Communications

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

Now we shall debate expenditure area 22 Communications and the appropriations for transport and infrastructure. I would like to start by thanking the government for good cooperation between the Tidö parties. We have now produced a good budget for the coming years. For our area, expenditure area 22, the sum amounts to a considerable 94.4 billion.

In the municipalities, people often talk about properties being used as a budget regulator, and many municipalities have neglected maintenance on properties. In a similar way, one could also view our roads and railways, especially in light of the fact that we have a very high maintenance debt. For the railway alone, it is estimated to amount to an incredible 90 billion. For our roads, it is not quite as bad – we are talking about the order of magnitude of 20 billion kronor. Trafikverket itself says that an additional 150 billion is required by 2037 to manage the existing maintenance and planned projects, and an additional 120 billion was needed to amortize the entire maintenance debt. In the end, I am doubtful whether it will be enough, even though it is my absolute hope that it does not run away further.

Establishing infrastructure was probably not cheap in the time of the Roman Empire. It was not cheap to start building the main railway lines in the 1850s, and it was not cheap when the motorways began to be built in the 1950s. And one thing we can probably agree on: It is really not cheap in 2024.

I intended to make a small comparison between what was budgeted in the years 2022 and 2025. In 2022, 31.9 billion kronor were budgeted for development, or if one prefers, investments, regarding the state's transport infrastructure. For the coming year, 2025, this item stands at 41 billion. For maintenance or upkeep, it was 30.4 billion in 2022, and for 2025, it is 40.3 billion.

Three years later, we are therefore spending 28 percent more on investment and 33 percent more on maintenance. It is not that we have built significantly more or are maintaining significantly more, but rather it is overall a result of everything having become very expensive. And for all intents and purposes, it applies to most things in society, such as milk and electricity. Petrol and diesel are fortunately exempt, and for that, I thank a good Tidösamarbete.

What do I want to have said with this, Madam Speaker? Yes, one conclusion is that even if we think it is expensive to build today, it will still be significantly much more expensive in the future. Another conclusion is similar: If we think it is expensive to maintain our infrastructure today, it will still be substantially more expensive in the future.

Thus, it is the most unwise thing we can do not to allocate enough money to maintain our infrastructure without letting it decay and building up a maintenance debt.

A third conclusion is that it will likely become harder and harder to afford building new infrastructure in ten years, and it will become even harder in 20 years, as much indicates that the likely scenario is continued rising costs for new construction. In relation to general cost increases, the cost will likely run away.

Thus, it is very important that we now allocate the money we have set aside in the budget to the right projects. These are projects with high social utility. It concerns roads and railways where many travel or where a lot of goods are transported. This must be taken into account in the upcoming national plan.

Madam Speaker! I note that the opposition parties allocate something more – with the Green Party and the Left Party it is considerably more – in their budgets, but I also note that, as usual, more surcharges, i.e., taxes and fees, are to be placed on those who fly, on those who drive cars, and on our hauliers. It is worth noting that motorists and hauliers already today pay significantly more into the state treasury than those who travel by train or public transport. Just the tax on vehicle fuel amounts to around 100 billion kronor. Add to that tax revenues from congestion charges, road tolls, service, and spare parts.

With a budget of around 35 billion for the current year, road traffic therefore pays in round figures 70 billion more than it costs the state. At the same time, we have a budget for rail traffic of approximately 37 billion, and we receive approximately 2 billion in track access charges.

The remaining 35 billion can therefore be considered as the amount by which road traffic subsidizes rail traffic. Rail traffic has a cost-recovery rate of 5-6 percent. In addition, there will be 35-40 billion for other government items from the surplus in the road transport sector.

It is expensive enough to drive a car for today's families, and from the Sweden Democrats' side, we are not amused by increasing the costs for either the transport companies or the families heavily burdened by inflation who are dependent on their cars. It is also worth noting that 82 percent of transport work in Sweden is carried out on the roads, 11 percent takes place on our railways, and 6 percent is air traffic. Only 1 percent consists of shipping. The train absolutely has an important function to fulfill, but so do our trucks and cars.

Madam Speaker! Our infrastructure is fundamental to our prosperity. When we debate railway, aviation, shipping, and air transport here, we are also talking about the backbone of Sweden's economy. It is about the basis for our competitiveness but also about something as important as our freedom of movement and to travel. For far too long, we have turned a blind eye to the fact that our infrastructure has worn down significantly faster than we have maintained it.

We have also seen how much the traffic curves have increased, and here we see above all great challenges on roads and railways in the metropolitan areas but also on railways with a lot of freight and single tracks. In order for us to be able to continue the projects that are in the current national plan, I therefore welcome that we can provide the funds in the budget that are required to continue strengthening the capacity. Just compared with last year's budget, we are increasing the funds for investment by 12 percent and for maintenance by a full 19 percent.

Now it is up to Trafikverket to deliver. In report after report, the National Audit Office has pointed out the lack of cost control and the deficient competence within Trafikverket. There is therefore a mandate for Trafikverket to produce more effective procurements.

Madam Speaker! Speaking of procurements, we have for a long time supported the replacement of contact lines, poles, and foundations, as well as the auxiliary power system that supplies switches, substations, and signals with electricity on the Västra stambanan. It shall also be converted to an AT-system which, in simplified terms, makes it possible to obtain a higher power output from the contact line. The first stage is Olskroken-Alingsås.

It should also be said that this is the first of four projects. If Trafikverket has not changed its planning, this will be followed by an additional three sections in the direction of Laxå.

In the past, this would have been a given project for Banverket Industridivisionen, which was ranked as Europe's best railway builder. This organization was unfortunately dissolved in 2010. Industridivisionen was focused on industrial construction that was fast and efficient. Through its size, it could invest in modern machinery on a large scale, and it had a lot of personnel to be able to carry out the projects quickly. Today, those resources do not exist, whether it concerns staffing or the fleet of machinery. This first section will now be partially closed, which creates capacity constraints and extreme sensitivity to disruptions for a long period – from January 2025 to 2027.

The Western Main Line is a pulse artery for both freight and passenger traffic. The project has been tendered, and for this specific project, we can do nothing more than keep our fingers crossed and hope that the timetable arrangement holds. Long-term, however, I mean that it is not socio-economically sustainable not to build industrially, as several hundred kilometers of overhead lines, rails, and over 1,000 switches need to be replaced.

In my opinion, the best solution for this would of course be to recreate the Banverket Industridivisionen, but if it is not possible to reach a political consensus on this, something else must be done. It is possible that the agency could procure machines, but if they are to get them to perform correctly, specialist competence is needed. Today's machines are significantly more efficient than, for example, the Industridivisionen's old wire-changing trains and can also lay foundations. I assume that Trafikverket, in its mandate, is truly looking at being able to carry out more efficient procurements and is looking deeply specifically at the question of how one can obtain better machines and organization for the whole.

Madam Speaker! I intended to conclude with more railway, namely the new signaling system ERTMS. It has existed for a while, but it has not been introduced on so many sections in Sweden. We Sverigedemokrater have previously said that it should not be introduced broadly until the system is well tested and the risk of errors has been minimized.

Now the time has come. The signaling system has been commissioned on parts of the Malmbanan, and what I have gathered is that it has functioned well. So-called signaling errors, i.e., various forms of errors linked to the signaling system, cause around 10,000 delay hours per year, plus or minus 20 percent. In the Swedish National Audit Office's review, one can also read that ERTMS significantly reduces the number of errors linked to the signaling system. It also provides a more uniform system that should become considerably cheaper to maintain.

With the Tidö parties' initiatives, the idea is that ERTMS shall be introduced by 2042 instead of 2070, as it stands in the current plan. At that point, I will be 98 years old, if I am still alive. We will also avoid a large part of the cost of replacing today's ATC system in order to subsequently decommission it.

From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we, as the other Tidö parties, will work diligently to improve, strengthen, and streamline the maintenance of Sweden's infrastructure and the construction thereof.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Patrik Jönsson, for an interesting contribution!

I would like to ask about, and reflect on, a few things. Patrik Jönsson spoke very much about how difficult and expensive it is today. I would like to go back to what the global situation was like in the 1800s when the current main lines, which we still have, were built. It was then that very many Swedes who lived in famine and poverty emigrated. War was also near, but we still had the means to build. Today, however, we do not have the means to build. How does the member view that?

Patrik Jönsson also spoke about social utility and that the Tidö parties should only do what is socio-economically beneficial to do. It is clear that one gets many reflections about that, not least considering that we know that the socio-economic models used to determine social utility disadvantage the railway very much.

I know that Patrik Jönsson is passionate about the railway and thinks it is very important. I would therefore like to know how Patrik Jönsson views our use of models that so clearly disadvantage one of the modes of transport.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Gunilla Svantorp, for the questions!

Speaking of the first one, the somewhat philosophical exposition on how it was during the mid-19th century, it is true that a huge number of Swedes emigrated. I believe it was over 900,000 who went to America. It was indeed poor, but we must also remember that we had incredibly low construction costs. We had no construction machinery; instead, one stood with shovel, pickaxe, and wheelbarrow. The hourly wage was very low, so one got a lot for the money. There was also plenty of labor to draw upon. Infrastructure projects have also been used as emergency measures and standby work. When the Göta Canal had been built and was finished, it was almost dysfunctional, because the trains had started running.

So it was cheap to build. Did we have less money then than we have now to spend on this? No, I actually think it was that cheap to build then, but it certainly was expensive in relation to that time. I actually cannot answer that question directly.

I will turn to the second question: Does Gunilla Svantorp in the Social Democrats only want to build projects with poor socio-economic profitability? I do not think so. I mean that it is important that we prioritize correctly when we build, because it is so expensive and difficult to secure funds for construction.

I believe we are quite in agreement that one really must be careful about which projects one chooses. I do not intend for these seconds that remain of my speaking time to go into the project with high-speed trains and the benefit of it, but we shall see if we return to it.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! I am left somewhat wondering about what the Tidö parties' vision for the future is. People talk very much about challenges, difficulties, and so on, but people also want to feel hope. People actually want to believe that the train they are waiting for will eventually arrive. If you have a company and want to get goods out of this country, or get materials in, you might also want to get time on the tracks. Today, however, there is no such time because it is overcrowded.

Patrik Jönsson spoke quite a bit about the lack of cost control at Trafikverket. One cannot help but wonder – and we certainly do so in all parties – especially regarding how much this is linked to the market system we have today. There, it is actually something other than public benefit that is demanded and is the purpose. It is actually a purpose to make money on our common investments.

Have Patrik Jönsson and his party considered whether it might be the market that is driving up costs and if it might perhaps be better to have a different system? They could reflect a bit on what critical infrastructure is and what the level of control over it should actually look like.

Patrik Jönsson says that it is exciting and that it is important to prioritize correctly. I agree that it should be exciting to look at this from the various parameters that exist, including when it comes to socio-economic benefit but also when it comes to the climate. Patrik Jönsson and his party rarely mention the climate, but it is also an important issue to prioritize correctly in order to reduce emissions. Today, they are instead rising specifically around the transport sector. Patrik Jönsson and his coalition parties therefore have much to answer for.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to our vision, we have been clear that we truly prioritize building infrastructure and maintaining infrastructure so that it will come and go on time.

We must remember that the Social Democrats have been sitting and governing for eight years. What we see today is a result of Social Democratic policy. It is not a result of these two years. No miracles have occurred directly. One does not have time for that when it comes to infrastructure. It involves longer planning periods than that. The fruits of what we do will be harvested in two or three years. That is when one manages to get some effect from these measures.

Gunilla Svantorp speaks about vision. The Social Democrats' previous vision was to build a very expensive high-speed rail facility for trains with speeds of 320 kilometers per hour.

Today, a train runs every hour between Malmö and Stockholm in each direction. Between Gothenburg and Stockholm, there are approximately 1.4.

Then, they wanted to place a high-speed railway for 400 billion. It would be a gigantic cuckoo that pushes all other pressing projects out of the nest. Or else, one would have to pick up money from elsewhere – healthcare, elderly care, and school. What do I know?

We do not stand on that line. It must work to commute to work. Most trips made are quite short or medium-length. The proportion of long-distance trips is quite small. It is about 4-5 percent that can be considered long-distance trips. We want to invest correctly in that. It is important to prioritize. That is what we do here – properly.

Then there was the question of the lack of cost control. Yes, I can only state that it was considerably cheaper to operate the facility and to build when we had maintenance and construction under our own management. But even at that time, one naturally hired private firms for large projects. That is something one must do. Today, there is no good cost control. We can state that with the help of the Swedish National Audit Office.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Jönsson, for the presentation of the Tidö Government's budget in this area! 94.4 billion was it. There were many inputs linked to what the money would cover and so on. I thought I found a humility from the member's side. One hopes that the money will be enough for everything that one wants to do.

I would like to ask three questions.

My first question concerns digitalization. We have a broadband goal to be achieved by 2025. It also concerns the budget investments. My question to the member is: Does the member assess that this goal will be reached during 2025? If not, I wonder what the government's measures are regarding this.

My second question concerns the committee initiatives, which are considered to be fully processed in this budget. It is primarily two that I am thinking of. The committee has worked to ensure better cooperation between different agencies so that there is order and clarity on our roads. I know that the member has a strong commitment to these issues, having been in the Transport Committee for many years, and that he has raised this on many occasions. I am therefore a bit surprised that this is considered fully processed after a round-table discussion and a mandate in August 2024 to Trafikverket and the Police Authority to review the issue of new checkpoints. Can one really consider this to be fully processed without having seen any results showing that it will be resolved?

My third question is: When does the member believe we will reach the climate goals?

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! First, it concerns the broadband goal. Just under 4 billion will be added until 2027, I would like to remind. Will it be enough for us to reach the goal? I am humble once again. I say: hopefully. The further out into the periphery one has to build, the more it costs. It is no secret that it is cheapest to build out broadband in cities, and there it is often quite finished. Those in a city who want broadband have often been given that opportunity. This is a fairly high sum, and we have pious hopes that it will be enough to reach the broadband goal.

Then it was a question of whether one can consider it to be fully processed or not in this way. Yes, one can well do that. One can be quite generous in terms of when one considers something to be fully processed in the Riksdag. I can well stand behind this – I consider it so.

The last question was about the climate goals. We are working to reach the climate goals. Previously, it did not look like the climate goals would be reached. It will be tough and measures will be needed. But we are building more and more charging points, and we also have support for that.

I am thinking about when the EU's ETS 2 arrives. Regardless of what we do in Sweden, petrol and diesel will become more expensive, and the incentives to get an electric car will increase. We will also have a wider range of used electric cars, which is why I believe we should look at this with confidence.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Jönsson, for the answers to my questions! I would like to continue with the same questions.

When it comes to broadband, there has been concern that it might require up to 20 billion kronor to reach the last mile. Just as the member says, these are expensive investments. But if one wants all of Sweden to live and develop, it is a matter of all people having a right to this. It is actually what is stated in these objectives.

The chairman himself said that he had pious hopes of being able to achieve this. I would like to ask how the pious hopes and the 4 billion until 2027 can be reconciled with the fact that one would probably need to quintuple that sum to be able to reach the goal. How does he view that, as part of the basis for the Tidöregeringen?

Then it concerns the climate goals. I am aware that there were three questions and that it is a short time with two minutes. But the member said that they believe they will be able to reach them, that more people will buy an electric car and so on. But here the government has shown a rather great inconsistency regarding various incentives. You get some incentives that apply for a couple of years. Then you withdraw them and so on. Not least the industry, which I know we both have good contacts with, has said that this inconsistency does not contribute to any possibility of transitioning transport – the light transport and the heavier transport.

I would like to hear how the member views the possibility of transforming the sector with the investments that the government is making.

Is it only electrification that matters, or can one also imagine other fuels that we both know are important? This concerns biogas, hydrogen, and so on. I would like to hear a bit more about the initiatives that are intended to be made moving forward. It is not just about relying on the number of used cars on the market.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! There are other ways to achieve good broadband coverage than just burying fiber, even though fiber is, of course, the absolute best and fastest if one simply wants a high speed. Sometimes one may have to look for other methods that are simply more cost-effective.

20 billion is a rather high sum, of tax money, to spend on this. One has to wonder if it is justified. We have to give it some time and see: How far will we get with this money? I actually think we will get quite far. If one is to reach every single customer all the way out in the organization, it can absolutely be that it will cost more than 4.

We are talking about climate goals. I must say that I do not think it feels quite right that we have countries like China and India, which are on track to build, or which in recent years have built, over 1,000 coal power plants, which emit grotesque amounts. Sweden's emissions are practically barely measurable. If we were to shut down the entire country, shut down every single factory and stop every single car, it would, so to speak, not be possible to measure.

With that said, we will of course do what we can within the limits of realism, and we are doing so. Whether we manage exactly according to the timetable or not, I will leave unsaid. It is possible that we do not. It did not look like we were going to do so during the time that Member Ulrika Heie was involved in governing. Ulrika Heie did not sit in the government, but she belonged to a supporting party to the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet.

Somewhere one must also let households have a reasonable economy. Not everyone can afford an electric car. Not everyone can afford to get the absolute latest heating system and instead might run on a poorer heating system and so on. We must be reasonable and realistic.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Patrik Jönsson, for a speech with many interesting parts!

I completely agree with the member that it is incredibly important to catch up on the maintenance. But then my counter-question must be whether Patrik Jönsson is satisfied with only catching up on 10-15 percent of the railway maintenance during the planning period. There have been quite big words from the Minister for Infrastructure and the entire Tidöregeringen about catching up on the maintenance, and therefore one is almost astonished when you only manage to catch up on 10-15 percent. It is an increase of 5 percent on the total. That does not really correspond to the big words, I mean.

We know that it is blamed on system errors, the Transport Administration and so on. It is a system that does not work, and the maintenance is not being carried out in a sufficiently rational way. I mean that a major rethink is needed and the maintenance must be carried out significantly more efficiently. Based on Patrik Jönsson's words in the speech and in the exchanges of remarks, I believe we are quite in agreement on this, hence my first question regarding the maintenance.

Patrik Jönsson was on the topic concerning the climate transition, costs and so on. Ulrika Heie asked the relevant question about whether the government and Patrik Jönsson want to reach the climate goals. If the answer is yes, a policy for this truly shines with its absence. The fact is that the government is missing the climate goals grossly.

I will wait with the second question until my next turn and give Patrik Jönsson a chance to answer my first question.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Linus Lakso, for the questions! They are highly justified.

I can straight out say no - I am obviously not satisfied with 10-15 percent. But we are somewhat at the mercy of Trafikverket, and when they say that they cannot perform more maintenance, it is obviously futile to provide more money. I can still see a point in following up on this. We will, after all, take new approaches every four years.

There are many things I can think do not work well. I have myself worked as an electrical and signaling supervisor for over ten years, and I experience that it was significantly more efficient then. It was significantly more efficient and easier to get onto the tracks and get to work. The planning was smoother. Most of it was much smoother.

We all remember the introduction of MPK. I pointed out that it would become a catastrophe and that we must be able to back out, dry run, and have both systems in parallel. But nothing was done about it. I also mean that the agency is far too large and must be divided. It is a solution, but only that does not solve the problems.

I am, therefore, absolutely not satisfied with the 10-15 percent. I really hope that we can return and get better results, because we are all dependent on the railway functioning.

It is also a problem, I want to say, that we have very many training places that sit empty. People do not want to train as track, signal, or electrical technicians, and you cannot force the youth to do it.

Do we want to reach the goals in the climate transition? Yes, that is desirable. There is no self-purpose with high emissions. On the contrary, it is good the less we emit. It applies to all countries and every single person in the world. But it must be reasonable.

We have made a reasonable assessment and judge that we will reach the goals. We shall have to see where it lands.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Patrik Jönsson, for the clear answer!

Then I come to my second question. The member mentioned that when we introduce ETS 2, the costs for petrol and diesel will increase. On that, we are in agreement.

But regarding the cost for private individuals, it is not true, as Patrik Jönsson says, that we want it to become more expensive to transport oneself. On the contrary, we want to make the sustainable alternatives cheap and attractive and therefore have, among other things, a leasing support for electric cars aimed at low-income earners in rural areas. In this way, one moves away from a fossil dependency and is therefore not affected by increased costs for gasoline and diesel when we introduce ETS 2. We also want to introduce what we call the Sverigekortet so that one can travel cheaply with public transport, which is beneficial for low-income earners.

The picture that Patrik Jönsson gives therefore does not match at all, and my question is therefore why one does not enable people to transition to sustainable travel if one now wants to reach the climate goals. It becomes cheaper with a state-subsidized public transport pass, and we think that is well worth the money. It becomes cheaper if one can afford to lease an electric car tomorrow, avoid expensive gasoline and diesel costs and instead be able to charge relatively much cheaper electricity at home.

Wouldn't that be smarter? Then we can actually reach the climate goals and at the same time enable affordable and sustainable transport throughout the country.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is laudable to want to make the world much simpler for everyone, as Linus Lakso says. But the costs end up somewhere. In the Green Party's proposal, one wants, if I remember correctly, among other things, to double the aviation tax and significantly increase the costs for gasoline and diesel. It affects very many households that have a gasoline or diesel car.

Is it even reasonable that everyone should get a new electric car? An electric car must travel approximately 12,000 miles before one has even caught up with the CO2 emissions incurred by producing it compared to a gasoline or diesel car. I drive 300 miles a year with my car. It would be deplorable to get an electric car; it would have disadvantaged the environment.

Linus Lakso and Miljöpartiet have previously been positive about building high-speed railways for a train per hour in each direction. The emissions from the production of the concrete used would have taken as many years as it takes to offset. One must, so to speak, see the consequences of one's policy.

I do not believe in the concept of providing some kind of subsidy to less affluent people so that they can get cheaper leasing. I think it is reasonable to receive a deduction for the costs you have for commuting to and from work. We have increased the deduction for those who travel to and from work, and I think that is very positive.

I don't really believe in the Green Party's policy. I believe that it harms the country through reduced growth, and if we get less growth, we also get less money to make efforts for the environment. I actually believe that one is shooting oneself in the foot with this policy.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind for the continuation that we speak via the Speaker and not directly to each other across the speakers in exchanges of remarks.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! The time has come for the budget debate on Sweden's roads, railways, shipping, aviation, and digitalization. We will dive quite quickly into the number of billions to be invested in different sectors, but it is all actually about giving Sweden the conditions for good competitiveness. People should have opportunities for jobs and so on. Other committees may talk more about this in their debates, but this is still what it is about: to build a Sweden that works.

It is important, because no matter where one lives in Sweden, one has the right to an efficient and long-term sustainable transport supply. The goals state that everyone shall have basic accessibility with good quality and usability, and that the design of the transport system shall contribute to development power throughout the country. The transport system shall also be equal.

It shall also be designed so that no one is killed or seriously injured. It shall contribute to the generation goal for the environment being reached and also contribute to increased health.

In addition to this, there is a transport policy goal that greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport shall be reduced by at least 70 percent by 2030 at the latest, compared with 2010.

How is it going then? Can one trust the infrastructure in Sweden? Can one trust that the roads hold up and that the trains arrive on time so that one gets there in time before the preschool closes for the day?

No, much is going the wrong way. Both the punctuality of trains and flights is deteriorating, the duration of total stoppages on the roads has increased, the accessibility for people with some form of disability has not improved, more and more people are killed or seriously injured in traffic, and the proportion using physically active transport – walking and cycling – has decreased.

There are always certain figures that show that one is moving in the right direction. But then there are, unfortunately, areas that point in the wrong direction. And one can really at every moment wonder how this hangs together.

In summary, the government itself assesses that the overall transport policy goal has not been reached because a majority of indicators have developed negatively. It is clear that it is then important that we consider what happens with all of this.

Madam Speaker! It is also about the digitalization policy. The goal is for Sweden to be the best in the world at utilizing the possibilities of digitalization. Is it heading in the right direction? No, it is not.

The AI Commission presented its work a couple of weeks ago. It is not a pleasant read for those who claim to want to be the best in the world in this area, and we are in a very poor position when it comes to precisely the political conditions.

Now there are opportunities to change this. The chairman of the committee said that 63 of the 75 proposals can be implemented as early as the next spring budget proposal. I imagine that the government's representatives appreciate being able to translate these proposals into reality so quickly. The committee emphasized that it was not a buffet, but that all 75 points, of which 63 can be implemented quite quickly, need to be implemented collectively because everything is interconnected.

Now, with a few weeks for reading and reflection, one really wonders what the Tidö parties are thinking and what will be implemented. Will the proposals be implemented, or will we lose even more ground and competitiveness? I hope that we can also talk about future issues in this budget debate.

Madam Speaker! The entire committee is critical that the government does not provide a detailed and long-term account of the quality of the road and railway network, which the committee has requested for a number of years. It makes it more difficult to get a consolidated picture of the development. We all know that we have a large maintenance debt on both roads and railways, and such an account would actually facilitate the work moving forward when it comes to intensifying maintenance so that the debt is paid off as quickly as possible.

Madam Speaker! Another part of the budget concerns the government's handling of the Riksdag's announcements. It is considered that four are completed. We in the Center Party agree that two of them are completed, but we are extremely surprised that the other two are now said to be finished.

In our special statement, we describe in detail why we do not consider it so. I will give a brief description of it here.

It concerns, first, increased coordination of the authorities' work regarding the control of professional traffic. Reference is made to a round-table discussion between authorities. Furthermore, a mandate has been given for a clearer distribution of responsibilities regarding control sites along the road network. This was done in August 2024.

A number of members from the Tidö parties have pushed for these issues for many years, and suddenly a round-table discussion and a mandate to two agencies are enough. I am surprised. I thought that one wanted to see results before considering the announcement to be fully processed.

The same applies to the announcement that Sweden should investigate what consequences the Swedish requirements for environmental control have had in comparison with environmental control in other countries. The Transport Agency says that we have higher requirements in some cases and lower requirements in others and that it thus somehow balances out. And the government says that the Transport Agency shall include improved methods in certain areas and continue the regulatory development. One is on the right track, but it has not yet yielded results. I do not understand how the government parties can be satisfied with that.

Madam Speaker! What does the Centre Party want? In our budget motion, we add an additional 1,000 million to strengthen Swedish infrastructure. We add 600 million to road maintenance and to maintenance on the railway. We add 200 million to contracted transport and 200 million to the regional airports.

The condition of the minor road network, not least all gravel roads which are also state-owned, is alarmingly poor in many places. Therefore, further and clearer investments are needed beyond what the government is able to include in its budget.

In the spring, I was in Fyrbodal, which is part of Västra Götaland County and has a somewhat different climate for southern Sweden, which also affects the quality of the road network in a somewhat different way than in the rest of southern Sweden. I was more specifically in Färgelanda municipality. There, they pointed out the frighteningly poor maintenance of the state gravel roads. It is about roads that collapse because the road body is completely exhausted when a small truck stands on it. It is about culverts being replaced with a smaller dimension. And everyone surely understands that if water needs to get out under a road and one switches to a smaller culvert, less water will flow under the road and more water will remain on the other side and thus also erode the road's quality.

I think it is frightening to see such low competence and that that type of maintenance work is being carried out on the Swedish road network. It is incredibly important that we invest in this. Not least in light of the NATO membership that we are now entering, we know that both large and small roads will need to be strengthened in many different ways.

When it comes to the railway, it is, among other things, a large number of switches that continue to need to be replaced. And we believe that one could speed up the pace somewhat more than what has been said by Trafikverket.

How the government in its budget handles the contracted traffic is alarming. Trafikverket speaks about how many resources need to be linked to the various agreements that exist for the traffic that crosses regional boundaries, including among others Norrtåg, Stångådalsbanan in Region Kalmar, night train traffic to northern Sweden, and so on. And representatives for the government parties call it a pure miss at the department. Or is it pure unwillingness to look after the important train and bus traffic that exists all around the country?

What we know is that there is a lack of money that could have been allocated to have an infrastructure that works in the whole country. Now, people who are going to work or who are going to visit relatives and friends—that is, completely ordinary people who need to be able to take the train in Kalmar län, in Norrbotten, or in Jämtland, just to give a few examples—are affected. The future for these train routes and the number of trains that can operate is still uncertain due to the government's clumsy mistakes or unwillingness. For Centerpartiet, the train traffic must work in all of Sweden.

Aviation has had a tough time since the pandemic and has not recovered. It affects many airports in our elongated country. Here, the green transition for aviation is knocking on the door. But it will take a while before it can be fully opened, and technologies of various kinds are arriving, as well as sustainable fuel. We are adding an additional 200 million kronor to the regional airports so that they can transition and simply survive.

Madam Speaker! I have one final comment. The fifth transport goal, digital communications, still has some way to go before the goal that everyone shall have access to it by 2025 is achieved. The Government itself points out that there are indications that it will become more expensive.

I would wish for a clearer account regarding this and how we can achieve this goal. And I hope that we can all wish each other a good new broadband year.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party is relatively close to both the Tidö parties and the Social Democrats in its budget proposal for the expenditure area. The Green Party and the Left Party, on the other hand, have extremely much more money. It is because they seem to have boundless resources. One wonders if the printing press is in the basement of their party offices. But unfortunately, this is to be financed with tax increases and increased debt for future generations.

Centerpartiet has already pointed out Magdalena Andersson as its prime ministerial candidate. And in this government basis, one becomes dependent on Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet. How does Centerpartiet intend to push through its own policy in this cooperation? And how has one intended to protect the taxpayers from increased taxes and future generations from increased indebtedness when it comes to financing everything that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have on their agenda?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Maria Stockhaus, for the questions!

Just as the member began by saying, we are relatively close to each other in quite many parts of the budget bill that has been submitted. It is also about further strengthening both the maintenance, the aviation, and the contracted transport - those are the three parts that Centerpartiet has chosen to bring in to strengthen the work that the Tidöre Government has in its budget for 2025.

What happens in two years is a hypothetical question. We are to have an election before then. For Centerpartiet, it is incredibly important to go to the election on the policy we are driving and which, as the member himself mentioned, in the transport area lies relatively close to the broad center, one might say, in the political landscape in Sweden. The member himself mentioned that the Socialdemokrater also lie in this district.

I do not intend to comment on which printing presses are located in the basements of various parties.

There is an expression used by a former party leader for Centerpartiet: One does not sell the skin until the bear is shot. There is no possibility of commenting on which constellations might become possible after the 2026 election. That depends on how the voters cast their votes. It is always possible to reason based on the current situation, the previous election result, or the opinion polls that are conducted at regular intervals. As it looks right now, things are not going particularly well for the Tidö parties. For Centerpartiet, it is important to get its policies through, regardless of which cooperation one is in.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! One can, after all, have many thoughts and ideas, and it is easier to cooperate and find good compromises for Sweden if one is heading in roughly the same direction. With the coalition partners, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, that the Centerpartiet has envisioned and would need in a government constellation, I find it difficult to see how domestic aviation would survive and how we would get any kind of functioning road network in Sweden.

I can think that it is a direct act of presumption by Member Heie to talk about the maintenance of roads and to tell sob stories about how bad it is in Fyrbodal. Trafikverket was very clear when the current plan was adopted: The road network will be in poorer condition at the end of the planning period because not enough money is being invested in road maintenance. This is a plan that a government supported by Centerpartiet was involved in developing. I can, as I said, think that it is remarkable that one stands here and tells sob stories when one is so significantly complicit in that we today have a road maintenance that does not at all meet the needs we see if we go out on roads all around Sweden.

What does the message look like to our road users out there on the roads? What do the compromises look like? How much money will there actually be for road maintenance if the Center Party is allowed to be involved in the steering? Somewhere, compromises are required. If one looks at history – and one must be able to learn from it – one sees that a government with the Social Democrats as the leader and the Center Party as a supporting party does not care particularly much about the roads in Fyrbodal that Member of Parliament Heie speaks so warmly about.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I would wish that Member Stockhaus would refrain from putting words in my mouth and speaking about what I should say in different contexts.

When it comes to sob stories, I think we are all aware of visiting different parts of our country and seeing deficiencies in the infrastructure. I have sat in the Riksdag for 18 years, and there have been both alliance governments and Social Democratic-led governments during that time. I think one has a collective responsibility for how the road network, the railway network, and so on have looked during that time.

When it comes to the plan that was developed during the previous parliamentary term, the Center Party was not part of the work to develop it; it was after the January cooperation had collapsed. So, that is not quite correct.

When it comes to the planning of Swedish infrastructure, it should be much more long-term and be built on much broader majorities. I think this is a very important part. I hope that this government takes to heart that the patchwork we have seen in recent years does not promote either investments or a sustainable utilization of our common resources.

There are opportunities to make really broad agreements in Swedish politics in the area of infrastructure. Then the member would not need to be so worried about stretches of road in different parts of the country, but one could be confident that there are conditions to ensure a good infrastructure, regardless of whether it concerns shipping, aviation, road or railway - or digital communication, for that part.

When it comes to these different parts, there are truly conditions in the Swedish Riksdag to solve this in a good way. In the next debate, the Minister for Infrastructure participates, who, in itself, does not belong to the same party as Member of Parliament Stockhaus. It has, I think, been heard positive comments regarding that one sees the importance of long-term solutions. This is demanded by both individuals and companies, so that Sweden's competitiveness can be built strong moving forward.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have had the privilege of collaborating with Alliance parties for sixteen years – eight years in the majority and eight in opposition – at home in Uddevalla and also in the Västra Götalandsregionen. Many times, it was in that collaboration I participated that KD and C stood close to each other.

Madam Speaker! So I think it is also here in the chamber when one raises different problems. There is, I believe, a community of values purely ideologically between the old alliance parties. But for different reasons, they have landed in different ways.

The catch with this, Madam Speaker, is that politics is about wanting to get your own issues through. To get your own issues through, it is facilitated if one cooperates with someone who is prepared to negotiate on precisely those own issues.

Within Tidö, we have found a cooperation where at least we as Christian Democrats feel that we have pushed through a good deal in various committees and budget negotiations. There are things that we are not satisfied with - aid is one example. But we have still found a community where we can clash, argue, negotiate, and reach solutions.

I was previously in the Committee on Employment and earlier in the Committee on Transport, and when I read the various motions I must still ask the member Ulrika Heie: How are you going to get C's policy through?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Magnus Jacobsson, for the questions!

I did not intend to delve into a question of value communities or whether different values either stand firm or have changed during the last five or six years. I think we can have that discussion somewhere else.

The hurdle when it comes to getting one's own questions through, I just discussed with Member Stockhaus. It is about creating broad settlements. The rhetoric that the Tidö government now has – we do not need to listen to anyone else, because we get our own proposals through by any means necessary – I think is extremely unfortunate for the development of the whole of Sweden. If one takes on leading a country, there is also the possibility to create broad majorities and settlements and also maintain them. The Member's party has perhaps not always shown itself to be the most reliable when it comes to upholding different energy agreements or other agreements.

I am grateful for the member's concern and for the fact that he worries about how the Center Party will get its policy through. But I was also previously involved in the idea that it is about creating broad agreements. The parties that stand up for the fact that all of Sweden should live and for Sweden's competitiveness could contribute to significantly broader agreements, which would then be permanent over time, regardless of whether there is a change in the position of Prime Minister or not.

I thank the Christian Democrat member for the sympathy, but I see no problem with advancing issues that are important for the Centre Party in different ways, whether it concerns shipping, aviation, roads or railways. We want the entire system to function, not least in connection with digital communications.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I think it is heart-wrenching to strive for broad agreements and I agree that one should do so. All of us who are in this chamber know, however, that once you have formed some kind of majority, you tend to negotiate within the majority, and when that negotiation is finished, it is not always as easy to negotiate with someone else. That is how it looks at the municipal and regional level, and that is also how it looks in this chamber.

If one is to have broad agreements, one must look for agreements with parties with whom one at least has some form of basic agreement on what the problem is. For those reading the three different motions, it becomes completely obvious that the orientations are different. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I cannot quite understand the reasoning regarding broad agreements.

The reasoning becomes even harder to understand if one listens to the leader of the Center Party, who is not here in the chamber and therefore cannot defend himself. He has on several occasions said that it is on the red side that the Center should find its mandate. But if we read the Tidö parties' budget—and even parts of the Social Democrats' budget, though not the parts concerning roads—and then look at the Center's budget, we see that there is a completely different community of values and a completely different perception of how infrastructure should be developed.

Madam Speaker! For me, it is not just about general care for the Center Party – I believe they are big enough to take care of themselves – but also about a care for the Swedish people and that the whole country should function. In that case, a policy is needed that is built on the idea that the whole country should function.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I may be corrected if I am wrong, but I would believe that this matter of the whole country functioning is highlighted in all parties' motions when it comes to communications. I find it very difficult to see that any of the eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag would say that we can ignore Skåne or Norrland or that we can ignore Krokom or any other municipality out on some island. Everyone wants the whole of Sweden to live – it is a fundamental value when it comes to how communications should function in Sweden.

There are other ways of working, Magnus Jacobsson. The Defense Preparation is one such. There, all eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag sit down together and look at how the situation looks, what challenges and threats are seen ahead, and how we need to strengthen Sweden's common defense. I would say that infrastructure, in light of Sweden's NATO membership, should have similar planning conditions and not the current way of working. I am a bit surprised when people embrace the current way of working with such emphasis and say that we shall do as we have always done. Indications point to that this – to do as we have always done – actually makes us go backwards.

We should try new ways of working that can give us new conditions and connect the infrastructure area with the defense area and the skills supply area. We have a responsibility to do that, regardless of whether we sit in the majority or in opposition.

We have a common interest in creating future conditions that are important for Sweden. There are other ways of working that allow for inclusion and provide conditions for all parties to be heard. Everyone understands that settlements are about negotiation, but for Sweden, Sweden's competitiveness, and the people who live and want to work here, a different way of working, where long-term conditions were agreed upon, would be much better.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe we all agree that infrastructure is a fundamental part of our society and our economy. It is through infrastructure that we can move, communicate, and create opportunities for companies to grow and create jobs. I am proud that the government has presented a strong budget bill for 2025 that invests in infrastructure.

The budget bill for 2025 contains investments in our entire transport system that will lead to better and faster connections between different parts of the country, which in turn can increase growth and create more jobs.

It is important for this government to see the whole of the transport system. It is a system where all four modes of transport - car, train, plane and boat - are self-evident parts that have different strengths and function differently well for different purposes. We do not pit modes of transport against each other but want to create an efficient transport system where all modes of transport have an important place.

Madam Speaker! We see that all modes of transport are transitioning, and we must account for a transport system where all modes of transport are fossil-free. This is a future that some parties in the opposition do not seem to take into account.

A major and significant difference between this government and the previous one is the view on aviation. We see that aviation is necessary for accessibility both within Sweden and between Sweden and other countries. We also see that aviation is transitioning. In addition to the reduced emissions that new aircraft contribute to and greater inclusion of biofuels, ReFuelEU Aviation will mean greater pressure on aviation to transition.

We believe in aviation and want to ensure that there is a well-functioning airport infrastructure throughout Sweden and good access to Stockholm from all parts of the country, even if some members may not think that this is exactly the most important thing. Therefore, the budget contains a continued investment in financial support to the regional airports to secure good accessibility across the entire country. The Government is also continuing to work on the remaining proposals in the airport investigation.

Madam Speaker! The aviation tax does not fall within our expenditure area but is nevertheless an important issue for our area. It has affected Swedish aviation in a devastating way. It is a tax on travel and not a tax on emissions, which even the Swedish National Audit Office has criticized. We have lost accessibility due to the aviation tax. It is telling that Norwegian now, as the aviation tax disappears, chooses to restart a pilot hub in Stockholm.

Svenskt Näringsliv has clearly shown in a report that the aviation policy pursued by the previous government led to reduced growth. Now we are finally removing the aviation tax, and our hope is that accessibility will increase again.

Madam Speaker! Roads and railways are often in focus in the debate on infrastructure. Shipping is not debated as often. Shipping is important for Sweden. Large volumes of our exports and imports are transported by ship for at least parts of the distance.

This government safeguards Swedish shipping and wants to see more Swedish-flagged vessels. This is important, not least from a preparedness perspective. From July 1, the stamp duty for new vessels will be removed, and it will also become easier to charter in and charter out primarily unmanned vessels. These are two important steps for better conditions for Swedish shipping. The government is also continuing to work on the issue of changing the tonnage tax system.

Madam Speaker! A major challenge is to ensure that we get as much as possible for the money invested in infrastructure, whether it concerns new investments or maintenance. The procurements that Trafikverket carries out need to become more efficient and purposeful. The Government therefore intends to task Trafikverket with following up and evaluating procurements and, not least, strengthening its own procurement competence. We will also take measures to enable more efficient road and railway maintenance.

Madam Speaker! There are fantastic opportunities with digitalization. As mentioned earlier in the debate, we as a country have lost momentum in the development – other countries are pulling ahead. A well-functioning digital infrastructure is the foundation for all of us to be able to take part in the opportunities that digitalization provides. The Government has a strong focus on this and on developing AI and digitalization in Sweden. It is about physical infrastructure where other solutions than digging fiber are made possible. There are mobile solutions that have emerged and which can help to improve the digital infrastructure.

The AI Commission was appointed by the government to submit proposals on how we can take advantage of the opportunities that AI provides while simultaneously being able to manage the risks. It is a substantial report that we have received, and now it is time to begin working with those proposals. This is being prepared in the Government Offices.

Something that has happened in the last few days is that, in order to achieve better coordination and focus on these issues, there is now a mandate to merge Digg and PTS so that there is a clear agency with overall responsibility, something that many have requested.

Madam Speaker! I have read through the opposition's various budget proposals and can state that it is a far from united opposition. It varies significantly, from the Social Democrats who make very small changes in relation to the government's budget proposal to the Green Party who promise everything to everyone and spend money as if they had a printing press in the basement.

The parties' proposals on the infrastructure area are not one hundred percent identical, but our proposals at least go in the same direction. That makes it not so difficult for us to agree on a budget in the infrastructure area that does not involve compromising from very different positions.

Overall, the budget for 2025 is a strong investment in infrastructure, and it is an investment that will provide better conditions for growth and development throughout the country.

And with that, I wish to move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Maria Stockhaus for the speech!

I intended to ask the same question to Maria Stockhaus as I did to the member for the Sweden Democrats earlier. The government and, above all, the governing parties have talked very much about how incredibly important it is to reclaim the maintenance of the railway. I repeat the actual result of the government's budget and future investments: You increase the appropriation by 5 percent, and you manage to reclaim 10-15 percent of the maintenance during the planning period. This will lead to continued delayed and cancelled trains and continued train chaos, so my question is whether member Stockhaus is really satisfied with this.

Madam Speaker! Maria Stockhaus is very upset that the Green Party has an investment budget. I can state that there are differing opinions on this even within the government base. The Christian Democrats have expressed that they want to see an investment budget.

I do not think it is as strange as Maria Stockhaus wants to make it appear. Most municipalities have an investment budget. The one who buys a property often borrows for a condominium or a villa, something that the Moderaterna often encourage as a form of housing, so I think it is a rather played-up outrage.

On the contrary, we see that it is a systemic failure that we are unable to both recover the maintenance and invest in the future infrastructure that we see is needed. I would like to hear Maria Stockhaus's reflections on this, Madam Speaker.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Now we are not talking about the infrastructure bill but about the budget for next year, but they overlap.

Would I wish that we could reclaim more of the maintenance debt? Absolutely! But the responsible authority says that if we are not to make major interventions in traffic flows, we cannot manage to get out more time in the tracks than what these funds correspond to. In the infrastructure bill, we give Trafikverket precisely the money that it is said that one has the possibility to spend.

I would say it is if we follow the budget for the planning period that Miljöpartiet has laid out and try to get rid of those funds, we get train chaos with major closures. Or else one lets those funds sit idle, which would be very unfortunate.

Since then, it is very important to ensure that Trafikverket becomes more efficient in its procurement, and there the government is now putting enormous pressure on the agency. The Minister for Infrastructure often speaks about depot stop solutions, where one should be able to enter and exit quickly. There, the dialogues with everyone involved in the industry have yielded great success when it comes to finding more efficient ways to get more time in the tracks. It is a work that continues, and just as we have set the goal to reclaim the maintenance on roads, the ambition is perhaps not in a twelve-year perspective but at least moving forward to reclaim all maintenance on railways as well. We do not want to build high-speed trains that eat up all the money, but we think it is important to invest in making sure that what we have functions.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Maria Stockhaus for the answer!

Yes, that is somewhat the dilemma one faces when one does not simultaneously want to expand the capacity so that one actually gets the opportunity to redirect traffic and reclaim the maintenance.

I note that the Tidö parties do not seem particularly in agreement on whether it is possible to do this more efficiently. Patrik Jönsson was quite clear in his view that there absolutely should be room to reclaim more of the maintenance. He was not at all satisfied with the government's policy in the area, so I can only state that they are not in agreement. There, I actually hope that Patrik Jönsson does an even better negotiation next time so that we get trains that work and capacity on the railway that meets the expectations of the future.

We know that Trafikverket has also significantly underestimated the development of the railway. Now this government is making exactly the same mistake. You fail to reclaim the maintenance, and you do not invest in the capacity that is actually needed.

This is because people do not realize the fact that it is a systemic error that we do not have an investment budget for necessary infrastructure. These are investments that we make perhaps every hundred years. In the middle of the 1800s, we invested in the main lines we have. One has thus had 100-150 years to pay off such a large investment. And one does it on a running budget, which in principle no other organizations or companies or even private individuals do when they make a very large investment that they make once during a very long period. That is when one ends up in these problems, so the agitation over an investment budget is perhaps the most surprising when we see that it is what is needed to solve the problem.

There I hope that the Christian Democrats really stand their ground and push through their policy in the next negotiation.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Now there are six parties that agree on the fiscal framework, and that includes the Christian Democrats. It is about a balance goal, so that debate will surely be concluded. We agree on managing money in a responsible way so that future generations are not affected.

In the previous plan and the previous government bill, one chose not to allocate the money that was available to prioritize maintenance. The Swedish Transport Administration explicitly states that with this prioritization, both roads and railways will be in worse condition at the end of the planning period than at the beginning. It is a somewhat strange argument to say that the previous government invested so much in maintenance. It is hardly a fact when one did not even succeed in maintaining the same quality in the tracks as there was at the beginning of the planning period.

If one is going to spend so much money over the next twelve years, I wonder what new capacity the Miljöpartiet thinks will be in place so quickly that one can spend all these maintenance funds without having to shut down large parts of the railway system. Now the member cannot answer, but I find it a bit difficult to see how one can spend so much money and claim that there would then have been more capacity. It is just wishful thinking. That capacity would not have been in place even if it had been a different government that had had the opportunity to spend these funds.

The only way to get rid of the sums that Miljöpartiet invests in railway maintenance is to shut down the operations so that it is not possible to travel by train for a long period. We find it difficult to see that as a solution.

However, we need to have more efficient maintenance, and on that point, Patrik Jönsson and I are in agreement. I do not see that we have any differences of opinion regarding the view on maintenance.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! We are discussing the infrastructure and its budget for the coming years. This is important, not least considering that it is the infrastructure that binds together all of Sweden and also binds Sweden with other countries, especially our Nordic neighboring countries.

Given what is happening regarding Denmark, Germany, Fehmarn Bält and ongoing investments there, one can reflect on our direction and how we shall ensure that the trains can move forward.

We know that we have under-invested for many years, regardless of who has governed. This is noticeable, not least in train derailments, roads breaking down, train delays, impaired accessibility, and very large congestion on our railway tracks. It is a real threat to the green industrial development that we see as necessary in our country.

Sweden has always been a country that has been at the forefront of technical development. Infrastructure must not be what prevents us from continuing to do so, but right now it actually looks that way. It is also the case that Sweden's share in the global competition is being challenged. If all of Sweden is to be able to live and develop and if one is to be able to live in our entire country, infrastructure is the lifeblood that we must invest in.

We have, as previous speakers have mentioned, an important challenge in the climate challenge. We must transition all our modes of transport. We already have modes of transport today that are fossil-free and that we should invest significantly more in than we do now.

Then we perhaps need to cooperate more with other committees. Just as someone said earlier, some of the proposals concerning our committee are handled in other committees, and we perhaps need to have a bit more cooperation with them to arrive at the right things to look at.

Then we have a question that I think is very important and which has become even more important in light of the NATO accession and the security policy situation. It is the question of society-critical infrastructure. What is it actually, what should be counted as such, and how should we manage it?

I think we talk far too little about this, not least considering the marketization system that we have in Sweden when it comes to the railways but also the roads, where people think it is more important that Trafikverket learns to become a good procurement authority than that they learn to maintain our roads and railways.

I think it is a very strange perspective. We really need to look at this. How can we maintain operational capability? If there is something we have learned from Ukraine, it is that they - in the midst of a burning war - have operational capability over their infrastructure, which makes it function.

One can reflect for a minute on how it would work in our country, with 59 or 60 actors on the railway and with procured small contracts everywhere for road maintenance. It would not work for a single day. I would therefore wish that the management of society-critical infrastructure were an important point that all our parties discussed. This is something that should be important not only for our party but for everyone.

In the budget, we have some initiatives where we differ from the Tidö parties and their submitted proposals. This is primarily about the contracted transport, which is important for all of Sweden to be able to live. A very large amount of the contracted transport that now risks disappearing is indeed in places where it is not profitable to operate transport, and then it is even more important that we stand our ground and point and say that this is very important. One must be able to live, reside, and work in all of Sweden, and therefore we are allocating more money to it.

We also think it is important that children and young people are not dependent on their parents' wallets to be able to use public transport, and therefore we return to an old proposal: that it should be free for young people to use public transport during the summer. Ideally, one would wish that they could do so all the time.

We were with the committee in Estonia and visited Tallinn, where public transport for the residents is free of charge. It would be exciting if we could discuss public transport a bit more from a citizen's perspective and a justice perspective. We are therefore putting more money into free public transport for young people.

We also put more money into the budget than the Tidö parties do on the maintenance of railways and roads. We also put more money into moving freight from road to shipping.

We return with another old proposal, CSN loans for driving licenses, but now we expand it to also apply to buses and trucks. It is important, not least considering the staff shortages that exist within various sectors in the transport industry.

Driving licenses have become a class issue today. It is very expensive to get a driving license. If there is something we have succeeded with in Sweden, it is student loans. It doesn't matter where you come from - you can still get the opportunity to continue your studies, and with our proposal, you will also get the opportunity to manage to pay for a driving license.

Against our proposal stands the reality we see today, with cancelled or delayed trains and with night trains and other procured traffic threatened by withdrawal with two months to go. Now it was solved, they say a bit like that, but it is still not solved for everyone in our country. This applies not least in the north, where the region will still have to pay quite a few million out of its own pocket. We also see bus lines that are disappearing.

I would also like to say something about digitalization. The AI Commission submitted its proposal this week. It is a very exciting proposal, and I agree with Member Stockhaus that it is exciting reading. What is interesting about the AI Commission is that they have been very interested in what all parties think on this issue. They want to see long-term thinking and long-term rules of the game.

All parties have been given the opportunity to meet Carl-Henric Svanberg and provide their input. He has also been here in the committee several times and really emphasized that he thinks it is important that all parties are involved. I think it has been exemplary work. I really hope that we now do not just receive a finished proposal on how it will be, but that we also continue to be involved in the work, because it is long-term perspective that Sweden needs. One needs to know what the rules are.

I intend to conclude with a few more words about the climate and the climate challenge. Several have been discussing how we are to reach our climate goals. It is not so simple with the parties that govern today, where the focus is not on the Climate Act, whose goals seven out of eight parties nevertheless agreed that we should reach.

We know that the sector we are tasked with managing – the transport sector – is the sector that must reduce emissions the most. We have committed to cutting them by 70 percent by 2030. We are soon reaching 2030, and emissions are increasing. It is serious.

My party has allocated more money, Madam Speaker, than what was stated. In that case, one cannot reserve oneself, and therefore we instead have a separate statement.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! It is fascinating that the Social Democrats speak of long-term perspective and the importance of broad agreements when they are sitting in opposition. I cannot recall a single occasion where we were invited to discuss any issues at all in the area of the Committee on Transport with the government that did not even have a majority here in the Riksdag. I therefore think it is a bit presumptuous to talk about broad agreements with that history behind it.

I would like to raise the issue of the Social Democrats' view on aviation. The Social Democrats want to remove the aviation tax, which the government is doing. That is very good, speaking of broad agreements. That tax has hit Swedish aviation hard, and it affects both international and domestic flights. It has also contributed to the fact that lines to and from Arlanda have been lost.

In Denmark and Norway, domestic flights have recovered to the same levels as before the pandemic, but we are lagging far behind. A reintroduced aviation tax risks complicating the recovery further. If all of Sweden is to live, aviation is needed—otherwise, the accessibility is not there.

The Center Party and the Left Party want to keep the aviation tax, and the Green Party does not just want to keep but double the aviation tax. But if one does not have a majority of one's own, one must compromise, and it is easier to reach good compromises if one is at least in agreement on the policy direction. It is clear that when it comes to how one views aviation, there is a swarm of ideas. How will the Social Democrats ensure that Sweden in the future has domestic aviation that works, airports to fly to, and airlines that are willing to fly?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Stockhaus, for the question! I think it is exciting that we are to stand here in the speaker's chair and answer hypothetical questions - especially when we look at the figures that parts of Stockhaus's base risk being voted out of the Riksdag at the next election. One might consider what one's own base looks like.

I believe that Member Stockhaus is quite clear on what we Social Democrats think about aviation. We did commission aviation inquiries, including one that submitted its report just in connection with the election but which has been handled like popcorn; people have picked a bit here and there. Member Stockhaus said in his speech that proposals will soon be presented on how the rest should be handled. I think that is very good.

We appointed the inquiry during the previous parliamentary term to get a direction. We believe, in fact, that aviation is important. We believe that it is important that one can live, work, and reside in all of Sweden. We will continue to push for that. Then it is a negotiation discussion, like everything else.

It is exciting that aviation is at the top for Member of Parliament Stockhaus. There are, however, some other modes of transport that should be more interesting if one is to govern this country – not least the railway. I would therefore like to hear Member of Parliament Stockhaus explain how the Tidö parties intend to ensure that one can get around, as a person but perhaps especially as freight, in our entire country. What is going to happen with the Malmbanan? There is a lot of talk but very little workshop. How does Member of Parliament Stockhaus view the railway's future in Sweden?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned in my speech earlier, we Moderates view all four types of transport positively. All are needed, and they are good in different ways and for different things in different parts of the country. All four are needed for the whole of Sweden to live.

When it comes to aviation, the Arlanda Council was to present a final report during the previous parliamentary term. I have been allowed to read it, and it stated essentially the same thing that Peter Norman points out in his new investigation on Arlanda's development. The Arlanda Council even had a press conference booked, but it was canceled by the government, and the Arlanda Council's report was thrown in the wastebasket despite containing important development projects to strengthen Arlanda. With them, we would have been in a completely different situation regarding Arlanda than we are today. The Social Democrats say that they protect aviation but at the same time threw an important report in the wastebasket. I cannot quite reconcile that.

The talk about the whole of Sweden should live and the importance of the railway falls quite flat considering that, according to the plan and the previous investments in high-speed trains, northern Sweden receives a very small portion of the money invested in infrastructure. But if it is something to be done to ensure that the trains run on time and to have an effect in the short term, it is to invest in railway maintenance. The Tidö parties have had this in their budgets even in opposition. We are investing a lot in ensuring that Trafikverket receives the money it needs for necessary maintenance.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! There is a lot of talk and little work, I would like to say. The Tidö parties are not investing very much in maintaining or building new railways. It is clearly visible in the prioritization we are to discuss in the next debate.

That the Moderaterna view all types of transport positively - implicitly, unlike all others - is a mantra repeated by MP Stockhaus in all debates. But the question is what happens. One can say that one views all types of transport positively, but in all announcements, it is still only one that matters. One cannot even answer the simple question I asked about what the future looks like for the railway in northern Sweden.

I do not agree at all that the Tidö parties view - equally positively - all four types of traffic.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I listened with great interest to the Social Democrats' account here in the chamber and have also enjoyed reading the special statement as well as the motion in the next committee report. There is something there that I cannot quite make sense of.

Both in the presentation and in the texts that exist, the Social Democrats claim that they are investing in both roads and railways, and in the numerical material in the budget we are currently debating, they indeed increase the appropriations for maintenance by 500 million. It is only that it appears from the main text that it is 500 million for railways. This means, in other words, that in that document they have the same budget as the government when it comes to roads, but they increase it for railways. It is a prioritization one can make, but then one cannot say that one is investing more than the government.

From the document that we will debate in about an hour, it appears with all desirable clarity on page 33 that the Social Democrats, during the planning period, reduce road potholes by 45 billion and increase by 45 billion when it comes to railways.

Madam Speaker! It is very difficult to assert that a decrease is an increase. But that is de facto what is written here. I must therefore be allowed to ask the simple question of whether the Social Democrats are increasing or decreasing the appropriations for roads.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! This debate is about next year. It is not about what we are to discuss later, i.e., the twelve-year period. Next year, the Social Democrats are increasing the budget item concerning roads and railways by 500 million. At least that is how I have understood it looks when I have read. The other question, the member may be welcome to ask me during the next debate. I think we should stick to the subject of this debate.

Now that Member Jacobsson is here anyway, I would like to ask a question about a statement the Member is said to have made at the Persontrafik trade fair in Gothenburg a few weeks ago. It concerned public transport and that the Member does not believe in the goal that four out of ten transports in the future shall be collective. I find that to sound very strange considering that there is a climate act with climate goals that actually aims for us to use the modes of transport that are fossil-free. We cannot wait until it has developed further. What happens then, no one knows. Furthermore, I have not perceived that the Tidö parties are negatively inclined towards public transport. I was therefore very surprised and would therefore like to ask if what I have heard is correct.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Then we take the special statement, page 66: "We therefore choose to allocate 500 million kronor more than the government to appropriation 1:2 Maintenance of the state's transport infrastructure for increased maintenance of the railway for 2025." They are thus making a statement that they are also investing in roads, but there is no money for roads. I want that clarified for those who are listening.

We Christian Democrats are great friends of public transport. But one must actually set realistic goals. I do not personally believe that imagining that every fourth transport in the entire country should occur collectively is realistic. On the other hand, I believe that we should strive for, work for, and continue to work on finding climate-smart solutions. Then it will be about other fuels. It will be about electrification. It is enough to look at how the Swedish population lives.

This is a very high ambition. I have great respect for the fact that those who work with public transport strive for this goal, but I believe that we in politics must ensure that the climate goals are achieved in such a way that it works for the citizens regardless of whether they live in the middle of a large city or in the countryside.

Madam Speaker! With that said, I would like to return to another issue. When I look at the different budgets, I can state that the fact remains: the Social Democrats have similarities in many respects with us in the Tidö cooperation. The Social Democrats also have similarities with the Center Party. But there are significant differences compared to the Left Party and the Green Party.

It actually doesn't matter how many motions or special statements one writes when the tough reality is that, in some way, a government must be formed. One can, of course, speculate and dream about some parties dropping out. That has been done for a long time. It usually doesn't happen. But how is social democracy to push through its policy with this fragmented government basis?

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Madam Speaker! When there is not much to talk about when it comes to politics, it is good to shift the focus to something else. Then the government issue, the one that will arise in two years, seems to be what we in all debates now shall discuss.

I say as previous speakers have said: It is a hypothetical question what will happen. We will see then. In the meantime, at least I and my party will have focus on our policy and nothing else.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! For a politician who works with infrastructure, today's two debates are an early Christmas Eve. In that case, one might as well take the opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, including SSAB.

Today we have a debate concerning the budget. What is positive in the report we are now debating is that there will be increased appropriations to, among other things, Enskild Väg. The major change in terms of figures is the one that occurs in 2026 and 2027, where it is increased by 6 billion and then by an additional 2 billion.

That it looks that way is simply connected to the fact that we are still within the old infrastructure plan. Perhaps not everyone outside this chamber is thinking about that. Personally, I believe it is a very good arrangement that we work with twelve-year plans with four-year reassessments. Then one can certainly consider the Center Party's solution with even broader discussions, but I believe in the method itself of pointing a way forward.

This leads, on the other hand, to a government actually sitting and governing for a very long time with the previous government's decisions. So that is the case for us, and so it will eventually be for another government at another time.

I and with the decisions we will soon make, a powerful investment in infrastructure will occur. With this powerful investment, we resolve the road side, but we do not resolve the railway side. No one has been secret about it, but here there is a difference.

The government also continues the initiative on individual roads. The initiative on BK4 roads continues, which I believe is positive. We need to get a well-functioning system in the whole country so that it is possible to transport goods and flows.

On the railway side, we have great challenges. These challenges will actually become larger for a period. Reconstruction is taking place. I can only take the Bohusbanan near my own home as an example. It was delayed, which had a major impact on transport between Uddevalla and Bohuslän down to Gothenburg. We also see it in other places where investments are being made—investments that are positive but which, in the short term, affect people's ability to travel by train.

It is important here that we find methods and procurements that ensure that, during procurement, one also values the time it takes to rebuild. I feel a concern that this has not been done previously and hope that this government will look a bit more into the issue.

Actually, the same applies to new construction. When building new, there is at least the advantage that it does not conflict with existing traffic, but even there it is essential that one procures in such a way that time is valued.

Another important aspect regarding new establishments is the year we are in now. Now, regions, municipalities, the business community, and the various parties can bounce around what they want to include in the next plan. It is to be adopted at some point in 2026. I and the Kristdemokraterna have a message that we are trying to convey, and that is: corridors, corridors, corridors.

The railway's efficiency works when it is finished. It does not work when one is busy patching and repairing or has temporary solutions. Here, one must dare to focus on the corridors. Then we will also get more efficiency, and then we will be able to take advantage of it.

It is positive that the government is investing in new tracks. One is also investing in traffic management systems that will facilitate on the tracks in the long run.

A question that has been raised regarding the railway but which actually lies somewhat aside from what we are handling is the discussion between SJ and the regions. I still believe it is important to point out from the rostrum that SJ is a profit-driven company that follows the Companies Act. The regions follow the public transport legislation, and there you are allowed to subsidize. It is therefore two completely different playing fields.

This leads to what we have seen, for example here in the Stockholm region, namely that SJ has withdrawn while the region has taken greater responsibility for labor market regions. This can be pondered over time. Or perhaps it is just the way it is – Skånetrafiken works well, Västra Götalandstrafiken works well, SL and others work well, and so perhaps SJ and other train operators should work with the long-distance traffic. But we still need to be aware of this, especially the citizens: Here are operators acting under different legislation, and therefore it can become a bit complicated sometimes.

If we leave the railway, which is a dear child, and move over to aviation, we see here as well that we have great challenges. We had a policy that cultivated flight shame, quickly followed by covid. Now we find ourselves in an aviation crisis. We see how BRA and SAS have started to cooperate, which was probably completely necessary to handle the traffic, and a competition review is ongoing.

Now, one hasn't proceeded with it fully, but this is also an exciting question. On the one hand, there must obviously be competition in a market, but on the other hand, if these two companies are not allowed to consolidate, there is a risk that we will lose even more transports.

Aviation is not just an environmental problem, as some sometimes point it out as. Aviation is public transport over distances. It is exciting that Members of Parliament from Kiruna arrive in Stockholm faster than I do as a train traveler, because aviation functions as a fast form of public transport. It is business trips, it is healthcare, it is fire, it is defense, it is sea rescue, and it is police. We must include that entire perspective when we talk about aviation.

It will also be important to bring up the issue of, for example, Arlanda and Bromma or the local airports. Many municipalities now feel that they can no longer manage it. From that perspective, I think it is positive that a large investigation is underway on how it should function in the Stockholm area. I believe we have lost a number of years. We should have invested in Arlanda earlier, especially infrastructure to and from Arlanda. It was questionable to extend the agreement with Arlanda Express without even talking to the Transport Committee. But now we are where we are.

When it comes to the more long-term view on aviation, I belong to those who say that one should look at how Finland and Norway have done. But until we have a more long-term solution, we still need to encourage aviation that is environmentally friendly. We must encourage the transition that is underway. Therefore, municipalities and regions cannot more or less forbid people from traveling by plane.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to shipping, it is the same thing. There are challenges, but the government is actively working so that we can, so to speak, flag in more vessels. Regulatory changes are being made and taxes are being reviewed. This is extremely important, especially from a security perspective. I actually experience that we are more or less in agreement when we talk to each other about the importance of shipping.

Madam Speaker! Trafikverket is a dear child, I was about to say, or else it is a less dear child. I cannot travel anywhere in the country without this agency receiving criticism. They also receive criticism from the National Audit Office.

I do not need to go further than my own home region. In Åmål, they want to build a prison and feel that they have had a good dialogue with Kriminalvården. But it may fall through because the necessary traffic solutions cannot be achieved, due to it taking too long at Trafikverket. Furthermore, it is not an issue that only individual municipalities are affected by. It also concerns people in the business sector.

It is good that the government has started a process, but I still want to say from this rostrum that Trafikverket must become more efficient. They must become more customer-oriented. It is not acceptable that large deals, which could mean job opportunities in rural areas, should fall through because the agency cannot get its relations in order.

Madam Speaker! I move on to broadband, post and IT, and I will exceed my speaking time - I apologize from the outset.

We will have to work with Postnord. We will have to continue to follow that process. The reality is nevertheless such that the number of letters sent is decreasing, but the number of packages sent is increasing. And young people, like those of you now sitting in the gallery, and we in the chamber, are emailing more and more. With fewer and fewer users, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain a functioning postal service.

On the IT side, the government is doing quite a lot. I have great respect for what was said in the presentation earlier regarding the IT Commission and what they highlighted. But they are also working with e-identification and e-wallets and are conducting an investigation on PTS, so that they can receive a new mandate. They are also allocating almost 4 billion for the broadband to be developed. I think it is good but could wish for more.

I will tell a short anecdote. The first time I sat in the Riksdag, Göran Persson bet 10 million on building broadband in Sweden. The interesting thing is that we were actually among the best in Europe then. None of us knew enough about what it would cost. More can always be added, and less can be added. But I am grateful for what is.

Madam Speaker! My last small block concerns the environment. It must be socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable. We often have debates with Miljöpartiet regarding the reduction obligation, electric car premiums, state environmental agreements, and the like. But the truth is that environmental measures cannot be built on subsidies alone. They must also be built on long-term thinking and on the fact that people living in different parts of the country have different circumstances.

I personally believe that our technological development, market forces and ordinary citizens' will to improve the environment will lead to a better environment.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! The crisis in Swedish infrastructure is described as a national failure. I have had a small personal failure here myself. I had, in fact, understood it as that the debate on the budget and the debate on the infrastructure bill would be handled collectively, which was extremely misunderstood by me. But therefore, I had prepared my entire speech in that manner and have now had to rewrite it during the last 15 minutes. So that is the situation for me.

In the country, there is a strong drive to achieve a sustainable transport infrastructure. There are also plenty of examples of municipalities and regions that are leading the way and making the transition. In Gnosjö municipality, for example, the home care service in the central town has provided cars and bicycles to its home care clients. Huddinge municipality is planning for a new area where they will have a well-developed system for a large-scale car pool. Ockelbo municipality has had free public transport for 29 years. And in Lund municipality, they planned their new district, Brunnshög, based on the one-third goal, i.e., that at most one-third of trips shall be made by car. It is a municipality that works integrated with transport efficiency in its ordinary planning. This is how one can continue for a very long time. There are plenty of positive examples across the country. A lot is happening.

The big picture could also be significantly more positive if we did not have a situation where the country's municipalities and regions are ahead while the government and the national level lag behind. Klimatkommunerna, which represents municipalities and regions, notes that an excessively large responsibility for reducing emissions from the transport sector falls on the municipalities.

Many municipalities and regions have also, as part of their climate work, tightened their travel policies and developed new guidelines for courses, conferences, and business trips. Several municipalities also see clear effects and are proud that the work is yielding results.

But what is the government doing? Well, they choose to see the travel policies that have been adopted as a problem and instead urge the country's municipalities and regions to fly more. The government also chooses to abolish the urban environment agreements, that is, the tool that exists to work together in cooperation and jointly for sustainable urban development and increased transport efficiency.

Vänsterpartiet does the opposite. We do not abolish the urban environment agreements, but we strengthen them so that the national level can continue to contribute to more public transport, cycling, walking, and climate-smart freight transport.

Madam Speaker! In addition to the work taking place in our municipalities and regions, there is strong pressure and an expectation from civil society and industry actors. Here, for example, there is the commuter protest which demands sustainable commuting with cheaper public transport and a major investment in the railway and cycling infrastructure.

Here is also the Majblomman Federation, which has produced the report Future Hope at the price of a bus ticket. They propose a national reform with free public transport for all children and young people between 12 and 18 years old, so that we can meet the requirements of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that all children shall have the right to a meaningful leisure time, but also to counteract the transport poverty that is spreading in Sweden today.

Madam Speaker! In the follow-up of the transport policy goals from Trafikanalys, we see that the functional goal, which concerns everyone's right to basic accessibility of good quality, is developing negatively. The follow-up also clearly shows that the economic affordability of transport is decreasing.

The price of public transport has increased significantly in Sweden, by 139 percent over the last decades. This means that the prices in public transport have increased twice as much as the fuel price, 139 percent versus 70 percent. High fuel prices are engaging. For several parties in this chamber, it was one of the most important issues of the election campaign. But the price increase in public transport does not receive at all the attention and focus it deserves, even though it is greater.

If we are to reach the functional goal, an expanded, accessible public transport system that people can afford is needed. Vänsterpartiet therefore budgets for a Sverigebiljett, which shall apply to all public transport in the country and which shall cost 450 kronor per month. We also allocate resources for an expanded, reinforced public transport system and in this way join forces with the country's regions and share the responsibility for increased mobility and a sustainable transport system.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: In today's debate, we have heard that it is important to keep the country together. A member also mentioned the travel deduction, which compensates those who have long distances to work. But the travel deduction that exists today excludes several modes of transport.

We therefore propose what seven of the eight parties agreed upon as recently as the summer of 2022, namely a mode-of-transport-neutral and distance-based travel deduction. It would thus treat all modes of transport neutrally, while it would also level out regional differences. It is a more just travel deduction, but it is also an effective steering tool to reduce emissions from the transport sector and meet our climate goals.

With this, I would like to apologize for exceeding the speaking time. I also want to refer to our special statement linked to the budget and thank you very much.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I reacted to the discussion regarding travel policies, where the member praised municipalities and regions that disadvantage aviation in their travel policies and claimed that the government says that everyone should fly more. What she forgets in that reasoning is that it is about flying more but buying biofuels for the flights one takes, so that one is involved and contributes to aviation's transition and also ensures that we still have domestic aviation in Sweden.

I have a question for the member, Madam Speaker. I assume that Vänsterpartiet also wants all of Sweden to live and that we should hold the country together. A prerequisite for that is, of course, that we can travel quickly between different parts of the country, and in that regard, aviation is a good means of transport.

What future does aviation have in the Left Party's Sweden?

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions, or perhaps rather the observations.

When one listens to the Tidö parties talk about aviation, one can get the impression that aviation is already fossil-free or very close to fossil-free. That is not quite how it looks, as 98 percent are fossil fuels in today's aviation. The inclusion of biofuels also has its limitations. It should not exceed 50 percent, because then it is no longer safe. Also, aviation's double climate impact at high altitude remains. There are, therefore, several problems with aviation.

The chairman described it as those municipalities and regions that have adopted stricter travel policies disadvantaging aviation. I do not see it that way at all. What is being said is that if there is an alternative to flying, one should choose it. It is about meeting our climate goals and, above all, the 2030 goal, which I assume we agree on because it has been hammered out in the Riksdag.

If one can travel from point A to point B by train in a time that is less than three to four hours, one should choose the train over the flight. This does not exclude the flight in any way one hundred percent, but one makes a choice at any given time. I think that is reasonable. I also think it is reasonable to have those types of travel policies, and I think the member also could think that.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to put the question into some perspective. Aviation accounts for 1-2 percent of emissions in Sweden. In a completely different context, the member's representative was asked to guess what proportion of emissions aviation accounts for and guessed 30 percent. I wonder if it is not rather such assumptions that lie behind the Left Party's views.

There are authorities, regions, and municipalities that provide bonuses on salaries if one chooses the train instead of the plane, and that is nothing other than aviation-hostile. At the same time, some of the regions that have this type of policy also demand state funds so that their airports, which they absolutely want to keep, run at a deficit. It is an equation that does not add up.

What one can do is to buy biofuel corresponding to the consumption during one's flight. Then, one is involved in ensuring that aviation transitions.

With the flight shame that the Left Party in particular has helped contribute to, we have a flight crisis which, as someone mentioned earlier in the debate, risks leading to domestic aviation completely collapsing. In that case, it will be very difficult for the whole of Sweden to survive and to be able to have companies and jobs in all parts of Sweden other than in the public sector. That we only have public activity perhaps in itself is something that the Left Party welcomes. But we need companies in Sweden, and they need transport. They need aviation.

I do not feel that I received an answer to my question in my first reply. How does the Left Party view the future of aviation in Sweden? Is there any future for aviation at all, or is it that we simply should not have any domestic flights in Sweden and therefore, unfortunately, no companies either?

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the questions.

I think it is being waved around quite vigorously. It can be difficult to distinguish the questions, because it is being peppered quite heavily.

Maria Stockhaus spoke about figures and that we from our party have misinterpreted figures, but I think it goes both ways. For example, people talk about how aviation has reduced its emissions. But the emissions from aviation have increased by 28 percent 2004-2019. That is a fact.

Then I am thinking about the concept of flight shame, which the member's party and the other Tidö parties are very keen to problematize. For me, flight shame is about reflecting on one's choices, quite simply. Just as I mentioned earlier, it is about a travel policy where one can easily travel by train from point A to point B. Is it then not reasonable to make that assessment, to make that choice?

In conclusion, regarding the question of the future of aviation from a Left Party perspective: There is a future for aviation and for the regional airports, absolutely. We definitely understand the need for emergency airports. But we do not believe, as the Tidö parties do, that all regional airports should be emergency airports automatically.

I hope this was an answer to the questions.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the 2025 budget for expenditure area 22 Communications.

The expenditure area Communications consists of two sub-areas, one for transport policy for road, railway, shipping and aviation, and one for the policy for digitalization, electronic communication, broadband expansion, post and basic payment services.

The total budget for the area is 94.5 billion for 2025 and is one of the largest items in the state budget. The absolute majority of the money goes to the maintenance and expansion of our roads and railways, and the use of these funds is governed by the national infrastructure plan.

The transport system is a fundamental pillar for the country's development, and the increased focus on preparedness and our membership in Nato has further highlighted the condition of the infrastructure. Reliable and environmentally friendly transport and modern infrastructure are important for jobs and sustainable growth throughout the country. For us liberals, the cooperation between all modes of transport is the basis for an efficient transport system, where travel time is counted from door to door and not for a specific part of the journey.

The most effective way to increase capacity is to invest in maintenance, and the budget for 2025 contains a continued investment in maintenance based on the infrastructure plan 2022-2033.

The Government has simultaneously presented a proposal for an infrastructure bill for the years 2026-2037. We are increasing the appropriations for both maintenance and new investments for the years 2026 and 2027, which are included in the new bill, in order to be in line with the upcoming infrastructure plan. In total, the expenditure area increases by 11 billion in 2026 and a further 4.5 billion in 2027.

During 2025, more focus is placed on road maintenance, which receives an extra investment of 1.5 billion. Additionally, 50 million is invested in support for individual roads. We must begin to chip away at the maintenance debt, which deteriorates traffic safety and leads to reduced speeds.

The transport sector accounts for one-third of Sweden's emissions. Trafikverket points out that every mode of transport must find its own solutions to reduce its emissions, as a shift between modes of transport only contributes a few percent towards the goals.

Since road transport accounts for over 90 percent of domestic emissions within the transport sector, an electrification of our road transport is a priority for the Liberals, partly to reduce emissions and partly to free up fossil-free fuels for aviation and shipping.

We need to quickly expand the charging infrastructure. The Liberals see the lack of charging infrastructure as the biggest risk that companies and private individuals will not choose an electric car at their next car purchase and that the climate transition stalls. We also need to support the purchase of electric vehicles.

With the budget for 2024, a whole battery of initiatives is being made over a three-year period until 2026, that is, the rest of the parliamentary term. We have allocated 4.5 billion as support for the purchase of electric trucks and electric construction machinery, and a new support of 1.6 billion has been introduced for the purchase of light trucks. With the help of that, the purchases of electric light trucks have increased significantly.

At the same time, 5.3 billion has been invested with a focus on charging infrastructure, electrofuels, biogas production and waste management through Klimatklivet.

A total of nearly 12 billion SEK is invested over the three-year period 2024-2026, and we are in the middle of this investment.

To manage the transition of road transport, the production of biofuels needs to increase significantly. Most important for road transport, however, is electrification, as biofuels and e-fuels have greater value for other modes of transport that have a harder time transitioning, for example shipping and aviation. This applies in particular due to FuelEU Maritime and ReFuelEU Aviation with requirements that we must now begin mixing in e-fuels and biofuels in the fuels of these two modes of transport.

Aviation in Sweden is in a very tough situation. Domestic aviation has recovered in most countries, not least here in the Nordics, but in Sweden we are lagging behind. Aviation has an important function for our international contacts and for holding the country together. The government continues to provide support to the regional airports - a support of almost 300 million.

At the same time, it is important that we now leave flight shame behind us. Travel policies need to be changed. It must be permitted to fly fossil-free if the total costs of the trip are lower with the flight than with an alternative mode of transport if one counts in, for example, hotel nights and biofuels. Why is it okay to require public procurement of fossil-free road transport while a fossil-free flight is not permitted? We Liberals cannot understand this reasoning.

Already today, one can fly fossil-free, and the development within electric aviation and alternative fuels is taking large steps forward. Swedish Heart Aerospace is developing electric aircraft for production before 2030, and the start of production for electrofuels for aviation is set for 2027-2029. We Liberals view the continued investment in research and innovation for fossil-free aviation, and not least for electric aviation, positively.

90 percent of international freight traffic goes via maritime transport. The importance of Swedish shipping for Sweden cannot be overstated. The Government is now working on the regulatory framework for shipping to increase docking in Sweden. We are now making decisions on the abolition of the stamp duty from the turn of the year, and the Government is preparing a proposal on a new tonnage tax.

We also give Transportstyrelsen 8 million to manage the administration of the new bareboat system, which makes it possible for shipowners to charter out unmanned vessels.

Icebreakers are ordered so that the shipping industry's transport of people and goods can function even during the winter.

Gotlandstrafiken is procured from 2027 onwards, with limitations on price impact and with climate requirements.

The government is now ensuring that shipping is finally put into focus.

The budget for communications also consists of costs for digital development. Currently, the broadband expansion has an investment of 3.8 billion for the years 2024-2027. The upcoming digitalization strategy will include an updated broadband strategy. At the same time, we are making a reinforcement of the electronic communications and postal sector in civil defense, the largest investment since the Cold War. We are also investigating a state e-ID and digital wallet, something that has several items in the budget for 2025.

Last week, the AI Commission, appointed by the government, presented its report, which contains 75 proposals across twelve areas on how we can better utilize the potential of AI in Sweden. The government is now preparing the many interesting proposals in the report and is reviewing where they can be addressed. For example, it could be within the upcoming digitalization strategy.

The chairman of the AI Commission suggested that everything should be placed in the autumn budget, but it is more for adjustments to the budget. We are now looking at how we should handle all the very good proposals that are in the report.

Madam Speaker! I have here set out the coherent policy that the coalition parties are presenting. Now I cannot refrain from wondering how the opposition will be able to put together an alternative. Their proposals in the area have additions of between 1 billion and 39 billion, and the proposals point in all directions. The voters are likely interested in what the opposition's joint proposal would look like in order to be able to compare it with the proposal that we are presenting now.

Finally, the major infrastructure event during 2024 was the preparation of the government bill for the national infrastructure plan for 2026-2037, which we will debate later today. Following that, the work will begin to produce the national infrastructure plan, in which the concrete measures and projects are formulated. This will affect future budgets, which need to contain a long series of reinforcements within the infrastructure, not least in the north and for two new tracks between Göteborg and Alingsås.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Helena Gellerman for the speech.

I actually think that a lot of what was mentioned and what the Liberals highlighted with the budget was good. However, that is not really the problem.

An independent review of all parties' climate policies was conducted before the election. There, the Liberals came in second best, after the Green Party. You have very good ambitions. But then came the problems and the clash with reality. Not least, the Liberals seem incredibly concerned about how the opposition will be able to negotiate a compromise.

The Tidö parties seem to have succeeded, and unfortunately, they succeed because the Liberals have completely laid down and abandoned their entire environmental and climate policy. The result we see is, instead of the Liberals' ambition, strongly increased emissions. Now the Tidö parties' policy is beginning to take effect. During both the first and the second quarter of this year, we saw strongly increased emissions of greenhouse gases.

When it comes to the investments in sustainable aviation fuel, which all the Tidö parties spoke so warmly about, the handbrake is being pulled all over Sweden due to a failed industrial policy and a failed energy policy. Because of this government's policy, companies are afraid to invest in green sustainable transition in Sweden. The problem is that the beautiful words do not correspond with reality at all, which is moving in a totally opposite direction.

My simple question is whether Helena Gellerman is satisfied that emissions are increasing sharply.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Linus Lakso for the question. Climate and the environment go hand in hand and are very close to our hearts. It was, for example, one of the reasons why we stood outside the energy agreement that was concluded almost ten years ago; if one does not work with nuclear power, so that one gets a stable energy supply, one will not be able to make the climate transition that is needed. It is the very foundation. I have been part of many discussions where it has been said that the climate debate is not about energy, but it is actually the case that we need to move from fossil energy to fossil-free energy. We see now that we have had very unstable electricity prices, and we need to have a stable base production of electricity so that we can make the climate transition.

We are thinking long-term. If we are to achieve a climate transition in the long run, it must work until 2045. Then we will need more nuclear power. But we need all types of power if we are to double energy production: nuclear power, hydropower, wind power, and solar power. We will probably also need gas turbines to meet the climate transition and the companies' needs for electricity. The previous governments decommissioned four nuclear power plants, which has made the entire grid unstable across all of Sweden. Energy is a fundamental prerequisite for being able to make the transition. One of the things we saw as very positive about entering the Tidö agreement was that we do not remove any types of power but also include nuclear power.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I noted that Helena Gellerman did not answer my question or at all address anything I said about the total failure to meet the climate goals and secure green investments in sustainable aviation fuel across Sweden. Even when it comes to achieving electrification, the policy is going completely in the wrong direction. The share of electric cars in new car sales is decreasing, contrary to Helena Gellerman's ambition.

It is quite clear that the Tidö parties constantly use nuclear power as a fig leaf to cover up their totally failed climate policy. Now it becomes even clearer that it is also a failure in itself to put all eggs in one basket and invest in nuclear power. Due to the extremely long time it takes to expand nuclear power, emissions will, according to what Naturskyddsföreningen has shown, increase by 220 million tons when one invests in that instead of renewables.

What Helena Gellerman says is not at all in accordance with reality. This government is constantly opposing the renewable. They removed the 60-kronor for solar cells, lowered the green deduction, and say no to offshore wind power in the entire Baltic Sea. On Friday, an investigation will be released that will likely place a dead hand over the rest of the offshore wind power. They use the municipal veto; within the Tidö parties, including the Liberals, they say no to between 70 and 100 percent of the wind power on land. The companies see that the government and the Tidö parties are totally failing to deliver cheap sustainable energy by 2030 and 2035, and that is what is decisive for whether one should dare to invest here and now.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I shall then try to concretize the answers.

When the Climate Council looked at the climate action plan, they said that no government has been closer to reaching the 2045 goals than this government with the proposal that is currently presented. That is because we focus on how to achieve a stable energy system.

When it comes to the reduction of electric cars, it depends on how you look at it. The entire car market has gone down. That also naturally means that the number of electric cars has gone down. But the percentage share of electric cars has not changed.

We were very positive about looking at every proposal to produce wind power in the Baltic Sea, but the defense has said that it is not possible due to the current global situation. Had it been 2020, it might have been easier to say yes to this. But in the global situation we have now, it is not possible to establish this, because then we would weaken Sweden's defense capability.

I must say that I am a bit surprised, because Linus Lakso, like I, is an engineer. I believe that he, like I, understands that there are physical limitations for the system to be able to function, so that the companies will have electricity 24/7, that is, all the time, even at night when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. That cannot be guaranteed in the system that Miljöpartiet wants. One only talks about renewable energy systems. It is not physically possible, and I believe that even Linus Lakso understands that.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Green Party's vision is affordable and sustainable transport and communications throughout the country. To achieve this, the right solution is needed in the right place. The sustainable alternatives need to become cheaper and more attractive.

We need to ensure that maintenance of both roads and railways is restored; we will go into that more in the next debate. There, we invest significantly more than the government. We also need to make large investments in expanding the infrastructure.

We want people to be able to travel sustainably here and now, regardless of where they live in the country and whatever needs they have. Therefore, we want a leasing support of 2,500 SEK per month for electric cars and other sustainable solutions, such as biogas. The support shall be targeted towards rural areas and low-income earners. The purpose is that those who want to drive sustainably but do not want or can buy a car shall have the opportunity to drive with both low operating costs and low climate impact. That is how we help people to transition.

Here, the government's policy has failed completely. It is also the case that not only the total amount but also the proportion of electric cars in new car sales is falling sharply, while the proportion of petrol and diesel cars is increasing. This traps people in a dependency on fossil fuels, which we now likely import from Russia, among other places.

It has become ridiculously expensive to travel by public transport. We want to change that. We want a monthly ticket that applies to all public transport in the entire country, a "Sverigekort" (Sweden card). Such a card has, for example, been introduced in Germany, where it costs under 500 kronor a month to travel by public transport, half that for young people and students. The cost of traveling by public transport has increased, much more than for other forms of travel, as mentioned earlier. More specifically, it has increased by 140 percent over the last 20 years. That is twice as much as the increase in the price of gasoline. This may come as a novelty to the Tidö parties because they instead choose to spend over 31 billion on fossil subsidies.

In Norrbotten, a monthly pass costs over 3,000 kronor and in Stockholm only a third of that. We want to significantly reduce the costs for sustainable travel. This will particularly benefit people with small margins.

Furthermore, there is a lack of a national ticketing system for public transport, which complicates travel across county borders and makes it more difficult to travel by public transport when arriving in a new region. A Sverigekort would also solve that problem.

To simultaneously contribute to the development of public transport and enable investment in higher frequency, we want to provide an investment support for public transport of 5 billion kronor for next year.

The referral also deals with appropriation 1.7 Transport Agreements. They exist to ensure precisely accessibility throughout the country. Miljöpartiet wants the trains to function and also public transport as well in northern Sweden as in Bergslagen and in Kalmar in Småland. It seems the government does not want to.

Trafikverket had already requested 195 million kronor during 2024 to be able to maintain current availability. That is very small money in the contexts we are discussing today. These are funds that the government has chosen not to include in the budget for 2025.

Now Norrtåg and their passengers are left with withdrawn lines and impaired accessibility as a result. Norrtåg has great uncertainties about how sudden costs can be covered.

Even though Trafikverket, not least thanks to hard pressure from Miljöpartiet, has provided the majority of the funds unfunded to cover the government's failure, 48 million are still missing for Norrtåg.

If Norrtåg is to save the missing money, entire railway lines may need to be shut down, such as between Luleå and Haparanda or between Vännäs and Vindeln. Today, only Norrtåg operates those sections. Alternatively, drastic reductions in frequency must be made, which worsens accessibility in all of northern Sweden.

I do not give much credit to the beautiful words we heard from the government representatives about being able to travel throughout the entire country when we see what is actually being done in reality.

To uphold these agreements, we have pushed forward the money needed and a little more on top of that. We also believe that there should be night trains between Göteborg and Umeå and that the night trains should be able to continue past Åre all the way to Trondheim to better connect Norway and Sweden.

The great failure here from the government is that they invest far too little on the maintenance of the railway. It has become painfully clear to the Swedish people how poor condition the railway is in.

During December last year and January this year, we had 11,000 cancelled departures. It was in 2010, with the Alliance at the helm, that the maintenance was outsourced. We see the consequences of that today.

When it comes to the railway traffic running on, for example, the Södra and Västra stambanan, punctuality stands at approximately 50 percent. I mean that this is completely unacceptable.

The maintenance debt of the Transport Administration and the railways must be closed. Here, the government is failing completely. We need to do more. Sweden needs substantial investments in the climate, in the transition, and also in sustainable infrastructure.

Therefore, Miljöpartiet proposes a total investment budget that we believe is completely necessary to both reach the goals and create the conditions to be able to travel sustainably throughout all of Sweden.

More of the transports need to take place by train but also by sea. We also want national plans to expand charging infrastructure and the possibility to refuel biogas and hydrogen to enable sustainable alternatives.

We need a rapid electrification that succeeds in reality, better public transport, and a promotion of cycling as a means of transport. Not least for that reason, we instead maintain and expand the urban environment agreements that we consider absolutely necessary to help the municipalities and regions in their transition. We also want to see that a transport-neutral travel deduction is implemented.

The great and flagrant failure here is nevertheless that the government totally fails to reach the climate goals. It was mentioned earlier that the transport sector accounts for approximately 30 percent of the emissions. It is also within that sector that the emissions are increasing sharply.

No matter how much various ministers and government representatives try to talk it away and mislead, it is a fact that the government's policy leads to significantly increased emissions.

Furthermore, one still fails to make investments so that train passengers arrive on time or so that one can instead travel sustainably at low prices all around Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We believe that the Green Party's budget proposal would instead have remedied these problems. This can be read more about in our special statement.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by stating that Member Linus Lakso in a previous speech claimed that I said I was dissatisfied that the government had as its goal to work away approximately 10-15 percent of the maintenance debt on the railway.

I thought I was clear, but I choose to interpret it kindly. It may be that my Scanian accent caused a misunderstanding. I was very dissatisfied that Trafikverket did not have a better ability than that. So that is said.

Madam Speaker! Member Linus Lakso says that one wants to see cheaper and more sustainable transport throughout the country. I must only ask one question. It is proposed to double the aviation tax, increase the tax on gasoline and diesel, increase vehicle taxes on gasoline and diesel cars, and increase the reduction obligation.

Then one adds an extra investment budget of 66.8 billion where, among other things, one makes Northvolt investments on things that demonstrably do not work and demonstrably are not viable. This concerns, for example, 3 billion on electrofuels. It has been confirmed country after country that it does not work.

We have an electricity price of 806 öre tonight in my own zone 4. It becomes infinitely expensive fuel. I cannot make sense of the Green Party's equations. One could almost suspect that we would get an inflation like the one in post-war Germany, where the inflation was 29,500 percent in October 1923.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, we agree that we do not think that Trafikverket is functioning optimally today, Patrik Jönsson. Since there is a majority in the Swedish Parliament who believe it is a pity that it is not possible to move forward in that issue.

It is the root cause of why we are not succeeding in regaining the maintenance. There, we would need much more efficient methods, something that I believe the member also mentioned in their speech and in their replies.

It is very unfortunate that the Sverigedemokraterna have not stood their ground in the government cooperation and demanded that it be straightened out. Now we are dragged along with continued neglected maintenance, delayed trains, passengers standing on the platform waiting for trains that are cancelled, trains that never arrive. There should probably be a bit more self-criticism from the Sverigedemokraterna when it comes to how they have succeeded in the negotiations given the ambitions they have had.

Many here have spoken about wanting to see sustainable aviation. We can state that someone then needs to produce a sustainable aviation fuel. The Sweden Democrats seem almost satisfied when large and important industrial initiatives fail in Sweden, so where then will this sustainable aviation fuel be produced?

Everything tends to become an energy debate, so I suppose I will have to continue on that track in the next reply.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am not satisfied with the answer to my question because I received nothing. 66.8 billion of others' money is estimated by Miljöpartiet for projects that in several countries have demonstrably not worked.

Miljöpartiet is responsible for having broken our nuclear power, which makes the electricity in the country extremely expensive. It even risks affecting operational safety. I am an electricity operations manager myself, and I know that the operational safety in the power grid is risked when the frequencies land below, let's say, 49.5 or above 50.5 hertz - I do not know exactly which figures Svenska kraftnät has. Then the power grid is broken, and it is therefore that power grid that Linus Lakso wants to use to produce his fuels of electricity and such.

I asked a question. You claim that you want cheaper and sustainable transport throughout the country. How can it become cheaper when you double the aviation tax, increase the tax on gasoline and diesel, increase the vehicle tax on vehicles that run on gasoline and diesel, and furthermore intend to raise the reduction obligation? I cannot make the equation add up.

Madam Speaker! I would be very happy if I received an answer to my question, and I believe that very many Swedes would also be happy if they received it. We are dependent on our cars, and we are dependent on our trucks. We need food on the table, and we need to be able to get to work. I would appreciate it if Linus Lakso would answer the question, Madam Speaker. I would be grateful for that.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! To be clear: I believe Patrik Jönsson missed an important detail. We talked about cheap and sustainable transport. They need to go together.

Your own Prime Minister, whom you voted in, repeated quite frequently during the election campaign before that one needs to be able to keep two things in mind at the same time. I actually haven't heard him use the expression since he became Prime Minister, and I believe that is because this government is totally incapable of doing this.

We therefore need to make it as easy and as cheap as possible for people to use the sustainable alternative, but we also need to meet the climate goals. That is where the Tidö parties totally fail. I question the Sweden Democrats' ambition to even reach the climate goals at all, and if one does not have that ambition, it becomes easy. But the fact is that if you give people the opportunity to switch to an electric car, the operating costs become significantly lower.

It is primarily the Sweden Democrats who are the cause of the high electricity prices, because the Sweden Democrats are blocking the absolutely necessary investments in more sustainable electricity production here and now. That is what is driving up the prices. We know that we need to use more electricity, and then we need to invest in more electricity production. If one stops that through municipal vetoes, through government negotiations, and by worsening conditions for all possible types of power that one does not like except for one's favorite type of power, nuclear power, the electricity becomes much more expensive.

Furthermore, regarding a lie that is often repeated, I can mention that nuclear power was phased out on commercial grounds. This has been made clear by, among others, Vattenfall's former chairman.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Linus Lakso has earlier in the debate asked how the Christian Democrats view the investment budget. I would just, in all humility, remind that I raised that question throughout the entire previous parliamentary term. And at that time it was, as I remember, only the Left Party that agreed.

The Christian Democrats have, as a party via Hans Eklind, been involved in a negotiation. There, the issue was hammered out and landed in a balance goal. Do I think that is good? No, I would have preferred an investment budget. But if one has made a settlement, one has made a settlement, and one cannot, preferably even before it is finished and has been tested for a period, start saying that one is going to redo it.

We Christian Democrats will, of course, stick to the agreement, and I then assume that at some point in the future – whether it be in one, two, or three parliamentary terms – one will look at how it has functioned.

What one can know purely historically, however, is that we had an investment budget until 1980. In 1981, investments in infrastructure were halved, and that has been the case since then. The maintenance debt that has accumulated has, therefore, accumulated during the time we had a different system. From a Christian Democratic perspective, I am extremely pleased that we have been able to conduct a negotiation and reach a compromise, and I am pleased with the money that it has freed up.

There is a culture, at least out in the municipalities where I have been most active, where one accepts a set of rules. In the municipalities, it is SKR's figures that people, regardless of party affiliation, often base their calculations on. From that perspective, I can think it is strange that Miljöpartiet has its own budget model that is different from everyone else's. It simply becomes incomparable for the citizens.

Madam Speaker! I hear that there is a commitment to outsource the maintenance of railways to Trafikverket. That is just the problem, Madam Speaker, that Trafikverket cannot handle it. It is one of the major problems. If more money is now allocated to Trafikverket than they can manage, it is money that is returned to the government. How does Miljöpartiet think about that?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by thanking Magnus Jacobsson for the honesty of saying that he did not make it all the way in the negotiations. So it can be; the Green Party is well aware that it can happen. But unfortunately, it has the consequence that we, just as the member is pointing out, will continue with a large maintenance debt and with investments that we would need but that do not materialize.

Miljöpartiet proposes an investment budget. One can see it as that sometimes it needs to be thought about a bit differently or rather a bit "new-old", because we actually have had an investment budget. As I mentioned in a previous exchange, it is very many, if not most, municipalities that have it. All companies borrow for large investments, and most private individuals do. It is just strange that the state does not have an investment budget. I hope that more parties can rethink this.

When it comes to Trafikverket and being able to use the money, we in Miljöpartiet have been clear that we do not think it works well today. We would actually need to return to an agency that solely focuses on the railway and has that specific expertise. Road and railway differ in that the railway is more of a cohesive system where all parts need to work with each other. We need to streamline maintenance significantly through innovation procurement and by using the modern technology that exists.

There has been quite a massive criticism regarding how it has been done with the Western Main Line, where other operators argue that they could have done it radically much faster and with much fewer traffic disruptions as a result.

I believe that one needs to think a bit differently. One needs to think a bit innovatively.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the question of Trafikverket, I believe that the vast majority have the perception that it is not functioning very well.

I can go to my own party. I have traveled around and participated in a community building committee appointed by the party board, and I do not believe I have been to any place where Trafikverket is praised.

For my part – and I am careful to say that it is for my part – I would not have been averse to dividing. But I also share the government's analysis that a division in itself is not a given solution. It also involves a long period of reorganization.

The government has begun a piece of work where the focus is clearly on the fact that it must become more efficient. I devoted a part of my speech to the fact that Trafikverket must become more efficient. It must not be the case that Trafikverket is a brake for companies and municipalities. I used the proposal for a prison in Åmål as an example. But it is not only in Åmål where this is seen, but in several places in Sweden we see that there is a will to invest – but it is being held back.

The problem with the idea of bringing back more and more of the procurements - we have debated this for four years since the last parliamentary term - is that there is not a single report from the Swedish National Audit Office suggesting that it would be better with Trafikverket. Sweden owns a fleet of machinery, but due to incorrect procurements, it is being operated in Norway. There are actually far too few companies in the industry, and if they are to function, it must rather be that more procurements occur with clearer time goals.

I truly share the view that we need to streamline, and one issue that is absolutely most important is to also factor in social benefit in procurements. I am not sure that what is happening at home in Göteborg and Alingsås, that one drives around with a tractor and changes lines, is what is best for Swedish social benefit.

But here I still experience that the government has taken hold of this, and I know that the Tidö parties are pushing all the time. In that regard, it is good that the opposition also pushes so that we together make Trafikverket a more efficient agency.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! We seem to be in agreement, Magnus Jacobsson, on quite a lot. Of course, I do not believe either that it is so simple that we, with a magic wand, divide everything, and then everything becomes peace and harmony. It is clear that it is a process, and one must always weigh the investment cost against what could threaten the efficiency in a division of the agency.

I believe that one can do this in a smart way. The committee has recently been on a study trip to Denmark, and we have previous experience here in Sweden of working more project-based or in consortia. It could be a transitional solution to work in that direction, to successively divide Trafikverket and ensure that the competence that really needs an outlet is directed.

Communications

I want to be clear to all listeners that I do not believe there is anything wrong with the employees at Trafikverket. I believe they are extremely competent, and I believe they themselves are frustrated that they are not given an outlet for their competence and can do what they are passionate about, namely to get Sweden's railway system to function as well as possible so that the trains arrive on time. Here we have a political responsibility to provide the conditions for those who want to make this work, who have chosen to educate themselves in the field because they want there to be functioning trains.

It is a pity that we cannot take slightly faster and clearer steps forward. It is clear that it needs to be a process when one is eventually going to divide an agency, but if it is done in a wise way, I believe that we do not lose so much but instead increase efficiency and work in a smarter way. I believe that it is fully possible, but I do not think the government succeeds there at all. And it is a pity.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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