Abolish requirements for introductory training for practice driving
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S considers it reasonable to remove the introductory training as it has not functioned well 1, but argues that the government should have considered Transportstyrelsen's proposal for a new instructor training and that the change must be followed up 1. V criticizes the government's handling as unprofessional and selective 2 and argues that the abolished requirement can lead to unstructured practice driving 2. SD considers that the abolished requirement does not mean poorer preparation 3. C wants a follow-up to ensure that instructors do not teach the wrong things 4. M wants to remove the requirement to lower costs 5 and argues that the training does not work 5 6. L wants the government to continue working on the other proposals in the report 7. KD considers that the mandatory requirement has had little effect on road safety 8 and that it has resulted in increased costs 8. KD sees the government's bill as a welcome change 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Aylin Nouri (S)
Madam Speaker! It is good to remove the requirement for introductory training for those who practice driving privately and for their instructors. The current introductory training has not functioned well enough, and therefore abolishing the requirement is reasonable. But as we point out in our special statement, it is noteworthy that the government has not considered Transportstyrelsen's other proposals in the report that the government itself ordered on the issue.
Madam Speaker! In the spring of 2023, the government tasked the Transport Agency with reviewing the driver training system. The purpose was to submit proposals on how the system can be developed so that it becomes simpler and more purposeful, so that more prospective drivers are better prepared for the driving test and so that they receive better support in acquiring the knowledge and skills required to become traffic-safe and risk- and environment-aware drivers.
These are important goals. Therefore, it is also reasonable to remove a training that has not functioned as intended. But the government's focus on preparations for the actual driving test risks simultaneously becoming too narrow. The driver training is not just about the prospective drivers passing the test, but also about shaping safe and responsible drivers in line with traffic safety work and the zero vision.
Madam Speaker! The Transport Agency notes that private practice driving needs to be tightened. The agency points particularly to the need to raise the knowledge level and ability of the instructors. This would strengthen the quality of the practice driving and improve the conditions for the future drivers. Therefore, the Transport Agency proposed that today's introductory training should be abolished and replaced by several measures, including the introduction of a new instructor training to strengthen the instructors' knowledge and ability. This is a proposal that we believe the government should have considered.
Madam Speaker! Road safety must never be treated lightly. Therefore, the change that is now being made must be followed up carefully. The Government should ensure a consistent follow-up of the reform in order to be able to assess its effects on road safety. It is crucial that changes in the driver training system do not lead to the erosion of safety and security on our roads.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! I must say that I think the government has handled this very incompletely. I do not think that legislation should be handled in this way.
Firstly, the government notes that there is a problem. Secondly, an inquiry is commissioned to solve the problem. Thirdly, the inquiry is received and processed for a year and a half, only to then do something completely different from what the inquiry proposes. At the same time, the inquiry is referenced, making it appear as if one is merely following the inquiry's recommendations. It does not turn out well. I do not think it is a serious handling.
Three years ago, the government commissioned Transportstyrelsen to conduct a review of the driver training system. The investigation was commissioned with the aim of solving a problem, namely that fewer and fewer people are passing the driving test.
The majority of those who take the driving test pass only after three attempts. The latest figures I have found are from 2024. 161,000 driving tests failed that year. That is, almost 60 percent of all driving tests fail. That is a very high figure. Of the 161,000 failed driving tests, 123,000 were taken by private individuals. That is also a high figure. That is, more than 75 percent.
The government's analysis of why fewer people are passing the driving test appears in the assignment for the investigation, where the government notes that prospective drivers increasingly arrive at the test without being sufficiently prepared. And in the government's press release in connection with giving Transportstyrelsen the assignment to investigate the issue, the Minister for Infrastructure said: We want to see driving license aspirants who come well-prepared and pass the driving test on the first attempt.
So, this is the background to the investigation.
In September 2024, the Transport Agency presented its investigation by submitting its report. The Government then proceeded with a referral to the Council on Legislation and now a bill where they refer to the fact that the Transport Agency in its report proposes that the introductory training should be abolished – and so they do it. But it is a very selective reading of a large report. What the Transport Agency actually says is that today's introductory training is not sufficient to prepare the supervisors for their task, and they propose that the current introductory training should be replaced by a number of other measures to raise the knowledge level, including a mandatory supervisor training. That is what is written.
There is, therefore, no support in the report for the introductory training to be abolished as a standalone measure. It is important to keep that in mind. Completely scrapping the introductory training in the way the government is now doing also receives criticism from several referral bodies. Nationella trafiksäkerhetsförbundet, Statens väg- och transportforskningsinstitut, Sveriges Trafikutbildares Riksförbund, Trafikutbildarnas Riksorganisation, and Sveriges Åkeriföretag all express that a mandatory introductory training or instructor training should remain in some form.
But the government rejects the views of the referral bodies and claims that a non-requirement through abolished introductory training is traffic-safe and that it should lead to fewer failed driving tests. The government's reasoning is based on that an abolished requirement for introductory training shall provide the opportunity for an increased amount of practice training and that more people can in this way become better prepared. But the government does not seem completely convinced of its own argumentation, because at the same time the government also makes the assessment that an abolished requirement for introductory training can entail that the private practice driving becomes more unstructured and that it in turn can lead to more people coming less prepared to the tests.
From Vänsterpartiet, we see the government's handling of Transportstyrelsen's review of the driver training system as far from complete. It is not finished. That is what makes the handling unserious. We do not automatically say yes to all the proposals that Transportstyrelsen puts forward, as this is a complex and extensive proposal. But we see it as urgent that the proposals are given a serious and coherent handling. That handling does not exist at all now, hence our motion in our follow-up motion.
From Vänsterpartiet, we also stand behind the Centerpartiet's proposal to evaluate the effects of abolished introductory training after a certain period. It is very reasonable to do so. To build in a follow-up from the beginning to be able to evaluate and manage consequences is a minimum requirement. There should be no conflict there. Everyone should stand behind it.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker! The Government also claims that abolishing the introductory training will make the driving license cheaper. But that is far from certain. There is a risk that what an instructor who has not been given the opportunity to update their knowledge teaches is outdated or even incorrect. This, in turn, could lead to precisely what the Government says it wants to counteract, namely more re-tests and a higher cost. A driving test costs 1,000 kronor. Then comes the car rental. That usually costs 800 kronor. It is therefore 1,800 kronor per driving test. An introductory training costs, for comparison, between 300 and 350 kronor.
But that being said: Obtaining a driver's license involves a large cost, and it is a problem that needs a solution. On that, we are also in complete agreement. But had the government had a sincere ambition to make the driver's license more economically affordable, they would not have abolished the possibility of CSN loans, which they have done, but instead expanded the possibility to apply to more groups and more qualifications. That would have had a real effect.
Thomas Morell (SD)
Madam Speaker! I note that there are school children sitting up in the gallery. This is a matter that concerns you to the highest degree, for you are future driving license holders. Listen carefully to this debate!
Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats support the committee's proposal in the report and move for the rejection of all motions.
Getting a driver's license is an important step in life, and for many, it is a step into the adult world. The driver's license gives the individual freedom of movement and significantly greater chances on the labor market. The driver's license is therefore an important part of every person's life.
After a passed theory test and a passed driving test, you have the driver's license in your hand. I believe everyone remembers the joy one felt when passing their driving test and thereafter could roll out onto the roads all on one's own. Just a few weeks ago, a family member experienced that joy, and it literally radiated from the newly minted license holder.
Madam Speaker! It is exactly as it is for all other newly licensed drivers. The real education begins after one has received their driver's license. It is the start of a lifelong learning, as traffic legislation and the traffic environment are constantly changing. Passing one's driving test is actually only a first test.
Madam Speaker! We now come to the question that today's report concerns – the introductory training. The vast majority are in agreement that the mandatory introductory training has not had the effect that was intended.
Within the industry, it is clear that there have been deficiencies in both the design and implementation of these training programs. Even in the committee, a clear majority considers that the introductory training has not functioned satisfactorily. Despite the reservations, the parties share the view that it has not been good enough.
Madam Speaker! Personally, I am a great supporter of driver training, and I have devoted a large part of my adult life to just this. Within FAK, Frivilliga automobilkåren, and SKBR, Sveriges bilkårers riksförbund, which is the female equivalent, we further train drivers on different types of vehicles that can be deployed at times when society is affected by unforeseen events. It is fantastically fun to follow how drivers develop in their training to then handle different situations on their own.
With that said, I want to emphasize the importance of a well-functioning training of our vehicle operators.
Madam Speaker! When the mandatory introductory training is abolished, does it mean that we will get drivers who are less prepared? Nothing suggests that, as there is also a consensus within the industry regarding the serious deficiencies found in the introductory trainings.
There is also nothing preventing driving schools from offering parents a training course to be better prepared to guide their children. For politics, it is important to follow the developments and modernize the legislation so that one contributes to reducing the number of those killed and seriously injured in traffic. The better prepared our youth are for life behind the wheel, the lower the risk that they are injured in traffic.
The number of those who fail the driving tests shows with all clarity that the introductory training has not been good enough. Perhaps I am a bit professionally biased, but I often note when I am out on the roads myself that those who are out driving privately have a bit of difficulty acting when the student they have with them does not do correctly, and incorrect behaviors therefore continue over time. This is a clear sign that the introductory training has not had the effect that it was intended to have.
Traffic legislation is living matter, and there is reason to review the requirements. Here, politics plays an immensely important role in ensuring that traffic legislation and also educational efforts are correct so that those who obtain their driver's license are well-prepared for the task they have when they enter the traffic.
Anders Karlsson (C)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating TU16, regarding the abolished introductory training for practice driving. It is a rather narrow but important part for those who are to obtain a driving license.
I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 regarding the follow-up of the proposed legislative change.
This change should be seen in light of the fact that we are not satisfied with the introductory training of our supervisors that has existed for 20 years. It has flaws and has been criticized for a long time, so a change is necessary. We have listened to different paths forward, and it has resulted in a proposal that we agree on.
When one makes such a change, it is quite obvious to conduct a follow-up. Regardless of whether it results in a no to our reservation, I therefore believe that it should be considered in any case. When one makes such large changes, one must perform follow-up calculations.
It is a rather large responsibility to take on being a supervisor for students. In this case, it perhaps became more of a volume practice than it had been before, and that was one of the lines of thought. But with more of something, it is important to do it correctly, and it is not self-evident that the supervisor takes their own initiative to educate themselves. If one learns the wrong things in different traffic situations, for example how to signal in a roundabout or where on the roadway one should be in different traffic situations, it can become difficult to unlearn when one arrives at the driving school and is going to take the test. In such a situation, it could therefore mean more lessons to correct what one has learned incorrectly during this period. Therefore, I believe that one must conduct a review of how this looks.
That this is important for the new drivers is because young people today are overrepresented in the accident statistics. Younger drivers are involved in 50 percent more accidents during the first year, and the risk is even greater during the first month. This shows the need to do right and get plenty of practice, but also to do it in the right way.
Traffic accidents are also the most common cause of death among older teenagers, which is another reason why one must emphasize the risks of being in traffic at all. The accidents are often due to mistakes, routine errors, and even deliberate misconduct.
We stand behind what concerns the training, but we want to see a better review and have it included in the proposal from the beginning. If we are to have a safe traffic environment for our youth moving forward, Madam Speaker, we see the follow-up of this change as an important step.
Sten Bergheden (M)
Madam Speaker! Today, a government proposition is presented and debated in which we remove the requirement for supervisor training or, as it is called, introductory training for practice driving, which means that the parent, relative or friend who after August 1 is to practice drive with their daughter, son or other person does not need to attend a training of approximately three hours to do this.
Madam Speaker! Since 1 January 2006, there has been a requirement that the person who is to conduct practice driving with someone must take a supervisor course together with the student. The course is at least three hours long and is intended to explain how to become a good supervisor. The course costs between 300 and 600 kronor, which means that perhaps not both parents take the course, but only one of the parents. Right there, the possibilities for who can conduct practice driving with the student are therefore limited.
Learning to drive a car or other vehicle is about judgment, knowledge of traffic rules, being able to handle the vehicle, and driving in a good and clear manner. It is about practicing and developing a driving habit.
Madam Speaker! When I grew up, I could practice driving with both mother and father. It happened without any theoretical instructor training and worked well anyway.
Sweden is one of the countries in the EU with the highest costs for obtaining a driver's license. We are now reviewing what can be changed or should be removed in order to lower the costs and also increase the willingness to obtain a driver's license.
Madam Speaker! The instructor training has been mandatory and compulsory in order to practice driving. Now that is changing, but it is still possible for the driving schools to arrange these courses on a voluntary basis. If any parent feels extra uncertainty about becoming an instructor for their child, they can read the information that will be available and gladly take a private driving school lesson to refresh their knowledge. But to force everyone who wants to practice driving with their children to undergo an instructor training is unreasonable. Therefore, we are now removing this requirement.
Madam Speaker! I also want to point out that young people who today drive privately and then gamble on a driving test often fail. They should rethink and instead take a few lessons at a driving school and better learn how to drive before they book a time for the driving test. The statistics speak for themselves. Only 35 percent of those who drive privately pass the driving test, while a full 63 percent of those who have attended a driving school do so. Invest in a few driving school lessons to better pass the driving test! It would reduce the pressure on the number of driving test slots if everyone were better prepared before they booked a driving test slot.
Madam Speaker! The cost of obtaining a driving license in Sweden is among the highest in the EU. It is clear that this hinders development. Some refrain from getting a driving license, which is obviously not good. I want to facilitate so that more people get a driving license. A driving license is a prerequisite for being able to work and live in all of Sweden.
Madam Speaker! The costs and fees for obtaining a driving license in Sweden need to be reviewed. Sweden is one of the countries in the EU where it is most expensive to get a driving license, and we need to change that. That we are now removing the practical training (handledarutbildningen) is a step toward reducing costs, but more steps need to be taken. In several other countries in the EU, there is a lower VAT on driving license training. Sweden should also review this to lower the costs of obtaining a driving license.
Madam Speaker! The driving license is important. It increases mobility, increases the possibility of getting a job, and gives the freedom to take one's own car to work, school, and leisure activities, and to go on a car holiday. The driving license and the car give us freedom, and of course, we should facilitate so that more people get a driving license in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! This is the beginning of an effort to make it easier for more people to obtain a driver's license. We will work out more proposals, and one of them that is already known is that we extend the validity of a passed theory test from today's four months to one year. This will make it easier for more people to have time to complete their driving test and get their driver's license.
Madam Speaker! We must increase the pressure on Trafikverket to produce more departure times, not least on the heavy side, where more departure times for buses and trucks need to be arranged. More drivers are needed, and then Trafikverket must also adapt its operations so that there are available departure times within a reasonable time and within a reasonable distance.
There are many important issues that we must solve, and we are working on that. I vote in favor of the government bill and the committee's proposal in the report and against the reservations.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the member for the speech! I would like to take the opportunity to ask questions to Sten Bergheden.
I tried to convey in my speech that this bill is based on an investigation from Transportstyrelsen, which was tasked with conducting a review of the driver training system. Transportstyrelsen proposes that the introductory training be abolished, but that is not the only thing they propose. They have a number of proposals to increase the knowledge of those who are to supervise the person practicing driving. This includes, among other things, a mandatory supervisor training.
Does the member agree that the government has made a selective reading or interpretation of the Transportstyrelsen report and then chosen to only abolish the introductory training? How does the member view that, in connection with the entire report?
I also have a very concrete question: How will the government handle the Transportstyrelsen's review of the driver training system? What does one plan to do with this extensive report and the proposals contained in it?
Sten Bergheden (M)
Madam Speaker! It is clearly evident from the investigation that the Transport Agency also does not believe that the supervisor training is functioning, which we in politics have, of course, picked up on. Accordingly, it will be abolished on August 1.
How we proceed with the other proposals and other matters, we will of course look into further. I raised a few more things that I think we need to review. The cost situation in Sweden regarding driving licenses is, for example, high. If there is anything more that can be done from the society side regarding driving licenses, we will of course look at that part.
In the reservations, someone raised the issue of review. It happens automatically that all governments go through all laws and look at whether anything needs to be changed over time. I assume that it is part of the normal work.
What I am a bit more surprised by is that both Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna criticize that we have not done everything that Transportstyrelsen has proposed. Then I just want to remind you Vänsterpartister and socialdemokrater that you sat for eight years without doing anything about the matter. We have taken hold of this, and we have started now. We have extended the validity period of the theory test. We have removed the instructor training, which has been condemned. We will see how we proceed with the rest. It will be another political trade-off which issues we move forward with.
Malin Östh (V)
Madam Speaker! Thanks to Sten Bergheden for the answer!
I would like, in all humility, only to remind everyone of what I mentioned in my speech. We do not automatically say yes to all of Transportstyrelsen's proposals, because the report is so extensive. What we do say, however, is that the proposals that Transportstyrelsen puts forward should be handled collectively. It does not become a serious handling when one reads a report of many, many pages and then selectively picks out one proposal and sets the others aside.
It remains very unclear how the government will handle the other proposals. What I have heard government representatives say is that they will handle them on an ongoing basis but will not propose any legislative changes, which means that it is the responsibility of each individual supervisor to acquire the knowledge needed when practicing driving with someone who is driving for the first time. There will be no requirement for it going forward. I think that is perhaps a bit noteworthy.
I also want to refer back to what Sten Bergheden said about the importance of obtaining more boarding times. But in 2024, there were 290,000 boardings in Sweden. Of these, 161,000 failed. That there is a shortage of boarding times is simply because many are missing.
Transportstyrelsen states in its report that supervisors today do not have sufficient knowledge to supervise those who are practicing driving. This can be linked to the quality of the introductory training. It is also why it is proposed that the introductory training should be replaced by a number of other measures, which the government refrains from taking up. Therein lies our criticism.
Sten Bergheden (M)
Madam Speaker! I note the Left's view on this and what Member Malin Östh says. We have, of course, looked at that part, but we have landed on now removing the leadership training. That is where we begin.
Member of the Board Malin Östh also raises the lack of driving test times. I included that a bit in my speech. The lack may not be due to the driving theory training itself, but rather that very many simply take a chance, book a time, and try to take the test. My recommendation is that students attend driving school for a few hours to learn a bit more. That would probably facilitate things a great deal compared to only practicing privately and then taking a chance, which also puts a lot of strain on the driving test system, as is done today. A message to parents and students is that driving school is valuable.
We will never be able to train private instructors in the same way as driving instructors around the country who more professionally train students in driving a car. My recommendation and my answer is that one should take some lessons at the driving school and not devote oneself to only driving privately and then taking chances and burdening the system.
Helena Gellerman (L)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a removed requirement for introductory training during practice driving. I wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.
This concerns driving license training, but I want to start at the other end. Sweden is a long country with cities, localities, and a great deal of countryside. The car played a decisive role when our country was industrialized. Over the years, public transport and the railway have been expanded more and more. Cars, trucks, and buses still, however, play a very important role for the individual's freedom to go where they want, for people's ability to get to work, and for our companies' competitiveness.
When I was young, it was a given to get a driver's license at the age of 18. One wanted to be free. One wanted to be able to take the car and go wherever one wanted. I practiced driving with my parents, but above all, I took 17 lessons at a driving school. It was primarily when one rode with a trained driving instructor that one learned all the details and everything that one needs to know to drive safely. It is extremely important that those who get a driver's license today truly learn that a car is a heavy object that can cause great damage if one does not learn to handle it in the right way.
When I was young, one took a driver's license at the age of 18, and that is still the case in very many places around the country. A driver's license is in many cases a necessity in order to be able to get a job. At the same time, the increased influx to larger cities and the expanded public transport have caused many to opt out of the car or take a driver's license later in life. The consequence has been that the number of people who take a driver's license has decreased drastically. It has affected individuals' opportunities to get jobs. It has also created a shortage of drivers for professional transport. A standard driver's license is the gateway to a vocational training to be able to drive a truck or bus.
The declining trend has been ongoing for a long time, and already in the early 2000s, solutions were being considered to make driving license training more attractive. In 2006, requirements for introductory training were introduced for private practice driving. The aim was to give instructors and students better knowledge and skills. It was also desired that they should receive better structure and content in the private practice driving.
In recent years, we have seen that the proportion of passed driving tests has dropped dramatically. The students have not been sufficiently prepared when they arrived for the driving test and have therefore failed. Against that background, the government gave Transportstyrelsen the assignment to conduct a review of driver training and propose measures to increase the proportion of students who arrive well-prepared for the driving test and can get their driver's license in their hands.
In the Transportstyrelsen's report, there is a long series of good suggestions for improvements. It is noted that the introductory training has not lived up to the expectations that were held at its introduction in 2006. It is noted that the training has had little or no effect on the structure and content of the practice driving. The training has also been shown to have lacking quality, and it has proven difficult to adapt the training to both drivers and instructors.
The Government therefore proposes that the requirement for introductory training be removed. The purpose is to facilitate for private individuals to practice driving with several instructors and obtain more volume training so that more can pass the driving test and obtain a driver's license. That one may supervise a maximum of five people during the same period continues to apply. At the same time, as the Transport Agency points out in its report, it is important to provide information to prospective drivers and their instructors. The Government continues to work on the issue, but this does not need to be regulated in law and is therefore not included here.
Even if we remove the requirement for supervisor training, it is good to take some lessons so that one is more prepared and knows that they will most likely pass the driving test. I have personally practiced driving with my three children, and all three have said that it has been very good to drive with me. However, it is when they have driven with a trained driving instructor that they have truly learned to drive a car. That is what I have taken away from this. As a supervisor, one can provide volume training, but it is extremely important to at least take some lessons with a trained driving instructor. The instructor can correct errors that may be due to the fact that the supervisor got their driver's license a long time ago.
The Liberals want us in the government to continue working with the proposals in the Transport Agency's report. Now we take the first step by removing an introductory training that has been shown to have no effect.
Torsten Elofsson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Handledarutbildning, or introductory training for private practice driving, became mandatory in 2006. Without knowing, I assume that the introduction was based on the idea that the practice driving itself would become safer and that this, in the long run, would contribute to a reduced number of traffic accidents and thereby increased road safety. The result has not been the expected one, if what I just mentioned was the objective.
The statistics show that young drivers are still the most affected. The number of people who die in traffic has decreased in trend since 1990, but since 2020 the level has been largely unchanged. The number of individuals who are injured in traffic has also decreased, but that decrease has been ongoing since the beginning of the 2000s.
If one turns further through the statistics, one sees that the number of injuries and paid compensation for damages is increasing. This indicates that the mandatory training has had little or no effect and has not resulted in any observed improvement regarding the practice driving, which the Transport Agency also emphasizes.
After conversations with people who have undergone the supervisor training, the general opinion is that the training is perceived as rather meaningless. Possibly the training and its content may differ between different parts of the country, but that does not change the picture that the requirement is of little value for both the driving license applicant and the supervisor. Consequently, it appears to be a less valuable instrument for increased road safety.
As has been mentioned here in the speaker's chair, more and more people are failing the driving tests. Over half of the drivers fail the driving test. Statistics show that six out of ten fail, often due to lack of training and preparation. It is emphasized that this particularly applies to those who practice driving privately. The most common errors include poor planning, lack of interaction in traffic, and incorrect speed adjustment.
Madam Speaker! The mandatory requirement for supervisor training has resulted in increased costs while not having increased the competence of the person who is to pass the driving test. The requirement has also created thresholds with reduced opportunities for training for those who want to practice driving privately.
Now the requirement is being scrapped, and we are opening up for increased opportunities for more people to supervise those who want to practice driving. It is well known that practice provides skill, so that is what we want to encourage.
The increased number of failed driving tests indicates deficiencies in knowledge regarding the requirements for a passing driving test. Obviously, there is a need for increased professional guidance, which some speakers before me have touched upon. In some countries, private practice driving is no longer permitted, for example in Denmark and Germany. As has also been mentioned, driver training involves costs, and a future obstacle to private practice driving is not a matter for today's debate but rather a personal reflection. Perhaps it is something that should be considered in a future review of practice driving for a B-license.
Madam Speaker! With this said, the government's bill is a welcome change, and I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.