The National Audit Office's report on the formation of Svevia and Infranord

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We shall now debate the Swedish National Audit Office's report regarding the formation of Svevia and Infranord.

The Swedish National Audit Office's point of entry in the audit has been to examine whether the Riksdag's intentions in forming the companies Infranord and Svevia have been achieved regarding both the market as a whole and the companies specifically. The objective from the beginning of the then-current Reinfeldt government was that this should lead to better competition and increased competition neutrality. It was to eliminate the suspicion of cross-subsidies in the market for our infrastructure, both for maintenance and for investments.

One also had the objective of increasing efficiency compared to Banverket Produktion and Vägverket Produktion. Another, somewhat strange, objective was to create a new customer base – whatever that was supposed to be. Perhaps it was about competing in other countries, if that were to be in the nation's interest – what do I know? Furthermore, it was expected, which is somewhat comical, that this would strengthen the ordering competence.

We see the results clearly today, and that is exactly what I intended to address directly. For the Sweden Democrats, it is quite obvious that it is more difficult to obtain the required competence for several positions since Trafikverket no longer carries out maintenance and investment as well as reinvestment in its own capacity. During the time when Banverket Produktion and Vägverket Produktion existed, there were also career paths within the respective agencies, and competence and knowledge remained within the authorities in a natural way.

We Sweden Democrats believe that the purpose of the corporatization for this goal fell flat. It is my conviction that we will sooner or later see a reclaiming of the maintenance in own management. The simplest thing would be to let Infranord merge into Trafikverket or into a future banverk and let the most important rail yards and main lines be maintained in own management, in contiguous corridors. Likewise, in order to regain commissioning competence on the roadside, we should let Svevia merge into a vägverk or, in the worst case, into Trafikverket.

What has not been scrutinized in this report is when the own consultancy operations were sold off during the merger in 2010. Banverket Projektering and Vägverket Konsult were sold to Vectura Consulting AB. At that point, the valuable expertise there was lost. It would have been interesting to see a price tag on all the dearly bought consultancy hours, not to mention the knowledge of the infrastructure that was lost. The Swedish National Audit Office has pointed this out in other reports.

The previous order of things should be restored so that we can tackle the competence problems within Trafikverket. When it comes to what happened in practice after the corporatization, it is ultimately largely the same people who have continued to work on our roads and railways with the same working methods.

Continuous efficiencies were also carried out at Banverket and Vägverket. Such efficiencies have obviously also been carried out in the companies, but there is a difference. Because the companies have individual contracts, it can be a problem to effectively handle larger accidents. If a company, for example, perhaps only has one contract in the southern part of the country, it can become very sensitive regarding personnel availability in the event of a major derailment, a signaling failure, or a fire. Those problems did not exist before. Back then, there were people available.

The National Audit Office suggests as an improvement proposal to strengthen the commissioning competence through the development of goals and measurable indicators for commissioning competence. I find it difficult to see how that could be successful.

The National Audit Office also argues that views on the client's competence should be obtained. This, however, could be a reasonable measure provided that some relevant work is carried out in analyzing and using this information for something good. In the worst case, it yields nothing at all and only results in more analysts being hired, who perhaps do not even have the specialist knowledge required for this peripheral work.

Views are also presented regarding innovations in the procurements. However, there are reasons why the procurements are relatively detailed, and these are partly the issue of quality and partly the issue of safety. High knowledge is required to change rules without compromising safety and quality. It is no coincidence that there are rigorous regulatory frameworks. On the other hand, it is of the utmost importance that Trafikverket knows what to procure, so that costly additional and modification works do not arise. But we cannot blame Svevia and Infranord for this.

The Sweden Democrats nevertheless argue that the companies as such do a good job and, for the most part, reach their economic goals. One must remember that large cost increases also affect these companies. That being said, there is obviously room for improvement.

I would have liked to see the National Audit Office look at the whole, look further back historically and include the perspective of what was lost in the corporatization of even the consultancy activities.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I listened carefully to Patrik Jönsson in the previous debate. I listened carefully now as well. Patrik Jönsson gave a terrible fiery speech for another thing's order. But that is not what we see, neither in this committee report nor when we in December discussed and debated the committee report on infrastructure issues. Just as now, we said in December that the committee can conclude that the agency structure has been investigated thoroughly.

Patrik Jönsson gives a very clear and vivid picture of how things look today in this part of the operations when it comes to Svevia and Infranord but also Trafikverket. But that is not what the Sweden Democrats are putting forward as a proposal.

In December, the Sweden Democrats made a special statement pointing out that a review needs to be conducted after 14 years of merger. The number of employees has increased. An investigation should be commissioned to clarify how Sweden should return to the previous order. But how do Patrik Jönsson and the Sweden Democrats think one should return to a different order of things? That is what Patrik Jönsson proposes in the context of the National Audit Office's report and also what the Sweden Democrats have stated previously.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Carina Ödebrink for the questions.

I thought I was fairly clear about what we think regarding the order of things and what we want. We want to reclaim the maintenance under state management to get back the procurement competence, even if it actually wasn't needed if much of the work is done in-house. Then there is an organization where one avoids spending money on expensive procurements and has in-house competence.

Above all, I miss the consultancy operations. It was a great loss that it was sold off. My God, how much the sell-off of the consultancy operations has cost the state and the taxpayers a lot of money! It has also cost a lot of tax money that the client competence has been lost.

It is a fact that things are a giving and a taking. Member Carina Ödebrink knows very well that during the previous parliamentary term, the Social Democrats ruled, as did the period before that. It is a giving and a taking here in life, and so it was for you too. I do not know if you would have proceeded with, for example, the high-speed project if you had not sat with Miljöpartiet. I cannot answer that, but neither you nor we sit with 51 percent or more. I want to remember that there was a time when the Socialdemokrater did it, but I thank the gods that that time is over.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! When we were in government, we actually gave a mandate to Trafikverket in 2021 to look at and rectify the cost increases. That work is ongoing, and I assume that the current government takes it seriously.

I also think that we in the Committee on Transport should receive an update regarding this. But I think it is remarkable and I want to highlight this. I know that it is about a giving and a taking, but the Sweden Democrats have been extremely clear – Patrik Jönsson is probably the one who has primarily championed this. Now they are backing down completely. It is important to say in this chamber, Madam Speaker.

We have proposals on what we see needs to be done. I will come back to that. I think we need to learn from the experiences we have had regarding the changes for Trafikverket and the companies Svevia and Infranord.

Madam Speaker! It may have been that Patrik Jönsson, in his fiery speech, meant that Trafikverket should be destroyed, as Senator Cato said about Carthage. It may turn out as Patrik Jönsson wants. But it does not seem as if anyone is working in that direction right now, at least.

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

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thought carefully about whether I should say that Trafikverket should be destroyed. I was a bit kind and said in my speech that it should be transformed.

Member of the Board Carina Ödebrink did not sit on the Transport Committee during the previous parliamentary term. But I can state that I had a conversation with Sweden's former Minister for Infrastructure then, where I made proposals to re-establish state maintenance. The good Tomas Eneroth then chose to commission an inquiry into how to achieve maintenance in-house, but it was so catastrophic that it could only be thrown in the bin. It was a terrible inquiry that said one should take a few contracts and build up a completely new organization – when we have an existing, state organization in the form of Svevia and Infranord!

There was a good chance then. This could have been carried out if the Social Democrats had chosen to listen to the Sweden Democrats, but one chose not to do so.

I must also say this: We have a country that is decaying. Firstly, the infrastructure has decayed after eight years of your rule. Secondly, we have explosions and shootings. We have received an insecure society because of your rule.

Within the Tidö cooperation, we have achieved a great deal of very good Sweden Democrat policy. It may not have become one hundred percent Sweden Democrat policy, just as it may not have become one hundred percent Moderate policy. You give and you take – that is how it works.

Now we take hold of the country and make politics better. We create a safer and more secure society. We do everything to tackle the infrastructure problems. We allocate significantly more money and streamline the maintenance. I believe it will be better after these four years, but it takes time to change infrastructure – that is not an unknown phenomenon.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! It is quite obvious that there are fundamentally very different views regarding these issues both within the coalition parties and within the opposition. This applies, however, to a report from the Swedish National Audit Office. I would like, right at the beginning, to move for the approval of reservation 3, which is the Center Party's reservation in this committee report.

I welcome the Swedish National Audit Office's audit report on the formation of Svevia and Infranord. The Centre Party stood behind the corporatization of Svevia and Infranord. This decision was made in 2009, during the alliance government's time, and was implemented a few years later. I consider it to have been an important reform to streamline maintenance and create competition in the market for maintenance of railway and road. The agency structure that existed nearly 20 years ago was by no means a model of efficiency, so this was truly something that needed to be done.

Now that it has been a little over ten years since the corporatization was carried out, it is welcome that the National Audit Office has evaluated whether the Riksdag's intentions with the corporatization have been fulfilled. I note that the National Audit Office points out some areas that could be developed. Among other things, it is stated that the government's governance of Svevia and Infranord does not ensure the Riksdag's intentions with the corporatization.

Here, the Riksdag's intention regarding increased productivity is mentioned, and that this is something the government has not followed up on sufficiently. I note that the government has not carried out any systematic follow-ups beyond the follow-up of the economic goals in the annual report, and that this is pointed out as one of the reasons why the companies have not reached their goals. The Swedish National Audit Office assesses that the government has not used the ownership dialogue steering tool in an effective way to follow up and evaluate the goals.

Madam Speaker! I see that the government, in its communication, does not stand behind the Swedish National Audit Office's conclusion that the government's governance of Svevia and Infranord does not fulfill the Parliament's intentions. The government argues instead that follow-up has been conducted through owner dialogues between representatives for the owner, the chairman of the board, and the company's director. According to the government, this model has been applied for several years but has not always been documented in a clear manner.

My perception is that the follow-up of the improved productivity is something that goes beyond the usual owner dialogue and that a separate productivity follow-up could have been documented in a way that the usual owner dialogue is not always suited for. In that way, it would have been possible for the Riksdag to follow up on whether the Riksdag's goals have been met by the government.

If the Riksdag's intentions to create greater competition in the market for railway and road maintenance are to be achieved, it is in my opinion required that the government takes its responsibility and follows up on how the work in the state-owned companies is progressing. If the government does not act continuously by setting adequate economic goals and having owner dialogue for both operations, the reform of the corporatization risks failing.

The government, in its recently prepared infrastructure bill, has expressed an intention to make major investments in the maintenance of roads and – to some extent – railways. I consider this to be both long-awaited and welcome. Svevia and Infranord must play an important role in the work for a well-functioning infrastructure throughout the country. It is therefore extremely important that these two state-owned companies deliver and that the government works to improve the owner dialogue and reach the goals that the Riksdag has set. I note at the same time that the government's management of Svevia and Infranord is insufficient and does not reach the goals set by the Riksdag, and that the government should therefore immediately take adequate measures to be able to achieve the goals.

I want to further point out that the maintenance of Swedish railways and roads needs to be streamlined and that there are many private companies that use new methods and technologies to be able to speed up the maintenance work. I believe that this is something that must be promoted. The goal should be that there is an efficient railway and road maintenance in Sweden that can handle the increased pressure when Sweden as a country is to try to build away the maintenance debt and that can manage to do this in an efficient way.

Both the National Audit Office and the government argue that functioning competition leads to more efficient use of resources, which benefits society in the form of lower prices and better quality. The Centre Party shares that view.

It may be time for the government to act and review the old reform of the corporatization as well as what the next steps should be. I believe that another attempt needs to be made regarding the corporatization of Svevia and Infranord. In order to achieve real competition, I believe that parts of – or all of – the companies may need to be sold.

Svevia works with road maintenance and road construction but also has industrial activities. The group includes the subsidiary Arento, which rents out construction and civil engineering vehicles. I believe that this activity could just as easily be carried out by private companies. There are many both small and large companies that could take over that part. It can be directly anti-competitive that the state has this type of rental.

I mean that a broad investigation is needed where both the ownership form for Svevia and Infranord and the need for a potential sale of primarily Svevia but also Infranord are reviewed.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! This is, as mentioned, about a report from the National Audit Office. Actually, quite a few such reports have been made concerning both road maintenance and railway maintenance, and it is good that the National Audit Office looks at these issues from many different perspectives.

The most important thing for us Moderates is to create an infrastructure that is as efficient and sustainable as possible. Do we achieve this by having everything under state control, or by instead seeing if one can use market incentives and obtain competition and innovation by procuring this type of activity?

The purpose of corporatization was from the beginning to clarify the roles, increase efficiency, and reduce the risks of cross-subsidization. Some of this has been achieved, Madam Speaker, especially when it comes to removing the risks of cross-subsidization.

At the same time, it is important to view the issue of the companies Svevia and Infranord in the light of our entire infrastructure. Trafikverket procures large maintenance contracts annually. I believe everyone agrees that higher procurer competence is the key to getting more infrastructure and maintenance for the money we invest. This will be the government's priority. Trafikverket has clear mandates to ensure that it acquires the procurer competence it needs, that it becomes more efficient in its procurement, and that it takes into account and promotes innovation.

Some of the debaters in this chamber sometimes engage in some form of historical reflection and believe that everything was better before, when a state agency performed everything in its own capacity. This is fundamentally an ideological question – do you believe in free enterprise and competition, or do you believe that the state, and not the market, does most things best? We Moderates believe that this would increase costs and worsen the incentives for constant improvements.

Madam Speaker! We are now talking about railway maintenance, road maintenance, Svevia and Infranord. There is something very sad about this. In 2015, an investigation was presented called Koll på anläggningen. It received additional directives from the previous government which aimed at looking at precisely the re-nationalization of the maintenance. When the investigator, who was appointed by the Alliance government, then delivered his investigation, he advised against re-nationalization. But instead of looking at whether there were other good proposals in the investigation to improve and streamline the maintenance, one chose to throw the investigation in the wastebasket because it did not come to what, for ideological reasons, one wanted it to come to.

The investigator pointed out that the outsourcing through, among others, Svevia and Infranord has led to at least 9 percent more efficient maintenance. What would be the motive to re-nationalize the maintenance of both road and railway when we know that we get maintenance for the money if we let, among others, Svevia and Infranord take care of this in a tendered market where there are incentives to reduce costs and take advantage of new technology?

Madam Speaker! Much of it is about the fact that we need to have a Transport Administration with procurement competence that can conduct procurements that meet the standard so that we get what we need for Swedish infrastructure. Svevia and Infranord are important players in this to achieve functional maintenance, and through owner dialogue and continuous improvement measures, we are convinced that it is possible to drive up both productivity, punctuality, and quality. Sweden needs this to get its infrastructure in order. This is something the Moderaterna and the government prioritize highly during this mandate period.

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

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! In the debate, we sometimes want to make the differences black and white. But it is not really that simple. These activities have an important social mission, even if it is not written into the mandate.

The intentions and ambitions of merging into a transport authority and corporatizing have not been fully fulfilled in the way the idea was. In my opinion, it is not enough that Trafikverket improves its procurement competence. One must also have competence in the activities one is responsible for, an operational competence. The competition is not as great as we would like it to be.

Based on the report, I ask Member Stockhaus: What does the Member and the government basis consider should be done so that these companies achieve more economic goals than they do today?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! At the end, I said that through ownership dialogue and continuous improvement measures, we want to get this in order. That is how you manage companies. You do not go in and talk about exactly how they should do it. In the ownership dialogues, the government focuses on efficiency and that economic goals should be achieved.

One can have ordering competence and control over one's facilities without being the one who carries out the actual maintenance. A number of reports from the Swedish National Audit Office point to this, both regarding efficiency in procurement and whether Trafikverket has control over its facilities.

These reports from the National Audit Office have been coming for eight years, and the big problem is that the previous government did nothing about what the National Audit Office reported. They did not demand that Trafikverket improve its procurement competence. The Social Democrats' only solution is that Trafikverket, which has major efficiency problems and is now undergoing a major reorganization, should handle the maintenance itself. I do not believe that this solution will in any way result in us getting more maintenance for the money on either roads or railways.

Further developing Svevia and Infranord is important, as is setting higher demands on Trafikverket to keep track of its facilities and conduct procurements in a more efficient manner.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me emphasize that the Social Democrats are not fundamentalists. We think it is important that society has greater control and greater command over these activities than it does today. We do not believe that the market is always best at solving societal problems and challenges. That does not mean that we do not think the market and industry are important, for they are, of course. I believe that we need to work even more intensively with industry to promote innovation procurement and development.

It is true that the Riksdag agreed that Trafikverket should be formed even though the Social Democrats, the Green Party, and the Left Party had some views in a specific statement. In this statement, we raised the issue of the balance of power and wrote, among other things, that a large and powerful transport authority will likely shift the balance of power between the political level and the new agency. Now, 15 years have passed since Trafikverket was formed, and they have doubled their workforce without us fully receiving the delivery we would like to have.

How does the member view our concerns regarding the balance of power between the government and the authority?

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Madam Speaker! According to the investigation conducted ten years ago, one gets 9 percent more maintenance with a procurement on the market than if Trafikverket does it in its own capacity. This figure speaks for itself, and I do not believe the situation has changed. If one wants more maintenance for the money, this is what one should invest in.

The debate is not about Trafikverket, but Trafikverket has received criticism for many years. This government has really taken hold of it, and there are a number of assignments to Trafikverket on how it needs to change its operations. Both the government and the group leaders of the Tidö parties have regular meetings with the director-general to follow up on the change work within Trafikverket.

The big question is why you did nothing about it when you were in government. Rather, you gave Trafikverket even greater opportunity to increase its staff by merging the project grants with the administrative grants. This is the reason why Trafikverket has been able to increase the number of employees by 4,000 without actually delivering anything more.

The debate is indeed about Svevia and Infranord, but it would be interesting to have a debate about the management of Trafikverket. I mean that the government is taking its responsibility and is now trying to manage the agency in a way that the previous government did not do at all.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation number 1.

Social missions are a main reason why the state owns companies. Now, neither Svevia nor Infranord have any written social missions, but fundamentally they are operations that are intended to benefit and support important social functions when it comes to maintenance and investments in infrastructure.

There were good intentions when it came to merging the road authority and the railway authority. It is about different knowledge and competencies but also about being part of a larger, socially important whole. So, here 15 years after the merger and with the additional changes through the formation of Svevia and Infranord, it is easy to ask whether the changes have met the purpose and ambitions that existed or if we perhaps have partially thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

The National Audit Office's report is a good basis, but we believe it would be advisable to have an examination of how the corporatization of Svevia and Infranord has affected the operations themselves and how the sustainability of the maintenance has developed.

The results that emerge in the review report are a depressing reading when it comes to the outcome of the corporatization and marketization of socially important activities:

The price development has been very strong compared to the general price development.

The share of innovation procurement has decreased.

Competition has improved in only one of the four sub-markets, and the conditions for competition on equal terms have not improved.

Both Svevia and Infranord have had difficulty reaching their economic goals during large parts of their period of operation.

Against this background, we believe that a major rethink is required regarding both content and organization. Roads and railways are fundamental societal functions that must maintain high and predictable quality. The State – we together – needs to reclaim control and oversight over the maintenance of roads and railways to a greater extent.

Let me be clear: Even with greater state responsibility for and control over maintenance in-house, we see that cooperation with private contractors is absolutely crucial to promote innovation and development.

Madam Speaker! The marketization and bureaucratization need to be reversed. We therefore want to see an investigation that examines whether the corporatization and marketization have led to what was the goal and purpose, and highlights whether a return to a more pure operation with a banverk and a vägverk should take place.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I must admit that when I sat and prepared for this debate, I thought it probably would not become so exciting, but the debate and the conversation here in the chamber is really good. Why do I think that? Yes, because the citizens must be given a chance to see the differences between the parties and feel where the dividing lines are. Given that the Swedish political system is often described as blocs rather than as individual parties, it sometimes becomes confusing.

I am extra pleased with Patrik Jönsson's post. We have, in fact, debated nationalization and breaking up [monopolies] several times earlier. On some occasions, some have consistently claimed that the Sverigedemokraterna are a form of right-wing party, while I have consistently claimed that they are, at times, rather a center-left party. This is connected to the fact that they here in the chamber raise issues where many of us from more traditionally conservative parties do not quite agree.

I think this is good. I think it is very positive that I can be clear about my more classic bourgeois view where I am in favor of procurement. I also appreciate that the Center Party is clear about its ideological starting values, even if they are currently in a different family. It becomes clear for the voters. Then we compromise, produce some kind of basis, and make decisions based on that.

Madam Speaker! I have been sitting here and listening – I got a bit tired of sitting – and I think it is good and clarifying towards the citizens that there are different dividing lines here. Negotiations also take place in these dividing lines.

Regarding the matter itself, I share the government's view in many respects that the organizational form they have chosen has promoted competition. The productivity development helps to drive forward cost-effective goals. We can also note that both companies have been without state support.

With this said, I do not think I have read a single audit report that has not criticized Trafikverket's ability to procure. When one listens to us here in the chamber, one hears that several of us are raising this in different ways. The merger of Banverket and Vägverket was intended to increase efficiency, but what we have seen is an increase in staff. It is probably difficult to claim that the efficiency improved.

At the same time, we see how the government is now taking action on this. On a few occasions internally – I can also say it publicly – I have been annoyed that I myself during the previous parliamentary term actually did not note that one proceeded on appropriations without there being a separate appropriation for Trafikverket itself. There was, therefore, no administrative appropriation. How could we agree to this in the chamber?

It was an authority that had free discretion over investment funds and maintenance funds. Then procurements took place, which were quite often criticized by the National Audit Office, but not only by them, but the companies that did the work said many times that there was a lack of competence. This meant that it became expensive ÄTA-works, i.e., additional orders.

My experience is that the government is taking action on this now and implementing a number of improvements. They have also secured administrative grants, so I believe we are heading in a better direction.

Ideologically, I want to be honest, because for me, it is about ideology. I do not believe in nationalization, but I believe in the free market. I would rather want to take a step further. What would happen if we let municipalities have the right of challenge? Say that Trafikverket carries out a procurement and says that a roundabout or a railway section costs 100 million kronor and that the municipality then says: We believe we can solve that for 80 million. I actually believe that the market could do more if it were given the right incentives.

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank my colleagues for their ideologically clear speeches. I personally stand behind what is stated in the report. I believe we are on the right track, but I also believe that one can always get a little better when working with free markets and orders. The everyday improvements lead, in the long run, to us saving money for the taxpayers. We can get more roads, railways, airports and other things for the same amount of money by procuring.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! To understand what the Swedish National Audit Office has concluded after auditing the corporatization of Banverket and Vägverket, one really only needs to read the first page and the report's title, which is The Formation of Svevia and Infranord – poorly fulfilled intentions. It means that what was said would happen during the competition, when Svevia and Infranord were formed, has not been achieved.

The National Audit Office clearly states in its conclusion that what was said would happen – that costs would decrease as a result of increased productivity and efficiency – has not happened. On the contrary, the National Audit Office states that prices have increased significantly on the construction market, twice as much as the CPI.

I believe we interpret the reports very differently. I think this is completely obvious after having listened to previous speakers. A speaker from the Moderaterna, for example, said that a good deal of the Riksdag's intentions have been achieved. Yes, to counter cross-subsidies – period. The other intentions have not been achieved, and I think this stands clearly in the Riksrevisionen's report.

This is, as stated, a clear conclusion that should lead to both reflection and action. But the government's response to the report is that they agree with the majority of the Swedish National Audit Office's assessments but do not see any reason to follow up on the deficiencies that exist. I think that is remarkable.

I mentioned in my previous speech that Sweden was first in Europe to deregulate all rail traffic. The same policy has been pursued in the United Kingdom, which deregulated the railways in the mid-90s. But already in 2001, just a few years after the deregulation, the then British government decided to re-nationalize most of the railway maintenance. They did that after a serious train accident where 4 people died and 102 were injured. The accident was caused by cracks in the rails. It was a defect that had been discovered two years earlier but had not been rectified by the private actor that held the responsibility.

In 2021, the United Kingdom took the next step and renationalized the remaining part of the railway. In connection with that decision, the UK Transport Secretary said the following: Our railways were built to serve this country, to create stronger links between our communities and to provide people with a worthwhile, reliable and fast service. Years of fragmentation, confusion and over-complications have caused the vision to fade and the passengers to be let down.

I believe there is every reason for us in Sweden to follow the example of the United Kingdom based on the same description of the problem.

The report from the Swedish National Audit Office that we are debating today is one in a long line of reports and investigations that show the same thing, I would like to assert. I understand that we interpret things in different ways, but the message is very clear: Deregulated maintenance does not lead to what was said it would. We have therefore not received better maintenance at a lower price. On the contrary, costs have increased while the maintenance debt grows.

For the railway, the debt curve also increased very steeply. We have talked about this several times. Less than ten years ago, the maintenance debt for the railway was 36 billion, and now it is up to 91 billion. It is also increasing by 400,000 kronor per hour.

Madam Speaker! The question that I think the government needs to ask itself is how large the maintenance debt should be allowed to become and why it is skyrocketing as it is. One also needs to reflect on how many investigations and reports showing the same thing are needed before one is ready to reconsider its market dogmas.

Sweden was the first to deregulate all rail traffic, but we do not need to be the last to do what is necessary.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish model has not been built on us relinquishing control over the railway system itself. What we have done is to let other actors use the railway system.

That different actors have been allowed to enter and use the railway system has resulted in significantly increased travel. I don't have the exact figure in my head right now, but it is about a few hundred percent over time. It is thus a significantly increased travel, especially on the passenger side, since the deregulation of the possibility to access the track was made.

What did not happen, however, was that here in the Riksdag, regardless of political affiliation, sufficient resources were allocated to manage the increase in transport.

Deregulation is a success, especially for those who are interested in more people traveling by train. We had a debate about public transport earlier. For those who truly believe in the idea that more people should travel by public transport and that more people should travel by rail, deregulation is a success story.

What, however, is not a success story is how we have managed the track itself. It is there where, among other things, I have voiced criticism both during the last parliamentary term and now. It is good that the government sets out what it does. But I believe, which I have repeated on several occasions, that we have reached a point where we will have to find alternative solutions because we need to accelerate the upgrading of the railway. But that is an effect of the deregulation. It cannot be compared with the United Kingdom. What I have read about the United Kingdom is that it was a total, monumental failure. But in Sweden, it is a success story. We have, after all, increased travel by rail throughout the country and, above all, developed large labor market regions. I do not quite understand how the Left is for traveling by train at one moment and against traveling by train in the next.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Magnus Jacobsson – it is pleasant to have an exchange of remarks at this late hour on an important issue.

We from Vänsterpartiet are definitely for more rail traffic, absolutely. I still think the comparison with the United Kingdom is relevant. I am well aware of the difference between the United Kingdom and Sweden. What I quoted from the Minister for Transport is about having a fragmented, dysfunctional system where the maintenance of the railway is extremely neglected. I also tried to highlight that in my speech.

We have a skyrocketing maintenance debt – we must all agree on that – from 36 billion a few years ago to 91 billion today. Something is fundamentally wrong. Here, I think we need to find some kind of consensus. We must agree on this. This steep curve with a maintenance debt that is skyrocketing, we must break it.

I heard the member say in a previous speech: We absolutely do not want to waste tax money. But report after report shows that we do not get the maintenance we pay for. We also know what the problems are with deregulated maintenance: extremely high transaction costs linked to procurement, constant appeal processes etcetera and a skyrocketing maintenance debt that costs billions. To not even question the deregulation, how is that being economical with tax money in the way the member described earlier?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that in some sense we are talking about two different deregulations.

One of the deregulations allows for development. One can let others enter the track and acquire slot times, which has resulted in a number of new railway operators. It has resulted in a sharp increase in travel by rail traffic and a fantastic development with, for example, Pågatågen. We have had a fantastic development in Mälardalen. We see a similar development in Västra Götaland.

The second deregulation, which I perceive the member's criticism is directed towards, is primarily about how the track has been managed. There, I still think that the reports that have been submitted show that procurement of track in its entirety – not in every single case; we must be careful about that – leads to lower costs. There is nothing to indicate that it would make the maintenance cheaper if Trafikverket took all of this on itself. Rather, there is a risk that it would become more expensive.

Here we differ in how we read, and I would believe that we also differ ideologically. But the deregulation that has occurred in Sweden is not comparable to that in the United Kingdom. Our deregulation has resulted in increased rail traffic, which I think is positive. The Christian Democrats would like to see more rail traffic, but then we must also be able to upgrade the tracks.

Now, a number of positive decisions are being made. In order to succeed even better, Trafikverket must become better at procurement. I believe that we must introduce alternative operating models. I also believe that it must be possible to grant a certain form of right of challenge, and I believe it is important that the government makes these decisions where they take back instead of issuing a start order. If it has rushed with 30–40 percent, as in some projects, they take it back and take a new approach. Then you also send the signal to the market that it is not okay.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the member for an interesting debate!

It is one thing that feels frustrating for me when we talk about this. I tried to describe the skyrocketing maintenance debt earlier, and the arguments that come when we talk about the deregulation of the railway are that this is an ideological issue.

Is it really that? And above all, did it have to be that? Faced with this enormous maintenance debt, which is skyrocketing, it could be a question of which railway we want. How do we spend the tax money that the member spoke about earlier?

To link back to the United Kingdom once again, a large part of the debate there concerned what is called distorted incentives. It is known, therefore, that preventive maintenance is systematically deprioritized by market actors. It is not considered profitable to perform, so preventive maintenance is postponed. This was a huge part of the debate in the United Kingdom, and it also caused the debate to shift. It was also a major reason behind the accident a long time ago. Distorted incentives are, therefore, also an issue that we need to talk about much more than we do.

I would like to conclude by pointing out that the proposals for solutions that the member and the government have for the railway crisis today are to task Trafikverket with sharpening its procurement competence and tightening its cost control. I think that is deeply insufficient in the face of the major problems we have.

I hope that we continue this debate, and we certainly will.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating TU7 Riksrevisionen's report on the formation of Svevia and Infranord. I want to begin by emphasizing the importance of Riksrevisionen carrying out its evaluations of the decisions we make here in the Riksdag. It provides us members with support in the question of whether previous decisions need to be adjusted to achieve a more efficient implementation. Riksrevisionen has conducted a long series of investigations within the transport sector, and the Liberals truly welcome these.

I note that all parties in the Riksdag unanimously took the decision to form Svevia and Infranord. The National Audit Office has now reviewed whether the formation of Svevia and Infranord has achieved the intentions we had when we took this decision in 2010.

I believe that one needs to see Svevia and Infranord in a larger perspective. It is about the entire system and about what requirements are placed on the state-owned companies, both in ownership dialogues and – perhaps especially – when it comes to procurement.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals believe that railway maintenance should continue to be procured through competition. In doing so, we take advantage of the collective expertise within the international companies regarding how to efficiently maintain railways, and we can utilize the creativity and flexibility of smaller companies.

Studies such as the Alexandersson investigation 2016 point out that we get both more and better maintenance at a lower cost by outsourcing the maintenance instead of letting the state handle everything and have it directly under its own management.

I would very much like to know which studies previous members have to rely on when they say that maintenance has become more expensive. I would welcome it if someone takes the floor and tells me about these studies. I am not aware of any study showing that outsourced maintenance has become more expensive than doing everything in-house.

Procurement in competition instead ensures that the state-owned companies need to maintain a high quality so that they can continue to receive contracts. Without that external pressure, experience tells us that organizations do not develop as effectively. It is largely the Swedish Transport Administration's procurement competence and procurement that drives the development of Svevia and Infranord forward.

I would, however, at the same time like to point out that we have a state-owned company that the government controls, which performs a large part of the maintenance and has great competence. It is important that we see that we have that competence and that it can be directed by the government. It is important from a preparedness perspective. We have debated this in other contexts here in the Riksdag, not least in connection with experiences from Ukraine.

It is simultaneously important for the Liberals that we get more maintenance and new railways for the tax money. Trafikverket needs to acquire better knowledge regarding the status of our roads and railways and, furthermore, better ability to effectively procure the maintenance and improve Trafikverket's ordering competence.

One needs to become better at utilizing the information that Trafikverket requests from the contracted subcontractors and that they, at the end of each project, shall describe what status the road or railway has after completed maintenance work.

We also need increased digitalization, both to effectively collect and store information about the railway and the road and to use AI to prioritize maintenance based on collected data. Through better procurement, the suppliers can also be developed significantly more favorably.

The National Audit Office also addresses the economy. Both companies have return targets and requirements for high productivity and productivity development in order to be able to reach these goals. These are followed up in ownership dialogues. We Liberals believe that it is important to see that the state-owned companies that are on an open market are managed in the ownership dialogue, but what perhaps really provides the power of change is that they must keep the same pace as the rest of the market in order to be able to get the contracts. Otherwise, they do not get contracts for maintenance and so on.

We liberals therefore believe that the vast majority of enterprises become more efficient if one works in competition with others.

With these words, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I felt almost insulted by the member when she urged someone to come up and speak about how costs have increased, and if costs have increased, regarding the deregulation of railway maintenance.

Firstly, it appears in the report we are debating today that costs have increased. The National Audit Office writes that prices have increased significantly. In the construction market, they have increased twice as much as the general price increase during the same period. This applies to a ten-year period, and it stands in the report we are talking about today.

There are also other reports, of which I can mention one. A report from the Swedish National Audit Office came out in 2020 showing that the state is not getting as much as possible out of the procurements that are made. On average, the contracts are inflated by 74 percent. Those are two examples. If I had known that this question would come up – and perhaps I should have calculated that – I could have prepared more examples.

One can also mention the transaction costs I touched upon earlier. A very large superstructure is also being built up, which is connected to procurement and with long and protracted appeal processes. That is also a large cost that is added.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I think it is extremely important that we have an effective implementation of the maintenance. Now we are talking about how effective Infranord and Svevia are. There are also other actors on the market. In the Alexandersson investigation, the costs were compared when the operations were under state management with what happened after Svevia and Infranord were created and procurement was done in competition. Then it was seen that one got more maintenance for the money at a lower cost. That was what I referred to regarding that one does not want to withdraw the maintenance.

I have followed the development and looked at this, and I think the Riksrevisionen's reviews are so good. For example, the report came out that the contracts had become 74 percent more expensive during the last parliamentary term. There, it could however be stated that the absolutely overriding part regarding why it had become 74 percent more expensive was that one had received additional orders from Trafikverket.

In the way the procurement was conducted, there was therefore room to maneuver to do one thing or the other within the same contract. Consequently, there was naturally a new order within the contract from Trafikverket, which resulted in us getting these cost increases of 74 percent. That is why we in the partnership groups are now pressing very hard that Trafikverket must become much better at knowing what the cost will be when ordering maintenance and not have anything floating that increases the contract's cost.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! It can only be stated that we read these reports in very different ways. I think it appears very clearly in the Swedish National Audit Office's report that productivity and efficiency have not increased and that costs have increased as a result. I think it says so in black and white. The subtitle of the report is also "insufficiently fulfilled intentions." What the Riksdag intended with the deregulation has not been met; I think it is completely obvious.

We can disregard the superstructure that also exists and which I spoke about earlier. The member did not comment on that cost. But we can add the maintenance debt, which is increasing extremely steeply today – it is spiraling – and which, I would like to argue, is an effect of deregulated maintenance. I also described that in a previous exchange of remarks here. It is a maintenance debt amounting to 91 billion and which we need to manage. There we also have an increased cost, I would like to argue.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I think this discussion is very interesting. What do we actually get for the money?

When it comes to the maintenance debt, that is, if one looks at how it has increased, the reason is that we are not getting out enough. Every parliamentary term, we put in more money into developing new infrastructure and in maintenance, but at the same time, we do not get out enough. We see that this has increased by 21 percent just between 2020 and 2023, due to inflation and so on. It also takes a long time to carry out the projects.

Here, however, they have looked at how Infranord and Svevia, that is, two companies, have developed. That says nothing about how the deregulation itself has functioned. In 2016, that is after this deregulation, an evaluation was made, and then they looked at how it was before the deregulation. What did we get out for infrastructure for the money then? Then they have compared it with how much we get out after the deregulation, and that includes Infranord and Svevia. We see that after the deregulation we get out more maintenance for the same money. That is what the study made in 2016 shows.

That one gets more when there is competition and that the companies are strengthened – that it puts pressure on them if they are to get a new contract – creates a change process in the companies. There are countless studies that show this. But precisely when it comes to this matter of the economic advantage, one can look at the Alexandersson inquiry.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I welcome the Swedish National Audit Office's review of the formation of Svevia and Infranord, but as has already been discussed extensively here, I note at the same time that the most important question perhaps is still not addressed in the report.

It is a matter of assessing this compared to the time before the maintenance companies were corporatized and deregulated. We can perhaps get the answer to some extent by pointing out the poorly fulfilled intentions with the formation of Svevia and Infranord, but as has been said, a comparison with the time before corporatization and what it has meant for the infrastructure is missing.

One points out here that Trafikverket's procurement competence leaves much to be desired and that the agency has difficulty promoting innovation in the procurements. Then we can observe that the number of bids per procurement largely remains at unchanged levels.

The maintenance of both roads and railways has for a long time been outsourced to private contractors. What we can observe if we do a small global analysis is that several countries – the United Kingdom was mentioned earlier, and I can also mention Estonia and New Zealand – have followed the same path as Sweden. We can, however, observe that it has not functioned well and that the countries have retaken just the railway maintenance under state management.

We can also simply base it on how it looks on the Swedish railway: Now we have the worst delays and the worst punctuality in 14 years, which is a fairly good indicator of how it works in reality.

I mean that there is a difference between road and railway, and I am not at all convinced that we should re-establish the maintenance of roads in the same way. There is a big difference. The railway is a more complex system where it is about having an overall control over the entire facility and being able to constantly do the preventive work to achieve efficiency.

There were also a number of questions about ideology here. I can join that discussion by saying that, for my part, it is not about ideology at all. Instead, I see the market as a tool that in many cases is effective when it comes to innovation, new thinking, developing new things – such as new products – and so on. Market solutions work in many parts of society, but I do not see that it has worked well when it comes to specifically the maintenance of the railway.

This also relates to what we saw was a mistake, namely merging Banverket and Trafikverket and losing important competence regarding the railway. Again: The railway differs slightly from the road, which one can compare it with, in that it is a system where one needs to have an overall control. For my part and for Miljöpartiets part, it is therefore more about having the right solution in the right place.

We can, as said, observe that many of the countries that have followed the same path as Sweden have realized that it did not work well with such fragmented and privatized maintenance. Instead, it has been retaken under state control, and I believe that it is likely the path that we need to take in Sweden. We have already in previous debates discussed how the maintenance debt is spiraling and that we see that we are not getting the effective maintenance that we would need.

The Swedish National Audit Office's report on the formation of Svevia and Infranord

With that said, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 4 and thank you for a long and wonderful day of debates.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 27 February.)

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