Communications

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

Madam Speaker! New times are approaching. Out with the old and in with the new! Out with castles in the air and in with clear investments in the maintenance of both railways and roads! We in Tidö also invest in shipping and aviation to strengthen our infrastructure.

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

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

Just before the 2022 election, the previous government made a decision on the infrastructure plan for the period 2022–2033. In the basis from Trafikverket before the then government's decision, one can read the following: ”The condition of the state road network has deteriorated gradually over a longer period, and with given appropriation levels, the rate of deterioration will continue to be higher than the rate of action. This means that the road system” – despite the increase in appropriations – ”will deteriorate faster during the planning period than Trafikverket can restore.”

The previous government therefore made a decision which in practice meant that they planned for the road network to gradually deteriorate. It becomes a bit strange when the same parties in this report suddenly want to invest in road maintenance.

The question that immediately arises is obvious: Why didn't you do it when you were in government? Why did the previous government make a decision where, in practice, they chose to let the roads deteriorate? It was a conscious choice when decisions were made to reduce the maintenance of our roads. Perhaps we will get an answer to that question today.

Madam Speaker! It was clear in the previous plan that the previous government chose to focus its efforts on new investments in main lines for high-speed trains, a project that was criticized for high costs and for a lack of structure in the work. The National Audit Office's judgment on the previous government was harsh and is best summarized in one sentence: A complete mess without cost control!

Together, the Sweden Democrats and the government have changed course, and significantly so. Now, the focus is on the maintenance of both roads and railways. Together with the government, we are focusing on infrastructure's role in Swedish society. Our strategy for a competitive infrastructure does not extend solely to roads as a means of transport, as we believe that all types of traffic should be included and taken into account in a comprehensive transport and infrastructure planning. Regardless of whether it is people or goods to be transported by road, by rail, by air, or by sea, the infrastructure must be robust regardless of the season.

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

In the report we are currently discussing, we can see that several parties on the left wing are actually working against the possibility of a well-functioning infrastructure for aviation. This has serious consequences for the possibility of living and working in the entire country. But it also has fatal consequences for ambulance flights, police flights, and fire flights, and not least for our preparedness. In the global situation we find ourselves in, we must ensure that we have an efficient infrastructure even for aviation.

Madam Speaker! I want to say a few words about the reality that has been created by many years of inability to see the importance of infrastructure in our everyday lives.

In the last few days, my phone and email have literally been flooded with messages from desperate drivers out on the country's roads. The maintenance of our winter roads has literally collapsed. The situation we have out on the roads has caused several drivers to call for a safety stop, as they feel they are performing their work with their lives at stake.

Eight years with the previous government shows a complete failure regarding the ice control on our roads. The procurement system that was built up simply does not have the conditions to control ice on our roads. It is simply built into the system that the roads freeze over and become glass-smooth. I received a picture yesterday from a friend showing the situation for road users right now. It was a pure ice rink between Älvsbyn and Arvidsjaur – not a single grain of sand had been laid out!

That the railway does not function in a satisfactory way is something many stranded travelers can testify to. For my part, I travel by train a lot, and I am often delayed. The legacy from the previous government is heavy, and it will take many years before the extensive deficiencies in the railway system are rectified.

In conclusion, I would like to summarize the importance of functioning infrastructure.

For us in Tidö, it is central that people should be able to live and reside in the whole country and get to their jobs and leisure activities quickly and safely. Companies should have good conditions for their operations and be able to transport goods by sea, road and rail as well as in the air – not to forget the important digital infrastructure. Politics must relate to people's actual conditions and not be built on utopias.

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

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

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

Shipping is a key player for our country's prosperity. One realizes its importance when seeing the enormous amount of cargo that shipping handles every year. Developing and strengthening Swedish shipping is an important goal for us. More ships are being flagged to Sweden thanks to the changes that the government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, has made. That bodes well for the future.

Together with the government, we look forward to developing the infrastructure, whether it is on land, in the air, at sea, or digitally.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Now it is time for the budget debate on communications. When we, as we do in the Swedish Riksdag, debate one area at a time, it becomes easy to lose sight of the scope of the challenges we have ahead of us. Sweden fundamentally has a good starting position, but we have ended up in a worsened economic situation. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the Western world. We have weak growth, and we have a decline in new entrepreneurship. It is extremely frightening if that is the development we will continue to see.

Now we move on to the fourth budget that the Tidö parties are presenting. Unfortunately, we do not see a coherent policy so that the challenges can be taken seriously and the development reversed. Not least when it comes to climate policy, we have seen a complete reversal. From being a climate role model, we have moved to being a country that accounts for significantly increased emissions.

Weak growth and skyrocketing climate emissions occur at the same time as we need to initiate a historically large upgrade of both the military and the civil defense. We need a policy that seriously addresses the entirety of that problem. We need a policy that releases the potential in Sweden but also inspires faith in the future.

From the Center Party's budget motion, I would like to highlight three important areas of focus in the debate concerning communications. On these three areas, we are very critical of the Tidö government's policy. As we heard from Thomas Morell just now, it is about doing either one or the other, not about doing both.

We need to maintain, and at the same time, we need to build new railways. We need to provide resources to maintain our roads. The government does this in the national plan that has now been developed, but one must also look at in what way the entire transport system can be climate-proofed.

This autumn's rain in Västernorrland, where both railway embankments and roads were washed away, shows that strong investments are needed to strengthen the infrastructure. At the same time, we must work for a better climate policy.

The three areas I, as a member of the Centre Party, want to highlight concern job creation, the opportunity for more jobs, and skills supply. What does that have to do with communications? Well, the entire communications sector is actually a part of the construction of society, and it needs to be supplied with skills.

We in the committee had the privilege of visiting the ME school, which Maskinentreprenörerna has outside Stockholm. It is a collaboration with a number of different municipalities in Sweden. How important it is to demonstrate the future sector that the entire contracting industry is!

Sweden needs climate and environmental leadership. We need a climate plan to reach the emission targets and become a climate role model again. With the Tidö government, the fossil [fuel use] has increased and emissions have increased sharply. We must tackle that issue, not least when it comes to transport.

The sales development of environmental cars is a major problem. Centerpartiet presents a proposal to be able to lease an environmental car. Up to 100,000 people could do so. The Government presents an environmental car bonus that might reach, at most, 10,000 people.

We need to procure domestic fuel production. We need to have both production and storage, and it should be for both cars and trucks.

We aim for fossil-free aviation by 2030.

Public transport must be strengthened.

There are many challenges when it comes to traffic and the climate. The Centre Party does not, unlike the Tidö parties, want economic policy to only be focused on strengthening household finances. We also want to invest in and build infrastructure, green industry and green energy production, and additionally affordable housing throughout the country. Here, investments are needed to reduce inequalities and increase growth.

The previous speaker was on the subject of the railway. In Trafikverket's plan, we see that the maintenance will not be finished even by 2050. It is said that large parts will be able to be completed by then, but that is not enough. Omtag Svensk Järnväg submitted ten different proposals on what could be done in the relatively short term to strengthen the Swedish railway. The government has only listened to one of these ten. It will be exciting to see how the government in our time will handle Trafikverket's proposal, which is now out for consultation.

Centerpartiet would like to have a task force for the railway. We want a decision to be made in a relatively short time regarding both maintenance and some investments, for example in the form of triangle tracks, to increase capacity while simultaneously being able to maintain it. It must be possible – unlike the government – to think about more than one thing at a time, i.e., to think both. Both increased maintenance and more rails were needed, not least to strengthen the civil preparedness.

I mentioned the rain in Västernorrland in September. There we saw the need for individual roads to be given the opportunity for increased support. There is some support from the government, but additional opportunities would be needed to climate-proof the individual roads. They are often operated by joint property associations, and that part also really needs to be strengthened.

Let me bring up two further examples where I wish the government would see the needs of individual people in a clearer way. One example concerns the procured transport, and part of that concerns the night trains. When this budget was written, we had seen how night train traffic in Sweden had been cut back. Since then, there have been further announcements regarding cuts. It is a weakness on the government's part not to provide resources for better procurement of such traffic.

I also want to mention Gotlandstrafiken and that it is not possible to visit the neighboring municipality without it costing several thousand – perhaps up to 4,000 kronor for a car and four people in a family. I do not know what words to use, but there one has truly reached the end of the road. I would have wished that the government had addressed this in a clearer way. We will see what announcement they have to give when the Director General of Trafikverket, together with the Minister for Infrastructure, visits Gotland.

It should not have to be the case that for many years we get used to a municipality in Sweden having completely different conditions than all others to visit its neighboring municipalities. It was expensive already 35 years ago to travel to Gotland. Now it is enormously more expensive. It is as if we have gotten used to it. I am disappointed that the government has not heeded the cries we have heard from the people of Gotland for a long time.

There is much to say about Sweden's infrastructure. The Centre Party wants to demonstrate a policy that provides more jobs but also fewer emissions. We want a country that hangs together. All of Sweden must function, and for that, the railway, among other things, must be addressed.

In conclusion, I would like to wish my colleagues in the committee a Merry Christmas. I also want to thank the Chamber Office and the Committee Office for all the great work during the year and wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! When I listened to Ulrika Heie, it became clear to me that the Tidö parties and the Center Party share views on how important aviation is for all of Sweden to live and on aviation's growth. In the Center Party's budget motion, there is even a proposal to invest money in developing electric and hybrid aircraft, which I find very interesting.

None of us here in the chamber have a majority on our own, but must reach an agreement with other parties. Therefore, I wonder how Ulrika Heie views the possibility of reaching an agreement on aviation with her intended coalition partners in Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, who have a completely different view on aviation. They demonstrably ruled and dictated with the Socialdemokraterna previously and, to some extent, also with the Centerpartiet in order to be able to reduce support for airports and other things. This also applies to how support was handled during the covid pandemic.

I am therefore curious about how Ulrika Heie views the future of aviation, if it were to become a different government. How will it be possible to achieve accessibility throughout the country if there is no support for the regional airports? It is just one example of all the absurdities regarding aviation that exist within Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

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

It became a bit of a favorite in repetition. I looked at last year's exchanges of remarks yesterday, and the same question was asked then: How is the Centerpartiet going to manage to have an aviation policy that aligns with other parties'?

I share Maria Stockhaus' view that there is much in the Tidö parties' politics that the Center Party also has in its own. This applies in particular to the idea of aviation's possibilities. The Center Party has, in its budget proposals, included substantial supplements to the regional airports, because we see a need for aviation to transition. We need aviation that is environmentally better, but aviation also needs to be based on accessibility and price. Therefore, increased competition is needed, and at the same time, aviation needs to transition.

I am not particularly worried about future collaborations. We have an election in the autumn, and the voters will show which parties they give their confidence to. After the election, a process begins, which we in Sweden are used to. Then someone receives the confidence to try to form a government. Once the voters have spoken, I believe we will see such things become possible that we perhaps do not see today.

I am listening to the various parts of the opposition and I think I hear from all parties that aviation is needed, but they want to see a green transition. The question of how one views the future of aviation can perhaps be posed to the other parts of the opposition. But it must transition, because all of Sweden needs fast communications. And there is nothing else that can compete with aviation in that regard. We need sustainable travel in our entire country, and in that case, aviation is incredibly important. But it must transition.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! That aviation must transition and that we are to have green aviation is probably a self-evident matter for all of us here in the chamber. It is important that we support aviation's transition and enable, for example, refueling with biofuel as well as production of biofuel in Sweden. I would say that it is very important for both shipping and aviation.

These were, however, not reassuring messages for all of us who would like to fly and for those who live in parts of Sweden where flights are required, for example, to be able to travel back and forth to Stockholm during the day. It is a worrying development that awaits given how aviation was handled by previous governments.

I have another question, Madam Speaker. Ulrika Heie spoke warmly in favor of maintenance, something that this government has prioritized. It is very clearly visible in the budget and also in the infrastructure bill that was adopted in the chamber in 2024. But when the Center Party provided support to the previous government, Trafikverket was clear that the infrastructure would be in poorer condition at the end of the planning period due to the national plan and the infrastructure bill that was presented then. The funds needed for maintenance had not been allocated.

My question to Ulrika Heie is therefore: Does Ulrika Heie today regret that the Center Party gave its support to an infrastructure bill and a plan that did not invest in the maintenance that our roads and railways need?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Maria Stockhaus, for both the additional questions and comments! But if one has pre-written comments, one might not listen to the answers given. Maria Stockhaus said that no reassuring messages were given. We are also prepared to support the aviation transition. We have invested more than the government in the regional airports. That it should not be a reassuring message makes me very surprised.

Furthermore, it concerned the national plan. We participated in the January cooperation during a part of the previous parliamentary term, and when the plan was presented, the January cooperation was no longer part of the basis for the government's policy. The Moderates had, together with the Left Party, ousted the government before that.

Of course, it is not particularly good that the facility is in poorer condition. There are difficulties even today with the plan that is currently relevant. There is a need for significantly more railway than what one is able to deliver in a plan. When looking back, I do not think anyone can be particularly proud or think it is good that one does not maintain to the extent that one does not deteriorate the facility. But it is also not good to remove the conditions for the construction of new rails and new roads in the way that the government does in the plan proposal that exists. We will have to see if the government maintains its proposal when the plan is presented in the spring.

I think it is extremely alarming that the government parties do not take the infrastructure debt that exists in Sweden today more seriously. We would need all the railway that the Tidö government cut at the beginning of the mandate period. Trafikverket shows that we need just as much rail as was cut. At the same time, projects are being removed from the plan that would have been important to build.

I look forward to seeing the government's policy, and I hope that one listens to the whole country when presenting its plan.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I received a question from Member Heie.

That we cannot think of two things at the same time is not quite correct. The problem is that this government inherited a situation that leaves us literally indebted up to the rafters. On the railway side, we have a maintenance debt of 90 billion. In the Swedish National Audit Office's report, the judgment on the previous government is harsh. In one chapter, it states that the government mortgages future investment funds. One has, therefore, mortgaged the future in a way that limits the possibilities to expand the railway.

We are well aware that the capacity needs to increase, but it cannot be done in the same way as the previous government handled the situation.

The chairman brought up the occasion when the rain washed away the railway in Västernorrland. It shows so clearly that one has not thought about what we are to do on the day when things are not as they usually are. When the railway was washed away in connection with rain, there was only one single railway connection left that could supply Norrland, and that was the Inlandsbanan with the limitations that existed with it, for example 400-meter-long passing tracks.

It shed light on how poorly it has been managed here for so many years. One has not invested in or maintained the railway infrastructure we have. The rain in Västernorrland focused attention on what we need to do, namely to ensure that we get a railway that works every hour of the day, all year round. That is exactly what the government is doing.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Yes, a railway that functions every hour of the day, every day of the year, I believe we have a very broad consensus on here in the transport committee, every day of the week.

The Chairman mentions the rain in Västernorrland and that one did not take into account what could happen. But how do the Sweden Democrats then view the climate challenges we have, when the climate goals are now not being met? Is it not the climate transition that causes us to face significantly greater challenges with both roads and railways that are not climate-secured in different ways? In what way do the Sweden Democrats see that one needs to address climate policy so that we can ensure we do not get that type of extreme weather?

I know that we are late when it comes to this. But it is strange if not everyone has woken up and is doing everything they can, everything within one's power, to ensure that we reduce our emissions. We know that the emissions from traffic are part of what lies behind the climate change, and we need to address that.

I also know that the Inlandsbanan, which the member raised, was an important part of the supply between northern and southern Sweden when the rains had taken out the other railways. I look forward with anticipation that the Sverigedemokraterna might perhaps bring that part in significantly more in future plans so that it is ensured that the climate-proofing of our railways receives significantly greater resources than until now.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! We do not know exactly what caused the events on the railway up there. There was a segment on TV this evening where it was stated that clear-cuts located directly above the railway embankment, together with forest roads, were a contributing cause to the water being directed down to the railway. When the water reached the railway embankment, it had nowhere to go, because the culverts in the railway embankment were too weak. Then the water found its way another way, and the railway embankment was simply washed away. There can, therefore, be completely different explanations for why this situation arose.

An important part of this entire reasoning is that we have a functioning railway so that the industry can lift its goods onto the trains. As it stands now, four out of five industrial companies say that they hesitate to invest in Sweden because the infrastructure functions so poorly. That is why the government, together with us, is focusing on achieving a completely different direction. We must have a railway that works year-round, regardless of the weather. We must strengthen our railway system.

Then the question is: Does C still have thoughts that we should build high-speed trains instead of ensuring that we get a railway that works even for freight traffic? If that doesn't work, the industry will move out, and then we will have other concerns as well.

It is a matter of having a thought on how our infrastructure should function and how we ensure that it functions. Then we must begin to maintain. We cannot have substations from the 60s that are supposed to regulate our modern trains. They must be replaced – it is that simple. This put the previous government completely in a waiting position. It stands clearly in plain text in the report that I have lying in front of me.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Thomas Morell, for further comments and questions!

It is quite obvious that climate emissions have a major impact on, not least, our infrastructure throughout Sweden. Sometimes we see clear examples of it, sometimes slightly less clear. We have seen major problems, not least connected to frost damage, in all of northern Sweden. I know that the member is very eager to be able to raise the issues that exist and to do something about them.

But it surprises me that the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, do not more clearly drive a vision for the railway. Why is there no plan for the entire development of the railway in Sweden as that mode of transport deserves? It is said that the industry will move out if there is no possibility to transport more by rail. Why, then, are there not more proposals to strengthen the railway from the government's side? We see with Hitachi in Ludvika how vulnerable it is if their way out of Sweden were not to work. Why are not additional resources allocated and is it not said that maintenance needs to be accelerated and strengthened? I was a bit surprised by that rhetoric from the Sweden Democrats.

The member reacted to my statement that one must be able to think about two things at the same time. This also applies to the industry. It needs good communications, but it also needs energy. We know that wind power needs to be expanded quickly. Nuclear power, which I believe the member is very enthusiastic about, is important in the long run, but we need energy now. That requires the expansion of wind power. I would like to see the overall picture from the Sverigedemokraterna side.

Then a question was also asked about new railway and new rails. We need to build for the same speed as they do around Europe, 250 kilometers per hour, and connect all of Sweden with those speeds so that one does not need to reduce the speed anywhere.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Swedish infrastructure is the backbone of our country. When roads and railways function and airports and ports are accessible, the whole of Sweden functions. People get to work on time, companies can grow, and our competitiveness is strengthened.

When the infrastructure fails, it has major consequences for the entire society. Every stop on the Malmbanan costs LKAB 100 million kronor per day. Commuters freeze on platforms, and one does not dare to trust that they will arrive at work on time when the trains stand still because the maintenance has not been handled.

This is the reality we inherited after the social democratically governed government, which, among other things, let the maintenance debt grow uncontrollably in order to be able to focus on cutting ribbons during the election campaign. The previous government let the maintenance debt for railways and roads grow to over 100 billion kronor between 2014 and 2022. They deprioritized what was actually needed. Now we are cleaning up after them, and we are doing so with historical investments.

Madam Speaker! The Government proposes 106.7 billion kronor for communications and infrastructure in 2026. It is a powerful increase that shows that we are serious about ensuring that what we already have in place functions.

During the autumn, we Moderates in the Committee on Transport have visited several places in the country. It is clear that the government's investment in maintenance is truly making a difference. Several of those we have met, who work with planning and implementing maintenance measures, testify that they can now, thanks to the government's investment in maintenance, carry out preventive maintenance and not just rush out when problems and damages have already occurred. During the next planning period, we will zero out the maintenance debt on roads completely, and on the railway side, we will add resources corresponding to the highest level that Trafikverket says it can manage while still keeping traffic running.

This does not mean that we are satisfied with how Trafikverket carries out maintenance on the railway. They have a mandate to streamline and develop their procurement so that it is possible to carry out more maintenance without having to close the facility. The ordering of new maintenance trains is a step in the right direction. Trafikverket itself says that with the increased pace of railway maintenance, the entire maintenance debt on the railway will be gone by 2050. But even now, punctuality has improved, which is pleasing for many travelers.

We are investing 41 billion kronor in the development of new infrastructure and 40.3 billion in maintenance next year. The Riksdag decided in December 2024 on a long-term economic framework of 1,171 billion for infrastructure investments during the period 2026–2037. This provides predictability and the opportunity to plan long-term. That is how you build a country.

Madam Speaker! A major difference between this government and the previous one is the view on aviation. Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet want to reduce aviation support by several hundred million. They say that air travel needs to decrease and call it problematic that the government is working for more direct flights to and from Arlanda during the ongoing climate crisis. We also see that aviation emits. We want aviation to transition. We want to reduce emissions but not the travel.

What is the alternative – that people from Norrland should not be able to fly to Stockholm and that companies should move their headquarters abroad? When companies themselves are asked to list important factors for establishment and growth, more direct flights out into the world is something that ranks high on the list.

We believe in aviation and want it to transition, not be shut down. We invest 10 million kronor per year to enable new international direct flights to Sweden and Arlanda, and next year five new flight routes from Arlanda will start. That is how you create jobs and growth.

Aviation is necessary for accessibility within Sweden and between Sweden and other countries. We continue to support the regional airports to ensure good accessibility throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! Let me speak about something that is often forgotten, even though Thomas Morell creditably raised it in his speech. It is about shipping. 95 percent of everything we import and export goes somewhere in the shipping chain via sea transport. Almost 70,000 boats arrive every year at Swedish ports, and 164 million tons of goods are loaded. Yet, Swedish shipping has for a long time been burdened by higher fees and more bureaucracy than the shipping of other countries.

The government has acted and changed a lot of the conditions for Swedish shipping. On July 1, the stamp duty for new ships was removed. We are making it easier to charter in and charter out mainly unmanned ships. We continue to work on changing the tonnage tax system. It has yielded results: shipping companies are now flagging their ships to the Swedish flag. Just last week, Stena Line flagged in a ship. There, they were also very clear that it is the government's policy and changed conditions for Swedish shipping that make them flag in.

This is important not only for Swedish shipping in general but also for our national security and for our ability to manage crises. It is a responsible policy to truly safeguard Swedish shipping.

Madam Speaker! Given how the budget is distributed, it is natural that trains, aviation, shipping, and road transport take up a large space in our budget debate. But the budget in our area also contains digitalization and postal issues. Thanks to the broadband support, the vast majority of households in Sweden today have access to 5G. The Government has also begun the work of implementing the proposals that the AI Commission will submit. After the New Year, an AI strategy will be released. AI has the potential to increase efficiency and quality, not least in the public sector. The possibilities are great, and the Government is eager for the development to continue while we manage the risks that exist with AI.

Madam Speaker! I have, of course, read the opposition's various budget proposals ahead of this debate and can state that it is a far from united opposition. It is significantly fragmented. The Social Democrats have very small changes in relation to the government's budget. The Centre Party wants to invest in roads and growth, while the Left Party and the Green Party strongly want to increase the maintenance debt on Swedish roads, which today have potholes and queues, and only invest in cycling and railways.

Their budget proposals differ by tens of billions per year. Miljöpartiet wants to increase the appropriation by 39.5 billion kronor in one year. Vänsterpartiet wants a Sverigebiljett for 2.5 billion. Miljöpartiet wants a Sverigekort for 11.1 billion. It is the same idea but very different costs.

Not even the opposition can agree on what their own policy will cost. How are they going to make it all work, and how can they reach an agreement when they see so differently, above all, on how the different transport laws should be handled?

Madam Speaker! The Government's budget proposal for expenditure area 22 is balanced, feasible, and responsible. We are investing a record amount in infrastructure, but we are doing it in a way that works. We ensure that all four modes of transport – road, rail, aviation, and shipping – are given the opportunity to develop in Sweden. We look at all of Sweden, not just the large cities. We prioritize jobs, growth, and accessibility.

All of Sweden must function. That is why I want to move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Maria Stockhaus, for the speech! I have a few questions. When it comes to aviation, I am not at all worried about reaching an agreement with Centerpartiet. On the contrary, it is we who are making major investments in, among other things, sustainable aviation fuel.

If we are to be able to fly sustainably in the future, it is a key factor to actually produce sustainable aviation fuel. What volumes can be produced in a sustainable way remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: one needs to invest. I simply wonder what investments the Tidö Government is making to get production of more sustainable aviation fuel and marine fuel started.

Then I want to correct one thing regarding the road maintenance. I do not know how Maria Stockhaus has read our budget, but what she says is simply not true. We spend exactly as much on road maintenance as the government does. We do think that the roads we have should be well-maintained. It is the fossil fuels we are to move away from when it comes to road traffic.

Since then, there has been a lot of boasting about railway maintenance. Then we can look at some figures and compare with the previous government. We increased the maintenance by 100 percent during the last parliamentary term. It was a doubling. It is also that doubling that forms the basis for what Maria Stockhaus and several others are now boasting about, namely that we are getting more maintenance on the railway right now. The government's plan, which people are talking about, has in fact not been decided yet. On the contrary, at the beginning of this parliamentary term, maintenance was removed from the railway.

We can state that 85 percent of the maintenance debt will remain until 2037. Is Maria Stockhaus satisfied with that, considering how it looks on the Swedish railway today?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! The Tidö government is also investing in getting production of sustainable aviation fuel started in Sweden, but it does not matter much if there are no airports left to fly to. Given that you are withdrawing support for the regional airports, that risk is quite obvious. There is, therefore, a risk that there will be no possibility to fly domestically in Sweden, because the airports where the flights would go no longer exist. They cannot afford to keep them.

When it comes to railway maintenance, the most important thing, which the Tidö Government has truly focused on in contrast to the previous government, is to try to change how Trafikverket works with maintenance. It is very clear from the Swedish National Audit Office's various reports that there are major deficiencies.

An investigation was conducted ten years ago by Gunnar Alexandersson. There, a complete package of measures was proposed to speed up the maintenance of the Swedish railway. None of this became a reality, because the previous government insisted on taking over the maintenance in their own administration. That was the only thing that was important, and it wasn't even included in the investigation. Therefore, the investigation's proposals were put in a filing cabinet, which is very unfortunate. Otherwise, we could have had a different situation regarding how Trafikverket works with procurements and how one promotes innovations regarding maintenance.

If we are to work down the maintenance debt for the railway faster, this is one of the keys. DN made a calculation where it was concluded that it would take approximately 250 years to work down the maintenance debt for the railway. But now the assessment is that most of it can be removed by 2050. The government's policy has made a quite large difference. We have been able to speed up the work.

Since then, we are not satisfied with that. We would like it to go even faster and will continue to have a discussion and exert pressure on Trafikverket to develop its methods, so that we get more efficient railway maintenance.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answers so far, Maria Stockhaus! However, I was not quite clear on which investments in sustainable aviation fuel are being made. Maria Stockhaus is welcome to clarify this in the next answer.

Then I agree that more could have been done earlier. We would gladly have been more offensive both regarding the maintenance and regarding the expansion of the railway to achieve sufficient capacity.

The fact is, however, that this government is only pushing the problem into the future. Only 15 percent will be recovered by 2037.

Then the question is: How does one intend to manage to reclaim the remaining 85 percent when it comes to maintenance until 2050 – that is, approximately the same time period? It is claimed, after all, that it is not possible to reclaim more than 15 percent by 2037.

Now, Transportverket is already saying that it is wrong. It can be reclaimed faster, just as Miljöpartiet has also said. It is clear that it is possible if one pushes. But there is a lack of money in this government's plan. Doesn't it then feel a bit like a mistake to have allocated too little money? That will be my follow-up question.

Again: I would like to know what the investment in sustainable aviation fuel looks like because we have mostly had to receive notifications about planned investments that are not being carried out in Sweden. In Ö-vik, plans have been pushed into the future. In Långsele, a large company had plans to invest in the production of sustainable marine fuel and aviation fuel. In Skellefteå, large investments are underway. But I have spoken with both Skellefteå Kraft and the investors behind this, and they are very concerned about the government's total lack of initiative and are calling for decisive action.

My question therefore remains.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! It is important to listen to the expert authority one has and at the same time govern it and set high demands that it changes its way of working. It is important when it comes to railway maintenance. To do as Miljöpartiet does – throw a lot of money at Trafikverket that they say they do not have the possibility to spend – is, so to speak, a game for the galleries.

The alternative is naturally – and this is perhaps what the Green Party wants, Madam Speaker – that facilities are closed so that people cannot travel by train at all, and then all this money is spent there. That is the only possibility with the methods we have today.

It is important to ensure that Trafikverket develops its methods so that we can get more out of them. It is about getting more maintenance for the money we actually invest, and there is much left to do there.

Regarding the investments that Linus Lakso pointed out, it is largely about e-fuels, which are still quite immature. We don't really know where this is heading and what the market looks like for specifically e-fuels. As things stand right now, they also become very, very expensive.

What is interesting to look at is how we obtain biofuels. There are refineries underway in Sweden and also refineries that are prepared to transition to production of sustainable aviation fuel and such that can also be used in shipping.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a long country. Our welfare, our business life and our everyday life depend on people and goods being able to move safely, punctually and sustainably. Therefore, expenditure area 22 Communications is a fundamental pillar in the construction of society.

Madam Speaker! During this parliamentary term, we have unfortunately seen a development that is heading in the wrong direction. It is a transport policy that is losing momentum and a government that is unable to take responsibility for the infrastructure and which at the same time is backing away from climate ambitions.

Let me begin with the overall picture. The Social Democrats' budget alternative is a coherent proposal aimed at strengthening Sweden's competitiveness, the climate transition, and cohesion. We want to refurbish what already exists, develop what is needed for the future, and create confidence in the future across the entire country.

The government's policy does the opposite. The maintenance debt is growing. Delays are increasing, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to trust the train, the bus, or the ferry. When the government should be investing in a functioning transport system, it is instead cutting back.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats prioritize a maintenance boost. We propose an increase of 500 million of the appropriation for Maintenance of the state's transport infrastructure. It is about trains running on time and potholes on our roads being repaired before accidents occur. Maintenance is the foundation for a functioning transport system, but the government continues to push the problems ahead of itself. We see the results already now: more cancelled departures, neglected tracks and roads that wear down both vehicles and patience.

Madam Speaker! We also see a worsened access to night trains, flight connections, and ferries. Lines between northern and southern Sweden have been withdrawn, and ticket prices have skyrocketed. This weakens the cohesion in the country and impairs the preparedness. Therefore, we propose 300 million kronor more to Trafikavtal so that the state can secure basic communications where the market is insufficient.

This is a question of the accessibility of the whole of Sweden. When the state withdraws, the distances become longer between people and between towns.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats also want to strengthen young people's opportunities to travel. We propose 750 million kronor to reintroduce free public transport for young people between 12 and 19 years old on evenings, weekends, and holidays, as well as for full-time students up to 24 years old during the terms. This is an investment in both equality and the climate. We want public transport to be a natural part of young people's lives, not a luxury for those who can afford it.

Furthermore, we want to reintroduce the CSN loan for obtaining a driver's license, something this government abolished. In many parts of the country, a driver's license is a prerequisite for getting a job. Therefore, we propose 75 million kronor for driver's license loans. It is a concrete measure so that more people can work and support themselves.

The Social Democratic policy in the transport area has always had a goal – to connect the country, strengthen industry and reduce climate impact. But we cannot do this if the investments are eroded.

The government likes to talk about infrastructure, but in reality, the projects are dragging on. The national plan has become a long list of delayed investments. At the same time, the government has made it more expensive to travel in a climate-smart way and easier to drive fossil.

It is unreasonable. We need a transport policy that contributes to the climate transition, not opposes it. We need decisive action to electrify the transport sector, support for climate-smart environmental transport, and investments in railways and public transport. While other European countries are moving forward with night trains, high-speed rail, and coastal shipping, Sweden stands still.

Madam Speaker! Shipping is another area where the government's passivity is palpable. We Social Democrats see shipping as a crucial part of both the transport supply and the preparedness. Swedish ports and shipping companies must have long-term and competitive conditions, but the government has shown no direction when it comes to either fairway fees, icebreaking, or the transition to fossil-free fuels.

Instead of a port strategy, we get a standstill. That is unfortunate, because a strong Swedish maritime industry is also a part of our total defense. That insight seems to have escaped the government.

Madam Speaker! Digitalization is also lagging behind. The expansion of robust electronic communications is proceeding too slowly, and the appropriations for broadband expansion have not been increased. In a time when more and more societal functions are digital, the state must take greater responsibility to ensure that all of Sweden is connected, not just the large cities. A strategy for real measures in the area is lacking, and now Sweden is falling behind.

When the government talks about streamlining, it is often about shifting the responsibility to others – to regions, to municipalities and to the market. But we know that a functioning transport system requires state responsibility and long-term perspective.

We Social Democrats want the trains to run on time, the roads to hold up, and for young people to be able to travel. We want Sweden to continue to be a country that holds together – from Ystad to Haparanda and from Gothenburg to Gotland. We want to see a transport policy that strengthens jobs, equality, and the climate transition, not one that dismantles trust in the state.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: the Social Democrats' policy on expenditure area 22 is clear. We are refurbishing railways and roads. We secure basic communications throughout the country. We invest in young and future transport. We strengthen shipping and the total defense's capability, and we put the climate at the center.

In the government's proposal, none of this exists. It is a stagnant Sweden in a time that requires movement. Therefore, we have our special statement and our own policy so that Sweden will hold together. We want a Sweden that moves forward and that invests in the future.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have a question of a technical nature.

Audit reports during the previous mandate period pointed out how the government at that time completely failed with the maintenance of infrastructure, especially on the roadside. When we here in the chamber debated the future budget of 1,171 billion that is to finance the infrastructure over twelve years, the Social Democrats had a motion where they allocated 45 billion less to roads. They moved those funds over to the railway. At the same time, they want, I see in the special opinion, to add 500 million more to maintenance. The only thing that is really clear in the main text, however, is that it is 100 million that they are moving to the railway.

My question is actually: What is the Social Democrats' policy? Is it the policy the party put forward in the twelve-year, long-term planning, that is to say a reduction on the road and therefore an increase on the railway – more than what Trafikverket is capable of utilizing? It is in itself pleasing with the news that new trains are being purchased so that the pace can be increased in the maintenance of the railway; that is positive. But according to the information we have all received, Trafikverket with the current organization can only manage to utilize approximately what the government has allocated. Will the potholes remain in that case? Or is it the new policy, which we hear today, that applies?

Is it the long-term or the temporary policy that applies? That is my question, Madam Speaker.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Madam Speaker! There were many questions there! It almost feels as if the government is in opposition and the opposition party, the Social Democrats, is in a government position, and so I can inform the member that it is not.

We are making investments in the railway, and this is about the long-term plan that applies now. That is how it is with the long-term plans that they are financed every year; they are not financed from the beginning. So, it is not about the plan that will apply from next year onwards, but it is about the current plan. There we see that we need to make a larger investment in the railway, and it does not need to be set against the road or anything else.

We believe that one can invest in the railway. We are not so pleased with the setup the government has now, that is to say that it cannot invest more in the railway because Trafikverket has decided it. Sometimes one wonders whether it is the government that governs Trafikverket or if it is Trafikverket that governs the government. Perhaps Magnus Jacobsson can answer that.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I am fairly aware that we have a bourgeois government. I hope that we still have it after the election.

So, am I to understand these two different figures as that, just this year, one intends to increase the appropriation for roads, but in the long-term plan that one has budgeted for, one intends to reduce that appropriation over twelve years? That is how it looked on the roadside, Madam Speaker, and that is what the National Audit Office has criticized: When the red team – or the red-green team, parts of it or whatever it is – ruled, there were no investments in the roads. On the contrary, the maintenance debt was built up.

When it comes to the railway side, Madam Speaker, the government – I will soon deliver my speech and point out – allocates exactly the resources that Trafikverket has said it can handle. If one allocates more resources than an agency can manage, the money that is not used freezes inside, Madam Speaker. This applies to all agencies – we know this here in this room, but it is not given that all listeners know it – and every finance minister, regardless of party, tends to be very happy about that, because it means the budget looks better. Otherwise, it works almost identically in the municipalities, that is to say, that the one who has a larger investment budget than they spend clears the finances.

The goal of a budget must nevertheless be that the money allocated is also used. Therefore, it is surprising that the Social Democrats, who are or have historically been a governing party, allocate more money to the railway than it is known will be used – while in the long-term planning there will de facto continue to be a maintenance debt for roads.

I thank the member for the information, Madam Speaker, but I am concerned.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is certainly as the member describes it, that is to say that there are historical mistakes. I shall be humble and admit that Social Democratic governments have certainly prioritized incorrectly or made mistakes. That is always the case; we are all human.

I am, however, more concerned about the future than about the history. When I stand on platforms in Sweden, I encounter people who are frustrated and who are tearing their hair out because the train is not coming or is arriving late. One does not know when they will arrive: "How am I going to do it – will I get to work today? Will I get home and be able to pick up my children at preschool?" That is the frustration people feel. Now the government has governed for three years, and we see no difference. It is still becoming more and more cumbersome at the railway stations, because the trains are not running.

A few weeks ago, the first snow fell. Then the trucks stopped again on the E22 in Skåne, because it doesn't work. Snow removal in Sweden doesn't work. We have a government that loves to deregulate and privatize, but it doesn't work. I think it would be good if Vägverket had some of its own snowplows and could go out and sand, salt, and plow when the snow comes, so that the cars can get through. Then the person who has been waiting for the train and been worried about making it to preschool and picking up their children can also buy milk, because the milk truck got through to the store.

This is the problem in Sweden today, and that is why we are allocating a bit more money to maintenance. It is about getting momentum on this already now and not in two, three, four, or six years. It is now that we need to do it. Then one can look back and think that it was not good before, but these are the problems people experience today. These are the problems we must solve now and moving forward.

(Applause)

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! Much has been said from the rostrum and also in the exchanges. The summary is a bit like this: The sinner shall wake up late. The Member says that some mistakes have been made, but I would say that a whole lot of historical mistakes have been made. I am a bit curious about the attitude of totally distancing oneself from history and saying that it is not interesting, because history is, after all, the reason why we are where we are now.

The trains have become more punctual; if one looks at the statistics over the years, one sees that the trains, thanks to the maintenance efforts being made now, run on time more often now. Then, of course, it is a misery for every individual person who stands on a platform and freezes, but more trains run on time and arrive on time than before.

I am also, regarding the investigation that Gunnar Alexandersson conducted ten years ago, a bit curious as to why it was so important for the Social Democrats to primarily nationalize the railway maintenance instead of addressing all the different proposals that Gunnar Alexandersson had, which would have streamlined how Trafikverket works with maintenance. Why did they just put that investigation in the filing cabinet?

There is one thing that I have never received an answer to, despite having asked various Social Democrats about it on several occasions. The previous government merged the item and administration appropriations for Trafikverket. This is very technical, but it meant that Trafikverket increased the number of employees by 4,000 instead of investing in rail and asphalt. This was de facto what happened. Trafikverket was given free rein.

This government is trying to take hold of Trafikverket, steer it, and make it a more efficient agency. It is no secret that we Moderates do not believe that it will be enough, but this work has nevertheless begun. Very much is happening at Trafikverket, which did not happen previously. Back then, Trafikverket was given free rein to increase the number of employees by 4,000 instead of ensuring that new asphalt was put on the roads and that new rails were laid.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is good if the opposition has woken up? It is good that we are not sleeping and that we see that there are problems?

I do not agree with the member that everything is getting better. As I described in the previous exchange, that is not the picture I get from travelers when I travel around the country. When I visit different companies across the country that want to transport their goods by rail, that is not the picture they give. They say that it is more difficult, that they do not trust the system and that it does not work. I have met an enormous number of port managers who are tearing their hair out. They say that this does not work and that they would like to send more goods by rail but that the possibility does not exist. It is too crowded. There is no space. One cannot rely on it arriving on time.

This is the picture I have, and I also believe that it is the picture that Swedish companies and Swedish citizens have.

I am still wondering whether it is the government that governs the Swedish Transport Administration or the Swedish Transport Administration that governs the government. I might be able to get an answer to this from the member from the Moderaterna, who is leading in the government.

I think it would be good to nationalize a bit more of the maintenance. Today we have a Transport Administration consisting of people who order consultants. These consultants are then to procure the projects and the maintenance that are to be carried out. I do not think that it works. I believe that the Transport Administration would benefit from having a bit more activity in its own name. I do not mean that we should nationalize everything, but I believe that one would become more efficient and be able to carry out maintenance and make investments in new projects in a much better way if one had that competence within the agency.

I still believe that the member and I agree that Trafikverket is not functioning well today.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! I understand the frustration of all those who think that our railway system is unreliable. At the same time, one must look at what is de facto happening out there. One must look at the statistics. It has become better, even though we are, of course, far from satisfied. To turn this ocean liner – years, or rather decades, of neglected maintenance – to get the Swedish railway in order cannot be done in three years.

If there is one thing this government is doing, it is trying to get Trafikverket in order. The Director General would probably say that this is a rather troublesome government. He would also probably say that we in the Transport Committee are a rather troublesome group who also demand to meet him to hear how they work with development and with all the assignments they have received from the government to streamline their operations.

An enormous amount is happening in this area. It is a long-term task, and perhaps larger measures will be needed. The investigation that came out yesterday, which points towards a state-owned company in the style of Nye Veier in Norway, is very interesting. This is something that the government will address in order to try to create a situation where we can achieve more railway maintenance, road maintenance, and new construction faster than we do today.

It is interesting, Madam Speaker, that Mattias Ottosson says that he believes Trafikverket would benefit from having more maintenance under its own management. As politicians, we can certainly have opinions, but we must also look at what investigations and experts say.

The reason the Social Democrats put Gunnar Alexandersson's investigation in the wastebasket was that he so clearly pointed out that one does not need to have the maintenance in-house to have access to knowledge. This is about deficiencies in Trafikverket. Gunnar Alexandersson is clear that Trafikverket can acquire that knowledge. He is also clear that we get more maintenance for the same money if we have the model we have today.

What one feels good about is very subjective. I think it was a strange statement from this speaker's rostrum.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Stockhaus understands the issues and has, as I understand it, also met many travelers, companies and so on. Still, the question remains: What has the government done? Three-quarters of the parliamentary term have passed. Has the government done nothing? Has one sat and waited? How has the work been conducted? I assume that Maria Stockhaus has a good relationship with the government and knows how the government's work is progressing. I have not seen that they have actually acted at all.

Then it will be strange to talk about streamlining Trafikverket. How have you worked with that? Have you gone there and listened a bit to what is being done?

It was some famous politician who said many years ago that politics is about will. What do you want from the Moderaternas side regarding infrastructure policy? You are supposed to lead Trafikverket, not receive progress reports? You are supposed to lead the agency so that the infrastructure policy we need is carried out?

I believe that Trafikverket would benefit from having competence within the agency to build both railway and road.

(Applause)

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am forced to intervene in the debate again. I actually lean towards the National Audit Office's report. It directs stinging criticism at how the previous government conducted its activities. They had no control over it. They definitely did not have control over the money. This is, in fact, extremely serious.

In connection with the 2022 election, the current government took office with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna. I can assure you that we have been working hard. We must get a different order of things at Trafikverket so that we get what can be expected from all the money that is invested.

In the report from the Swedish National Audit Office, very serious criticism is directed at how the previous government handled this. Let me read a passage that shows how serious it was: Had the government chosen more socio-economically profitable measures, the national plan could have contributed significantly more to the transport policy goals with an unchanged budget. A little further on, the following is stated: The analysis shows that accessibility could have increased by 30 percent. Approximately twice as many deaths and serious injuries could have been prevented.

We are, therefore, talking about people who may have died or been seriously injured because there was no order in the operations. In this report, the Social Democrats want to do exactly the same thing once again. Magnus Jacobsson, in his speech, took up this economic part, which shows the confusion in the Social Democratic policy.

We must stay away from this. I assume that we will receive renewed confidence in the election next autumn.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thomas Morell from Sverigedemokraterna has then told me how things stand. I thank him for the lesson. I may not agree with him, and I may also not agree with what is stated in the National Audit Office's report.

Let me turn it around and ask a question to Member Morell, who belongs to the largest party on the government side, or the party that supports the government so that it has a majority here in the Riksdag.

Before the mandate period, and also at the beginning of it, you were very clear that you do not think Trafikverket functions as an organization. You pushed the line that Trafikverket should be divided into a road authority and a rail authority. I am not entirely unfamiliar with that idea.

You were also not unfamiliar with the idea that a part of the operations should be in your own hands. Now, however, you seem to have turned completely during the mandate period.

How do you view Trafikverket today? Does something need to be done? I believe that the Sweden Democrats might have a different view than the government and that they think politics should govern Trafikverket and not the other way around. I am curious about how the member sees these issues.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! The report speaks its clear language and shows that it did not work under the previous government. The Transport Administration is also not functioning, and we have been crystal clear about that. We believe that it is not working and that a change must occur. This has led to us speaking directly with the Director General on various issues.

The members of the committee themselves took up the maintenance of the winter roads and how slippery and miserable it is on them. In a conversation I had with the Director General, he asked me to pose questions to those who are contractors and do the work out there. I posed them to my friends and received a 38-page response which I handed over. The response shows with all desirable clarity how poorly it was managed under the previous government, which created a procurement system that is a perfect model for creating slippery roads.

Now, one is always second on the ball and waits until the ice hits. Only then does one possibly send out a truck with salt and 80 percent water instead of dry salt. It says for itself that if you spread water on the roads, it becomes even icier. I can show the picture I received from Arvidsjaur yesterday. There, it is skates that count if one is to go out and drive on the roads.

This system was created by the previous government, and the system must be changed. The ball is now with Trafikverket after the answer I submitted, and I assume that there will be a change. It may be difficult to make it during the current winter, but next winter it must definitely be better.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Morell describes that conversations have taken place with the Director General of the Transport Administration. It is certainly very good and constructive in many ways.

I didn't really get an answer on how the Sweden Democrats view Trafikverket. Should it be divided? Should it have the operations in its own name?

The committee members and I do, however, seem to share the view that the snow removal is not functioning. The Sweden Democrats have backed the government for three years, so I assume that when we are finished with the debates and the regulatory letters are sent out to the state agencies, there is a clear direction to change the Transport Administration's operations. This does not happen through conversations with the director-general, but the mandate is given in the regulatory letter.

I expect that the Sweden Democrats, after three years, will have pushed through major changes and that we will see a Transport Administration that will work in a different way so that travelers on Swedish roads and Swedish railways can get around in a good way. That is what I look forward to, so I hope that is the case.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to stand, but so much was said from the rostrum and in the exchanges of remarks that I felt that I needed to do so.

When it comes to maintenance, it is positive that the Social Democrats' Mattias Ottosson wants to allocate an additional 500 million to the railway. But already in 2023, we had to move over 750 million to road maintenance to use the money because Trafikverket could not get rid of these funds. The Trafikverket the Social Democrats left behind could, therefore, not use the money. You cannot just give money; you must also ensure that the agency has the possibility and methods to use the money. This was what was missing, because nothing happened for eight years.

We have ensured that Trafikverket can use the money. There has long been talk about maintenance trains, i.e., a new fleet of machines. Yesterday, Trafikverket signed contracts for three new such trains, which are to begin being delivered in 2030. Under the Social Democrats, 10 switches were replaced per year; now 1,700 are replaced per year.

We have really put pressure on Trafikverket. What did you do during your eight years to get Trafikverket in order? There is much that can be changed with simple means, and that is what we are doing now.

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals are the fourth government party to stand up and pose many questions to the opposition. It is often joked that the Social Democrats are the state-bearing party in Sweden, and it evidently seems to be so. Despite the fact that we are soon entering our fourth year in opposition, everyone seems to have the impression that it is we who are in power. But that is not the case.

Let me return to the question I have asked in the three other exchanges: Who is it that governs Trafikverket? The current form was introduced by Minister Reinfeldt, and if I remember correctly, the Liberals were part of that government. For the sake of transparency, I shall say that the Social Democrats supported the proposal to merge different operations and create a new agency. A number of years later, we see that this agency does not function, and I believe that the whole thing must be reviewed and evaluated.

I am also not entirely satisfied with the history surrounding this and how the maintenance has been handled, but I want to take action and ensure that Sweden gets a transport authority that functions and is governed by the government and the Riksdag, as it should be, so that people can travel in the way they should.

I am pleased to hear that Trafikverket has procured maintenance trains. However, this was included in our budget proposals long before you submitted your proposal. There are therefore funds in our budget proposals for a first maintenance train. But the government receives praise for having woken up and taken action on this. That is very good. The process is, however, long before these trains are in place, so the procurement perhaps could have been made earlier.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! The reason why four members are rising is perhaps because the members say that nothing is happening. But in area after area, we can show that things are happening. The Social Democrats had eight years to order new maintenance trains, but nothing happened. We talked a lot when I sat in the underlying group, but nothing happened. The Social Democrats did not straighten out Trafikverket.

But now it is happening. We have an incredible cost control. We do not approve any construction starts that have exceeded 10 percent; instead, we send it back to Trafikverket and say: Redo it, do it right, and tell us what it is that has become more expensive! The government prioritizes, and now politics governs Trafikverket. That never happened during the Social Democrats' eight years.

When it comes to aviation, I would like to thank Mattias Ottosson for that the Social Democrats think the government's investment of 318 million for our regional airports is good. These airports are indeed having a very tough time.

However, I ask myself: How do the Social Democrats, with the government base they have, intend to be able to maintain such an investment when Vänsterpartiet wants to remove 60 percent of the investment and Miljöpartiet wants to remove 80 percent? That becomes about 90 million of the 528. How do the Social Democrats intend to manage the airports with their government base?

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

Mattias Ottosson (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand that the undersigned stepped on a sore point when I claimed that it is the government that has not acted. But it is not the opposition that governs the country, it is the government that does.

I share the frustration felt by the travelers on the platforms and the truck drivers who are stuck on the roads that Swedish infrastructure is not functioning. That is why we Social Democrats are seeking a mandate to govern the country and try to rectify what is not working.

When it comes to aviation, it is extremely important that we have aviation in Sweden, both international flights and domestic flights. International flights are often about Swedish companies being able to travel and do business and in that way increase our growth. It is also about us being able to go on holiday – a healthcare assistant who has saved for several years should be able to take their children and go to the Canary Islands. It is also about us having a domestic aviation that works so that one can live and be active in northern Sweden. I therefore think that it is completely okay that we should invest in this.

I am a bit concerned that the government is having difficulty moving forward regarding airport investigations and how we should provide support. I believe that a holistic approach should be taken where all regional airports are supported and it is stated that all of them should be standby airports, for example. It is possible that we can join forces to take a collective approach regarding Sweden's airports.

Then it was again a discussion about what the future government options look like. We have been very clear that we are seeking a mandate for social democratic policy, and therein lies an offensive aviation policy. Then we are open to cooperating with all parties in the Swedish Riksdag except one. There are different variants for how we can meet there to ensure that Swedish aviation develops in a good way.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the final budget for the transport area during this parliamentary term. It is also the final year for the previous government's national plan, as our government will present our national plan during the spring.

For those of us here in the chamber, the process regarding a national plan is a matter of course, but for everyone watching this debate today, I intend to make a brief explanation of how a national plan emerges.

Since all infrastructure requires long-term planning, we all work based on a twelve-year plan. This plan is revised every four years. This occurs by the Swedish Transport Administration being commissioned by the government to review the plan. Subsequently, the Swedish Transport Administration presents a draft for the next twelve-year plan, which is sent out for consultation to municipalities and regions as well as other stakeholders.

When the referral response is received, the government will make a collective assessment and make a decision based on the economic framework that the Riksdag has previously established. Right now, the referral process is ongoing, and during the beginning of next year, the government will finalize the new infrastructure plan. That was a bit of public education.

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag has allocated 1,171 billion kronor to be spent on infrastructure over the next twelve years. Simply put, one can say that one half goes to maintaining the infrastructure and the other half goes to new investments. The money is also distributed relatively equally between road and railway. There are also some smaller appropriations to handle Trafikverket's administration as well as other modes of transport.

Madam Speaker! The budget framework we have now adopted will result in the entire maintenance debt within the road area being built away over the next twelve years, while at the same time we make investments in new roads and increase support for regional plans as well as for individual roads. We are thus making a powerful investment to address the maintenance debt that previous governments have created.

Madam Speaker! It is, however, surprising to note that S, in its motion regarding the infrastructure bill, reduces the support for roads by 45 billion, which has the consequence that we, with their twelve-year budget, will not be able to rectify all the deficiencies that exist in today's state road network. Let me ask a straight question to my colleagues in S: How do you intend to handle this?

Madam Speaker! Within the railway area, we will not be able to build away the entire maintenance debt. The main reason for this is that it is simply more difficult to build railway than road. But Trafikverket receives the resources they consider they need and assess that they can manage and use over the coming twelve years. Trafikverket is taking measures to increase capacity. For example, they have now purchased new maintenance trains, which is very good.

I note that several parties allocate more money than the government to railways, but unfortunately, these funds must be regarded as monopoly funds as they will simply be frozen if Trafikverket does not have time or the possibility to use them.

I also heard S in the speaker's chair complaining about the situation on our platforms and about the fact that nothing is happening. Nothing can be more wrong, Madam Speaker. Take just my home region. On the Bohusbanan, they are changing overhead lines, and with single tracks, it becomes a bit difficult to run trains simultaneously. In Alingsås and Gothenburg, they are changing overhead lines. It is the same dilemma there: It is difficult to run on the track at the same time as maintenance measures are being undertaken.

Major maintenance measures were carried out in Vänersborg, but when the work was finally finished, it turned out that the bridge had other defects. Now it is closed again. The large total maintenance debt that has built up means that even when maintenance is performed, it turns out that you have to do it once more.

So quite a lot is happening out in the tracks, Madam Speaker, but it is not possible to both run and maintain the tracks at the same time. I believe S knows this, Madam Speaker.

In addition to making the largest investment in infrastructure to date, we are also opening the door for alternative financing and alternative operating models. That is good. From a Christian Democratic perspective, we are positive about, for example, the Eastern Connection being built in this way.

There are also smaller projects, such as the bridge between Orust and Stenungsund, which are suitable for alternative financing. If this type of smaller project is to be able to be carried out, we must however change today's depreciation rules. As it is now, a smaller bridge is depreciated over 25 years, which is completely unreasonable. If these rules are changed to 40–50 years, several projects that are not being completed today will be able to be managed via municipal co-financing together with a bridge toll.

Madam Speaker! Even in the area of the railway, there are exciting projects that can be managed outside of Trafikverket's organization. For example, the Öresundskonsortiet could manage the development in Skåne in the same way as is done in Denmark. Oslo–Stockholm as well as Oslo–Göteborg–Köpenhamn should be able to be managed via alternative financing. In the same way, we should be able to find a solution where Sweden, Norway, and Finland create a new consortium that manages the Malmbanan and its surrounding tracks between Narvik, Kiruna, Luleå, and Haparanda.

The government is currently looking into these issues, and I hope that some of these projects can be handled outside of Trafikverket.

Madam Speaker! If we are to take advantage of the railway's strengths, we must accelerate the expansion and manage those sections that are currently bottlenecks in the system. From this perspective, it is important that we improve the railway in Skåne and that we get four tracks between Göteborg and Alingsås as well as on the new Ostkustbanan. All these sections have in common that they solve local needs such as commuting while simultaneously solving national needs regarding passenger and freight traffic.

Madam Speaker! We live in a restless time. Even if we do not think about it daily, Sweden is in practice an island that is dependent on international transport. Of all the goods that are imported into or exported from Sweden, 90 percent will be handled by a port and shipped with a ship.

The government has taken several measures in the tax area and also to facilitate personnel recruitment. That is good. We now see that the influx to Sweden is increasing, which is good as it increases our security in the event of a war.

Trafikverket has also pointed out in its plan how one can procure an additional icebreaker, which means we can order two new vessels. It is a very important measure. If we are to manage shipping in the north even during winter time, we must renew our icebreaker fleet.

The government continues to work on issues concerning pilots and fees, which is positive. From a Christian Democratic perspective, we see shipping as one of our most important modes of transport. Swedish shipping must be given the same conditions as our competitors, especially in the Nordic region.

Madam Speaker! In my opinion, aviation is national and international public transport. Therefore, it is important that municipalities and regions can procure necessary flight connections in the same way as they can procure other public transport. Aviation is just as necessary as the bus and the train if one is to expand a labor market region. Aviation is also important for everyone who wants to visit loved ones in other parts of Sweden and for those who are on holiday.

Apart from this, the airports themselves are necessary for the defense, the police, healthcare, fire aviation, and flight training. It is therefore good that the government has increased the appropriations to our local and regional airports by 400 percent.

Even though much is going in the right direction regarding aviation, I feel concerned that fewer people are training to become pilots. There is also a risk that Transportstyrelsen's interpretation of the international compensation systems harms air traffic control at the regional airports. For me as a Christian Democrat, it is essential that we have functioning competition within air traffic control, as that ensures we get both lower costs and higher quality over time. It cannot be a single authority's task to distort and hinder competition.

Something else I feel concern about from a more local perspective is Säve Airport. Here, the Swedish Armed Forces' lack of clarity – at one moment they said it was needed and in the next that it is not as important – is clearly worrying, especially considering that Säve is an airport that serves police, ambulance, fire aviation, and flight training. Here I must admit that I feel a concern about the development.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats are Sweden's most car-friendly party. We see this in the reduction of costs for all households that are dependent on the car. After we significantly reduced the reduction obligation, agriculture has saved approximately 2 billion per year, and a typical family with children saves approximately 500 kronor at every refueling. We have not only made it easier for those who are dependent on the car. We are also carrying out the largest investment in road infrastructure.

To stand up for the car is to stand up for everyone who is dependent on the car to make their everyday life work. Not everyone lives in a way that one has five or ten minutes to buses or commuter trains. Most people live in such a way that the car is what makes it possible to drop the children off at their extracurricular activities, shop, and manage the job. For many Swedes, the car is the absolute most important means of transport when one struggles to get the everyday puzzle to work.

Unfortunately, we see that many red municipalities like Stockholm make things difficult for both cars and trucks. This causes city centers to be depleted when people are forced to shop at shopping centers where they are offered good conditions for parking. We are working for a more car-friendly society that ensures small city centers and communities get better conditions to survive.

At the same time, we are aware of the car's environmental impact. By safeguarding technology neutrality, we favor technical development, which means that we will get increasingly fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly engines. At the same time, we are investing in the electric infrastructure, which facilitates things for those who want to drive an electric car. For us, it is not the car itself that should be fought, but the emissions, which we do by encouraging continued technical development.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all motions.

I wish everyone who works in the Riksdag, all members, all my colleagues and everyone who serves here, a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Transport Committee's expenditure area.

As part of this report, the government submits a statement of results, i.e., a kind of evaluation of the year that has passed, and with it an evaluation of the government's policy. Here, one can therefore read out what effect the government's policy has had on the transport area.

In the reporting of results, one can see, for example, that the transport system's standard and reliability have not improved and that the negative trend persists.

The transport system's usability for different groups has not improved. This means that accessibility and the possibility of mobility and an active life on equal terms have not improved for persons with disabilities.

We also see that punctuality on the railway was historically low during the previous year.

We see that the proportion of those who use physically active transport, i.e., cycle or walk, has decreased.

We see that emissions from domestic transport, which the Riksdag has decided should be reduced by 70 percent by 2030, have instead increased by 22 percent.

In addition to this report of results, there are also other sources of information for those who wish to evaluate how the government has performed.

The Climate Policy Council's report is one such. The Climate Policy Council notes there that the government's policy has contributed to counteracting a transport-efficient society.

Then there is the annual public transport barometer, which follows the development of public transport. It shows for 2024 that public transport is losing market shares in Tidöpartiernas Sverige. In 18 of 21 regions, public transport is losing. This is a climate-smart, almost entirely fossil-free mode of transport that needs to increase if we are to reduce emissions and meet our climate goals, but which is now, instead, losing market shares.

Last year, it was also clearly stated that the night train traffic between Göteborg and Umeå and between Göteborg and Åre will be discontinued. It is traffic that has been running since 1968 that is now ceasing.

Last week, the announcement came that the night train traffic between Stockholm and Narvik will also be cut back. The traffic is halved; every other night train will disappear.

This does not only make it harder to achieve the climate goal but also hits northern Sweden hard. It undermines the functional goal, and it reinforces geographical differences across the country.

That the government in the budget for 2026 has also chosen to underfund the transport agreements deepens these problems, and it is a direct contributing cause to the fact that night train traffic is now being discontinued. But it also has other consequences. Norrtågs trafik's funding is halved via the underfunding of the transport agreements. Samverkande inland, which operates 15 bus lines across four counties, also faces nearly halved funding.

This applies to trains and buses that have already been procured. It is not possible to back out of signed contracts. When the state, in such a situation, significantly reduces its co-financing, it does not only mean that the financing principle is eroded. It also means that costs for socially important transport are once again shifted onto already heavily strained regions while the state backs away.

The government concludes in its own performance report that the overall transport policy goal is not being met. It is serious, but it is not surprising. This government has not been committed to achieving either functional goals or consideration goals. Had it been, the performance report would not look like this three years into a mandate period. Above all, it would not have needed to look like this. We would not have needed to stand here with a reduced share of public transport, discontinued night train traffic, reduced accessibility, increased inequality across the country, and sharply increased emissions from the transport sector.

If we seriously want to see increased transport efficiency, we need to invest in sustainable modes of transport. That is also why we in Vänsterpartiet budget for a Sverigebiljett. We establish a national public transport authority. We introduce a new appropriation to strengthen the cycling infrastructure. We allocate funds to begin the reclamation of railway maintenance into public hands. We maintain and expand the urban environment agreements. We also increase the appropriation to Sjöfartsverket.

If we are serious about the principle of basic accessibility of good quality for everyone, we need to fill these goal formulations with concrete content. That is also why we are increasing the appropriation for the transport agreements and propose that they should be indexed forward to create a predictability and a long-term stability that is needed and is lacking today.

We also have our own appropriation specifically targeted at Gotlandstrafiken. Pressing down high ferry prices is an absolute must, and it should be a top priority for all parties. I assume that the government will return with sharp proposals on how high ferry prices can be lowered here and now and with a long-term plan that secures a functioning, actual accessibility to and from Gotland. Today we have a situation where the people of Gotland are becoming increasingly isolated on the island. It is a situation where high ferry prices are described as an economic wall against the mainland. It is unacceptable. That wall must be torn down.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we will debate the 2026 budget for communications. It concerns our transports but also AI, digitalization and mail – which we have not heard so much about in the debate.

The total budget for the area is 107 billion for 2026 with an increase to 121 billion in 2028, which makes this one of the largest items we have in the budget. The size naturally depends on the costs for maintenance and expansion of Sweden's roads and railways, which are governed by the national infrastructure plan.

Now the government is stepping up maintenance and new construction, as 2026 is the first year of the upcoming ambitious national infrastructure plan 2026–2037, which the government will make decisions on this spring.

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

Madam Speaker! The most effective way to increase capacity and quickly reduce climate emissions is to invest in maintenance. The Government is pushing to get more maintenance for the money, and therefore it is pleasing that Trafikverket yesterday, December 15, signed contracts to purchase three new maintenance trains that will enable more efficient track maintenance. The total contract amount amounts to almost 1 billion kronor, and the first maintenance train will be delivered in 2030. This is the effect of us now having a bourgeois majority that pushes Trafikverket forward. Now things are happening!

Since road transport accounts for over 90 percent of domestic emissions within transport, the electrification of our road transport is a priority for the Liberals, both to reduce emissions and 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 most important factor behind the risk that companies and private individuals will not choose an electric car at their next car purchase and that the climate transition will stall.

We also need to support the purchase of electric vehicles. Therefore, it is pleasing that the Liberals' proposal for support for the purchase of electric cars with a focus on rural areas has now been approved. It is the first support approved by the EU for payment from the Social Fund.

Since 2024, a three-year initiative is underway for support for the purchase of electric trucks, electric construction machinery, and light trucks for a total of 6 billion. During the same three-year period, 5 billion is simultaneously invested in Klimatklivet, with a major focus on charging infrastructure. In total, it amounts to 11 billion. The Liberals focus on electrification for the transition of road transport because biofuels and e-fuels have greater value for shipping and aviation.

The government also wants to increase the shift to rail and therefore adds an extra 335 million to environmental compensation for freight transport on rail, in addition to the previously decided extension during the period 2026–2030.

Madam Speaker! Aviation is in a difficult situation. Domestic aviation has recovered in most countries, also here in the Nordic region, but not in Sweden. Aviation has an important function for companies, for our international contacts, and for holding Sweden together. At the same time, the need for socially important aviation, crisis preparedness, and resilience in a restless world is becoming ever greater.

The Liberals are therefore, together with our coalition partners, increasing the compensation to the 27 standby airports by 33 million to contribute to full cost coverage for the airports' standby readiness.

We simultaneously need to reduce the risk of closure of the important airport infrastructure across the country. Therefore, we are increasing the operating support to the non-state airports by 318 million to a total of 528 million – over half a billion – to cover 75 percent of the airports' operating deficit. This is needed for the whole country to live, and I am grateful that the Social Democrats also see this.

At the same time, we must leave flight shame behind us. Our travel policies need to be changed. It must be permitted to fly fossil-free if the total cost of the trip is lower for the flight than for other modes of transport when including hotel nights, travel allowances, and biofuels – for why is it okay to require public procurement of fossil-free road transport, while a fossil-free flight is not permitted? It is completely incomprehensible to me.

Already today, one can fly fossil-free, and the development within electric aviation and alternative fuels is taking large steps forward. We Liberals view the continued investment in research and development of fossil-free aviation positively – not least electric aviation.

Madam Speaker! Of the international freight from Sweden, 90 percent goes via maritime transport. Swedish competitiveness is entirely dependent on Swedish maritime transport. The Government has reviewed a number of different regulations for maritime transport in order to increase the flagging to Sweden. This is good from a preparedness point of view. We have made decisions on the abolition of the stamp duty and a new bareboat system where one can charter in and out unmanned vessels. The Government is now also preparing a proposal for a new tonnage tax system.

Gotlandstrafiken has been procured for the years 2027–2035 with limitations regarding price impact and with climate requirements. Now we move forward and increase Sjöfartsverket's appropriation for sea rescue and leisure boat measures by 160 million to facilitate Sjöfartsverket's finances.

The government has put shipping in focus for the sake of Sweden's competitiveness. Therefore, it is also pleasing that Trafikanalys points out that we may have now left behind the long-term trend of diminished interest in maritime education, as we now see an increase in applications to the country's maritime captain programs for the third year in a row.

The budget for communications also consists of costs for digital development. Currently, there is an investment in the broadband expansion of 3.8 billion for the years 2024–2027. In this year's budget, we also invest 25 million to further strengthen the support to reduce digital exclusion. We also add 65 million to complete the development of a state e-identification during the year.

The government is also investing in AI. An AI strategy will be released in 2026, and the use of AI within the public administration can free up great resources. Therefore, we are now investing 100 million per year 2026–2028 at Skatteverket and Försäkringskassan – a total of 600 million – so that they can establish an AI workshop to streamline the public sector.

Madam Speaker! Now that I have accounted for the coherent policy that the Liberals, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Sweden Democrats present together, I question how the opposition is to put together an alternative. Their proposals diverge from 1 to 39 billion beyond our proposal. The Left Party and the Green Party want to remove the majority of the support of 528 million for the airports, while the Social Democrats and the Centre Party want it intact. The Green Party wants to allocate 11 billion to Sverigekort for public transport, and the Centre Party supports the government's level on public transport. The Left Party wants to remove the government's savings requirement on the Transport Administration of 300 million, while the Centre Party instead wants to impose an extra savings requirement of approximately 300 million.

In short: How is the opposition supposed to put together a budget when the proposals diverge in completely different directions? I do not understand that. In response to the question from the Socialdemokraterna about whether we believe the Socialdemokraterna are in a position of government when we request many replies, I just want to say that we know that S is in opposition. We are happy about that. It is only with this government that we see a major improvement of Swedish infrastructure and of Trafikverket.

Madam Speaker! The major infrastructure event during 2026 will be the government's decision on the national infrastructure plan for 2026–2037. It will affect future budgets where a long series of reinforcements in the infrastructure are needed, not least in the north and also in the form of two new tracks on the Göteborg–Alingsås stretch.

Madam Speaker! With these words, I move for the approval 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! This is the final budget debate for the parliamentary term, and therefore it is appropriate to summarize Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlsson's and the Tidö parties' transport policy.

I see that there is already sighing! No, it won't be fun – I can attest to that.

Let me start with the trains. Andreas Carlson has repeated beautiful words about how the government welcomes all modes of transport, but nothing could unfortunately be less true. Instead, we have seen how the Tidö parties have completely decimated the expansion of the Swedish railway and the possibility of traveling by train.

The first and most long-term damaging thing that Andreas Carlson did was to stop the investment in new trunk lines and thereby waste tens of billions in co-financing from the EU that could have given Sweden new railways.

Rail travel in Sweden has more than doubled in recent decades. The business sector wants to transport more goods in a climate-smart way by rail, and for most people, it is obvious that more railway is needed. But that is not the case for Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson. He has instead stopped investments in new main lines in southern Sweden, and in northern Sweden, decisions on important investments are missing, not least the New East Coast Line.

This is unfortunately only a tragic extension of previous conservative policy where one blocks initiated investments in the Swedish railway and lets it decay. The Norrbotniabanan was delayed by over a decade due to the alliance government, and now another plan has been presented that refuses to take the investment needs in the Swedish railway seriously.

The possibility of taking night trains is being halted across all of Sweden with Andreas Carlson at the helm. The night trains between Göteborg and Umeå were discontinued almost a year ago, and shortly thereafter it was the night trains between Göteborg and Duved in Jämtland. The popular night trains between Stockholm and Berlin will soon be discontinued. As recently as a few weeks ago, we were informed that the completely crucial night train lines to northern Norrland are being severely worsened. It is a catastrophic development.

We need to better maintain the railway we have, but here Andreas Carlson has set an unacceptably low level of ambition with an increase in railway maintenance of only 5 percent. This means that 85 percent of the maintenance debt is pushed far into the future after 2037. If only 15 percent of the maintenance debt can be recovered by 2030 with the government's plan, how then is one to manage to recover the remaining 85 percent during approximately the same period?

This can be compared to when Miljöpartiet was in government. During that period, the maintenance increased by over 100 percent. That is, it is a doubling, and we are presenting a plan to reclaim 100 percent of the maintenance by 2030. We also see the results of the large increases that were made during the previous government. It is actually that result that the majority of the Tidö parties are now standing and boasting about, that is, that the maintenance has really gotten started. But significantly higher ambitions than that are needed.

Many companies also want to use the railway as a reliable and environmentally friendly way to transport goods, but instead of help from the government, they have received increased track charges and removed environmental compensation. Track charges for heavy freight trains have increased by over 600 percent over 15 years. This includes an increase of 55 percent between 2024 and 2025. This has led to the industry being forced to move large amounts of goods from the railway in order to succeed in keeping costs down.

This government's mismanagement of the Swedish railway has consequences for ordinary people. Last year, a gloomy record was set, namely more delayed trains than in over a decade. We must remember that behind the figures lies a reality for Swedish households and companies. It is about sitting stuck in stuffy trains for countless hours or standing on the platform in the rain without notice. It is about missed deliveries, missed hours of work, missed pickups at preschool, delays to important meetings, delays to weddings or delays to this debate – which I happened to experience. It is about the feeling of coming home when the communal dinner has already cooled down.

Sweden instead needs to immediately resume the planning for expanding and renovating the railway across the entire country, not least the construction of new main lines, decisions on double tracks on Nya Ostkustbanan, accelerated expansion of Norrbotniabanan and prioritization of a new railway between Oslo and Stockholm – to name a few examples. Night trains and strong regional traffic across the entire country should be a matter of course.

Madam Speaker! Aviation and maritime transport have their great advantages. Let me begin with maritime transport. No other mode of transport can transport such large volumes of goods in such an energy-efficient way. Aviation has the great advantage that one can travel long distances in a short time, and we will need aviation even in the future – not least ambulance flights, firefighting flights, and military aviation.

What both shipping and aviation have in common is the dependence on fossil fuels and the difficulty of electrification within the foreseeable future. In that case, we naturally need to produce sustainable fuels to secure a sustainable future for both aviation and shipping.

Given all the beautiful words from Minister Carlson, one could have believed that the investment in sustainable aviation fuel and fuel for shipping is in full swing. But unfortunately, we have mostly received notices that planned investments are being canceled in Sweden. In Ö-vik and Långsele, plans have been concluded or postponed. Skellefteå Kraft and co-investors are hesitating due to the lack of support from the government.

From a security perspective, it would be desirable, to say the least, if Sweden could manufacture its own aviation fuels for everything from the Jas Gripen to ambulance helicopters and the Coast Guard. Then we would also secure our own ship fuel for everything from cargo ships to the fleet.

From the representatives for the Tidö parties, we hear that it is flight shame instead of a lack of politics that is the problem. I think it is incredibly bad that one cannot even invest in this completely necessary development in Sweden, where we have very good conditions.

Both Andreas Carlson and Ebba Busch, Ulf Kristersson and Romina Pourmokhtari have spoken a lot about fossil-free freedom and electrification. But what does it look like in reality? A good piece of advice from the life coach is to look at what people, not least the government, do rather than what they say.

The electrification of both the transport sector and industry has slowed down significantly. The electrification is perhaps the government's greatest failure. The energy source that has increased the most during this mandate period is, instead, fossil fuels, with 15 terawatt-hours in annual use just between 2022 and 2024.

The reason is, of course, that 57 billion has been spent on subsidizing fossil fuels instead of spending that money on supporting households to switch to electric cars, to cheap public transport, and so on.

The industry organization Mobility Sweden's latest report points to a gloomy development. The electrification of the transport sector by 2030 will be significantly lower than previous forecasts showed. At the same time, Sweden had a record-high export of used electric cars to other countries during the past year, which have a clear plan for electrification.

It looks equally dark when it comes to heavy transport. Swedish companies such as Volvo and Scania stand ready with electrified heavy vehicles that can be launched on the market. But this government has killed the domestic market completely. It is not just bad climate policy; it is also poor business policy. All this is furthermore happening in a situation where Europe spends more money on buying fossil fuels from Russia than we spend on supporting Ukraine.

This naturally has consequences for the climate. Last year, Sweden's emissions increased by 7 percent. It is the largest increase in 15 years, in the middle of a recession. Sweden is now the country in the EU whose emissions are increasing the most. And a large part of this occurs within the transport sector. There, emissions increased by a staggering 20 percent.

Madam Speaker! We need a new government, a government that takes responsibility for Sweden's and Europe's security by increasing the production of domestic sustainable fuels and which increases the pace of electrification. We need a government that ensures it becomes cheap to travel sustainably wherever you live in Sweden. An electric car offensive would ensure that those who need a car can lease an electric car for 1,500 kronor a month. And one can ensure that it becomes cheap and attractive to use public transport. As we said, we want a Sweden card so that it costs under 500 kronor a month to use public transport in the entire country.

We need a government that also cares about the Swedish railway by reclaiming the maintenance debt, by lowering track fees, and by expanding the railway with sufficient capacity with new main lines throughout the country, from Luleå in the north to Malmö in the south.

Madam Speaker! With this, I would like to take the opportunity to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas.

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I jumped a bit when the member said that investments were made when Miljöpartiet sat in the government. I would like to counter a little. When Miljöpartiet sat in the government, this report from Riksrevisionen was established, which I am now holding up. It is not beautiful to read. It is clearly pointed out there that there was no governance for the production of a national plan.

You did not have a grip on the situation, Linus Lakso. You did not have a grip on the economic parts. It was a lack of cost control. The report is horrific to read. I have never read a report where one marks so clearly against a sitting government as one does in this one.

I reacted to one more thing. The member of Parliament said that Volvo and Scania cannot sell any electric trucks and that it is the government's fault. The government has nothing to do with that, to begin with. They are far ahead technically with their vehicles. But the market out there is not willing to pay for the additional costs it involves to transport with those trucks. They are somewhat stubbornly twice as expensive as a traditional truck.

We also have another situation on the market. If we create a transport system internally in Sweden that is more expensive than what the unhealthy competition can offer – I am talking about the illegal professional traffic and their smuggled fuels – it completely wipes out our Swedish trucking companies. The customer is not willing to pay that cost. We may have different perceptions of that, but it is the reality. The Swedish trucking companies therefore do not have the economic conditions to buy a truck that is more than twice as expensive, because they do not get that money back. The market would rather buy unhealthy transport.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the questions, Thomas Morell!

I will start with Trafikverket. I can only regret that Thomas Morell and the Sverigedemokraterna chose not to proceed with the committee initiative to split Trafikverket into two agencies. Then we would have an agency that can actually keep track of the roads and an agency that can have a holistic view of the Swedish railway. If there is anything we agree on, it is that it does not work as it does today.

We can only regret it. Now action really needs to be taken. I do not see that particularly much has happened, despite the claims that Trafikverket has been straightened out. It remains to be seen.

Regarding the report from the Swedish National Audit Office that you refer to, and how priorities were made, the Swedish National Audit Office made a mistake there. It is the socio-economic calculations, not a parliamentary decision, that form the basis for it. It is not the Riksdag that has decided how Trafikverket should calculate what is socio-economically profitable or not.

In such calculations, there are always choices to be made. Those choices are based, among other things, on what one prioritizes, for example, if one prioritizes the climate. One deficiency in them is that one values a driver's time higher than a train passenger's. I can think that is wrong. It is also about what the discount rate should be and so on. One therefore cannot base it on that criticism, because it is not justified.

When it comes to heavy vehicles, I shall elaborate further. But it is absolutely the government that has killed that market. It is also exactly what the industry itself says in the report that it recently released.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, during this final year of the mandate period, I would still like to remind the members that everyone speaks via the Speaker. Heckling and such shall not occur.)

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

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to go back to the first question the member raised in his speech: this matter regarding investments in the railway system and that the government would have largely ruled out investments on the railway side. That is not the case.

What the government did together with us was to put a stop to the high-speed train, in order to free up money for other investments. The whole idea of high-speed trains has, after all, undermined a functioning railway system.

One calculates completely incorrectly when calculating costs in society. I have pointed that out several times. One does not include the freight in the calculation but only calculates what it costs when we humans are delayed during train journeys. That the freight, which is so incredibly important for our industry, is not included in the calculation becomes very wrong. Therefore, a stretch as important as Göteborg–Alingsås has all the time been omitted in the work with the national plan. That was done deliberately in the previous government; they wanted to steer towards high-speed trains instead.

What is it then that is so important about the distance between Göteborg and Alingsås? Well, it is the entire lifeblood for the flow of freight up to Norrland, Mellansverige, and Mälardalen. The traffic is so intense between Göteborg and Alingsås that when there are disruptions there, those disruptions propagate all the way up to the commuter train traffic in Stockholm. Therefore, one must focus on removing just that bottleneck. We are not talking about high-speed trains; that is an investment that will not lead to increased capacity in the system as a whole, because large quantities go via the Västra stambanan up to the industry in the north. The previous government made a completely inverted analysis of reality, which the report also says.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Thomas Morell for the answers.

I must take the opportunity to ask the member of Parliament: Is it then the case that Göteborg–Alingsås is included in the plan that Trafikverket has presented under the direction of this government? That is my first counter-question.

When it comes to freight, I can only agree. But the basic problem is capacity shortage, which freight traffic also suffers severely from. The railway is too heavily loaded. One needs to run very many trains. There is very little time left to maintain the railway. The load becomes much heavier than what the railway is built for. It goes without saying then that one needs to expand the railway. But that is precisely what Thomas Morell, Sverigedemokraterna, and this government have put a stop to.

What does the investigation that this government commissioned Trafikverket to produce show? We want to build new main lines, but we have not locked ourselves into an exact speed. The important thing is not whether it should be 250 or 320, but that they are built. You, on the other hand, want to stop the entire project. One can build 41 miles of new railway with high standards. One can build independently. One could build on a viaduct. It could be done quickly, rationally, and efficiently with new methods. The alternative will be to build 35 miles of double track. It will be expensive and have a large impact on existing traffic. One will not be able to build with the same quality, because the old railway is crooked.

It only appears increasingly foolish to stop new main lines. It is only to be regretted that the Swedish people, due to this government's decision, will have to live with train delays to a greater extent than would have needed to be the case.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: Questions in closing remarks may be regarded as rhetorical.)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would bring up the enormous investment that Miljöpartiet wants to make on railway maintenance during a single year. They want to spend an extra 6 billion in a single year on the maintenance of railways.

In the budget for the year 2023, the government took 750 million from the Transport Administration's proposal that were intended for railway maintenance and allocated them to road maintenance instead. This was because the Transport Administration that the Social Democrats and the Green Party left behind did not have the possibility to use the money for railway maintenance.

So, Miljöpartiet now wants to allocate 6 billion to Trafikverket for maintenance. But if one has not straightened out Trafikverket, so that the agency has the processes, the resources, and the personnel needed to be able to perform more efficient maintenance, this makes no difference. You can put in as much money as you want; that money will just decay by the end of the year, as my colleague Magnus Jacobsson said.

We have now seen how Trafikverket has changed. Agreements have been signed for new maintenance trains. We are replacing 1,700 switches instead of 10, as during the previous government's time. We in the new government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, have done an incredible amount. We have pushed Trafikverket ahead of us and demanded to get more for the money. But how did Miljöpartiet intend to get these 6 billion out in maintenance?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! What we see of increased maintenance is a result of the previous national plan, which the Liberals themselves were involved in deciding but unfortunately negotiated down by 100 billion, which has led to a lack of resources. It is we in Miljöpartiet who for a very long time have wanted to steer Trafikverket. It is good that the government is finally implementing Miljöpartiets policy, but unfortunately, it is not being done fully. A clearer division is needed, so that we actually get a focus on the railway. We do not believe that there is a holistic responsibility today.

The question of how this should be carried out was also raised. Yes, exactly – it needs to be a significantly more rational execution. In response to the question, I can only state that Trafikverket first said it was completely impossible to reclaim more than 15 percent of the maintenance by 2037, but barely a year later, during its latest visit to the Transport Committee, it gave the message that it probably is possible, which is exactly what I and Miljöpartiet have asserted. By applying pressure, achieving better structure, and procuring industrial and rational processes, we can reclaim the maintenance faster.

Parallel to that, we can increase the capacity of the Swedish railway. Today, it unfortunately takes far too long, but we maintain that it is possible to push and steer even there, so that we can expand the railway faster. We see that it is possible in other countries to build railways faster, more rationally and more cost-effectively than we do in Sweden. That is exactly what we have said throughout this entire mandate period and also pushed for during the previous mandate period. It is good that the government is acting in that direction. But it is too little and too slow, and the investments in new railway are completely missing.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I find it interesting when Member Linus Lakso says that it is going too slowly. Miljöpartiet had eight years to implement all the fantastic ideas that they apparently had but did not get support for at Trafikverket. When we took over Trafikverket, it did not work because there was no efficient process for purchasing and maintenance.

We have heard many who have spoken about all the National Audit Office reports which say that there has been very poor cost control and poor processes. But the Green Party has, therefore, had eight years to implement all these ideas. As the member says, one hears now after only two years Trafikverket say that they can do this in a completely different way. What is that due to? Well, we have received a new government that has put very hard pressure on Trafikverket. It is a major change process. We have demanded that they give us more maintenance and development for the money. In two years, they have changed. Yesterday they purchased new maintenance trains. The Social Democrats and the Green Party had eight years to arrange that, but nothing happened.

If this government is allowed to stay for another four years after the election, it may possibly be possible to utilize the 8 billion that the Member of Parliament has in its budget. But with the speed that the Social Democrats and the Green Party had during their eight years, it will not work.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Helena Gellerman, but I wonder if the member has suffered a small memory loss here. The Liberals were also part of the January Agreement and the cooperation with the previous government. The question can just as well be asked of the Liberals as to why they did not demand all the things that Helena Gellerman is rambling about here.

The truth is to say that the large increase in money for maintenance occurred under the previous government. As I mentioned earlier, the previous government increased maintenance by 100 percent during that mandate period. It was a doubling, compared to the 5 percent that one increases by now.

It is thanks to the large investment that one can now afford to purchase larger, more rational vehicles and so on. There, the pace only needs to increase. Here, the government is settling for an incredibly low level of ambition where they mostly push the maintenance debt onto the future. It will have consequences.

We had, if the member does not remember, decided on and started investments in new trunk lines for more capacity on the railway. The member wondered why we did not start what we had said. It was exactly what we did, I wish to inform Helena Gellerman. But the government has stopped it.

Now we will be left with undercapacity for more decades than would have been necessary – just as Skellefteå–Luleå stands without a railway along the coast because the previous alliance government stopped investments in a new railway.

This is a pattern that unfortunately repeats itself, where Swedish train passengers are affected in the end. We had the worst delays in over a decade last year under this government.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In a debate, it can be appropriate to at least have some form of rigor in one's argumentation. On one hand, it is claimed that the plan that is currently presented is the plan that one has made oneself, which is correct. It is the Social Democrats' and the Green Party's plan. The new plan will come in the spring. On the other hand, the government is criticized for moving too slowly when we follow the plan that S and the Green Party have developed. Somewhere, one must have some form of honesty.

Madam Speaker! It is also very incorrect when one says that something is stopped that was not even in the plan. High-speed trains aside, they were at the end of the plan. It is correct that the government has said no to that specific project. One has not said no to new main lines. But they were not included during those four years. One cannot stop something that was not even going to start. We must have some honesty in the chamber, Madam Speaker.

If we continue with honesty in just that question, the government has even held a negotiation so that Göteborg–Borås shall be built. We are not all in agreement, but right now the plan is that they shall build from Stockholm down to Norrköping and Linköping. Dear friends, these are new main lines. It is precisely what we are doing, in accordance with the previous plan. Either it is the previous plan that applies, or it is not. Now the fact happens to be that it is the previous plan that applies.

Madam Speaker! It is 85 percent of all transports that are carried out by wheel. Still, the government spends half of all the money on maintaining the railway. I just wonder: Where do the thoughts come from that the government is not investing, when it is completely obvious that the government is investing and in large parts follows the previous plan?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, even if they were perhaps more the assertions from Magnus Jacobsson.

The answer is quite simple. What I have criticized is the plan being laid out for the time ahead, in light of the bill submitted to the Riksdag last year, regarding the ambitions to recover the deferred maintenance.

I think it is going too slowly. It is too low an ambition level to postpone 85 percent of the maintenance debt on the Swedish railways until after 2037, when we see how Swedish train travelers are constantly affected by train delays every day. I think it is too late, too little, and too low an ambition.

When it comes to new main lines, it is correct as Magnus Jacobsson asserts. They have been started. The problem is that the assembly of the started main lines has been halted so that it is possible to run trains on the new main lines Stockholm–Malmö and Malmö–Göteborg.

It is even worse, if possible, to invest very large sums of money to start a project and then stop the construction of the railway. In that case, one does not get the benefit that would have been provided with new main lines.

There was a commenced planning of the next steps in the project, as one may call it if one wants to be more precise, to connect Sweden with new main lines. One of the first decisions the government made was to stop that planning.

And not only that, one also went to the EU and requested to have those projects removed from the TEN-T map so that we will not receive any EU money at all for this.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that everyone who listened to the previous contributions like myself can note that the discussion was about what had happened during this parliamentary term. During this parliamentary term, the government has continued to expand. We have said no to the high-speed project that only swallowed money.

Madam Speaker! It is even so bad that Trafikverket, during the previous parliamentary term, under the previous government, did not even have its own appropriation. It had free drawing rights to the resources we allocate. One of the things I am most disappointed in myself as a politician is how I could sit in the transport committee for four years and not notice it. On the other hand, there was also no one else in the transport committee who noticed it. I suppose I will have to accept that as a poor excuse.

Madam Speaker! The second point, which perhaps upsets me a little more, is the argumentation regarding Russian oil and gas. Those who know me know that I have made a number of trips down to Ukraine. I have a great commitment to Ukraine. I just want to point out, in all humility, that the war began in 2014. It escalated in 2022.

The previous government did nothing to stop oil and gas from Russia. They financed one of the most horrific wars since World War II.

The current government has – all too late in my opinion, but that is not due to our government – succeeded in negotiating an agreement in the EU that ensures that new agreements on oil and gas may not be signed within the EU.

All these agreements shall expire in 2027–2028. It is still too late in my opinion. It is a bit too hypocritical when one has personally sat in a government position and did not stop the purchase of oil and gas, and now criticizes the current government, which de facto is participating in negotiating such a stop.

It is a far too late stop. But the government has really done something. It becomes a bit shameful, Madam Speaker, when one only criticizes even such things as are being implemented.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am aware of Magnus Jacobsson's commitment to Ukraine. I truly welcome that. It then becomes incredibly strange that one can sit and make decisions in this chamber about subsidizing fossil fuels with 57 billion.

Even though we do not import oil directly from Russia, we maintain a demand in Europe. We in Europe spend more money on buying fossil fuels from Russia than we spend on supporting Ukraine. I am the first in this chamber who would like to support Ukraine even more.

The truth is that it took the government two years to stop the direct import of LNG from Russia to Sweden. It was only done after pressure from Miljöpartiet.

We also proposed a committee initiative quite a few years ago, immediately after the full-scale invasion, to immediately stop all fossil fuels from Russia. Sweden's current Minister for Civil Defence said then that they absolutely would not do that because it would legitimize Green Party politics. It is therefore such a government, with that type of ministers, that Sweden has.

I truly welcome Magnus Jacobsson's commitment to Ukraine, but most of it is going in the wrong direction when it comes to phasing out fossil fuels. It is on the contrary the source that has increased the most. The government should have pushed much harder to stop the imports from Russia to Europe earlier.

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

Mona Smedman (C)

Madam Speaker! Settle yourself in the chair, close your eyes and feel how the chilly wind caresses the cheeks and makes them perfectly rosy! The light snow that falls sparkles beautifully in the sunlight. You hear all the happy laughter and the lovely hum that arises when many people gather in one and the same place.

Where are we in thought? As a member of the Centre Party and the mother of freedom of choice, I should naturally let you choose the location yourselves, Madam Speaker, but today I am not particularly generous. Today, I choose the location. We find ourselves in Branäs, or Brannäs, as the locals say – this gem up in northern Värmland that annually attracts many winter-loving and ski-hungry people from both near and far.

Madam Speaker! I can imagine that one or another sitting here in the benches is wondering if I am being paid to stand here and speak so well of one of Värmland's tourist destinations. But no, Madam Speaker, that is not the case. As you all can understand, this is obviously not the only industry in Torsby municipality, but there are also forest owners, farming companies, hydropower owners, and small business owners. There is vital community service in the form of school, elderly care, and a health center. People have also chosen to settle in this beautiful part of the county.

I am, however, deeply concerned about what the future for the entire northern Värmland will be. You who are not familiar with Sweden's most beautiful county, Madam Speaker, must now learn that Klarälven flows like a pulse artery down from the Norwegian side into Värmland, winds its way through the entire landscape, and out into Karlstad and Vänern. Klarälven is not only beautiful, but it also enables a great deal of commercial activity such as boat trips, campsites, agriculture and forestry, as well as significant electricity production.

Madam Speaker! Now I come to one of the points that is of real importance for the entire northern Klarälvsdalen, namely national road 62. I just called Klarälven a pulse artery, and national road 62 is also a pulse artery. This road, Madam Speaker, is a prerequisite for people to be able to live, work, and run businesses in the entire Klarälvsdalen. The road is absolutely crucial for commuting to work, entrepreneurship, the tourism industry, and access to community services.

Today, however, the erosion from Klarälven is a threat to the road embankments, and if protective measures are not implemented, the road will collapse. No alternative road with a reasonable standard exists.

Yes, yes, I think, friend of order, Madam Speaker, it is just for Trafikverket to reinforce the road then! But it is not really that easy. Riksväg 62 and Klarälven are affected by Natura 2000, which leads to extremely complex assessment processes when these necessary safety measures need to be implemented.

It is also now appearing that the conservation plan for the Natura 2000 area creates difficulties even for the electricity production that the river provides. The largest power plant owner signals that the conservation plan currently available as a proposal will make it difficult for the company to continue its operations. This would have an enormous impact on Värmland's energy balance.

It is therefore evident that the Natura 2000 system has shifted from being a valuable basis for the protection of nature to becoming a direct threat to other societal development.

Trafikverket has on many occasions pointed out that today's regulatory framework and inspection procedures limit the possibilities to secure the road, while Naturvårdsverket, and the County Administrative Board in its role as a supervisory authority, pursue a strict interpretation of the Natura 2000 rules. This has in practice developed into a dispute between two government agencies. This is a situation that Centerpartiet sees as completely unacceptable. Citizens, entrepreneurs, and commuters in Nordvärmland should not have to suffer because agencies argue with each other or interpret regulatory frameworks in different ways.

It is obvious for the Center Party that the nature values of Natura 2000 areas shall be protected, but it must be weighed against people's opportunity to live, work, and run businesses in all of Värmland and in the whole country. For us, the principle applies that jobs shall increase and emissions shall decrease, and to succeed with that, environmental considerations and functioning infrastructure must go hand in hand.

When Nordvärmland's most important lifeline risks being cut off due to protracted processes, it becomes clear that a better balance is needed. It is not about choosing between nature and people, but about creating flexible and purposeful regulations where both biodiversity and the development of the countryside are strengthened.

Madam Speaker! As it stands today, the fish's right to swim is prioritized over both people's possibility to live and reside and the Armed Forces' capabilities to carry out transports towards a front in the north. There needs to be faster assessments for acute measures and clear principles for compensation and nature-enhancing efforts as part of the solution.

For Värmland and for the people who live in Värmland, this is a matter of survival and of respect for life choices.

For me, as someone who will be a member of the Riksdag for 16 more days, it is about getting the issue on the table with the government. Order needs to be established regarding the authorities and how they speak to one another. It is remarkable that an entire region of the country can be cut off because authorities are unable to find solutions among themselves.

Madam Speaker! We are approaching Christmas with great strides. I promise you that I have eaten my spinach at least once a week, so I just want to state that high up on my wish list is also the railway line between two capitals, namely Oslo and Stockholm. It is crucial for connecting two growing capital regions and for strengthening work commuting, business, and climate-smart transport throughout the corridor. At the same time, this line increases both Sweden's civil resilience and military mobility in a strategically important border region.

With these words I say thank you and wish everyone a fine Christmas and New Year.

(Applause)

In this speech, Stina Larsson (C) as well as Magnus Jacobsson and Kjell-Arne Ottosson (both KD) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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