. We have been strongly engaged in building new main lines, as traffic will increase.

If we have more tracks, it will increase the possibility for the high-speed trains to schedule their trains closer together and to run faster and more. It will also increase the freight capacity by allowing us to separate the fast passenger trains from the freight trains, which can run slower and in a different way. Today, both the member of Parliament and I are sitting on the X2000 in front of freight trains that cannot move forward because we have too little railway. This is the big problem. Then we can argue about whether someone didn't do anything in a certain year.

Vänsterpartiet has always pushed for more infrastructure. We are investing 700 billion more in green investments, because we want all of Sweden to live, from north to south.

What I think Member Thomas Morell should do is ensure that the government delivers some railway so that we can get to work on time - that is his great task.

(Applause)

(cont. § 13)

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