Response to interpellation 2022/23:187 on national measures due to increased public transport fees
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns national measures regarding increased public transport fees. S argues that the government prioritizes tax cuts for the wealthiest over state subsidies for public transport 1, which affects women in care professions, students, and pensioners 1 2. S argues that the previous Social Democratic government increased general state subsidies to keep fee increases down 3. SD argues that the Social Democrats dismantled welfare and made everything more expensive 4, but that the current government is working to lower inflation 4. KD argues that the responsibility lies with municipalities and regions 5, that the state finances infrastructure 6, and that the government has added 12 billion in state subsidies 7 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.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me whether I intend to take any national measures in light of the increased fees in public transport and, if not, at what price level I could consider taking action on the issue.
The high inflation rate entails a cost pressure that affects the entire society, where even prices for transport and public transport are increasing. I have great understanding that this affects people who in their everyday lives are dependent on a well-functioning public transport system.
As I explained in the response to a previous parliamentary question from Adrian Magnusson, the responsibility for local and regional public transport is divided between municipalities and regions. The ticket prices in this type of transport are decided by the regions, and the transport is therefore financed through ticket revenues and municipal tax funds.
The state's general grants to the municipal sector are significant and were increased ahead of 2023 by 6 billion kronor. The general state grants to the municipal sector are an important part of the financing of municipal activities.
The Government is closely following the economic developments within the municipal sector, but at present, it is not relevant to direct special grants to public transport.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister Carlson, for the answer!
It is said here in the speaker's chair that the responsibility for public transport lies with municipalities and regions and that it is financed by ticket revenues and tax revenues from there. That is not incorrect in essence, but as the Minister himself says in his answer, it would be fully possible to direct state grants to public transport. It is a bit too simple to just point to the regions and municipalities in this matter.
The Minister and the government are, in any case, clear that any support is not an option, and it seems unlikely that it can become so in the future. It is a form of political prioritization that the Minister accounts for here, and it is obviously fully permissible to prioritize other things before support for public transport.
What is it then that the government prioritizes instead? Well, it is tax cuts for the very richest in society. In the government's state budget, 13 billion kronor went to tax cuts for those who have high earned incomes - 13 billion kronor! Only a small part of these funds could do great good in support of public transport.
Madam Speaker! What could the government do with the 13 billion? We Social Democrats included in our budget proposal more money for the municipalities and regions, just as the Minister says in his answer that one could do, but that one does not do.
We also allocated 500 million kronor for fee-free travel for young people and students during the summer. It is another thing that the government could have done to reduce the pressure on hard-pressed groups in society. But the government chose to lower the tax for those who earn the most.
Madam Speaker! It is here somewhere that the lines of conflict in Swedish politics become clear. The line of conflict runs between the Swedish political right, which lowers taxes for the wealthiest, and the Swedish political left, through the Social Democrats, which prioritizes that those who need support should also receive it. It is a difficult time for many, and household finances are being pressed hard by cost increases from all sides and corners.
Madam Speaker! I want to remind the House of how it was at this time a little over two years ago. Then we were urged to stay away from public transport, among other reasons to not risk infecting the heroes of the welfare state – the nursing assistants, the healthcare assistants, the nurses and all others – those who traveled by bus and train to the hospitals, the health centers and the elderly care homes.
We knew then, and we know now, that women use public transport to a greater extent than men. And we knew then, and we know now, that it is primarily women who work in care professions. It is therefore these groups that are hit hard by the government's reverse distribution policy.
Madam Speaker! Students are another group that hardly get to share in the government's handouts to the wealthiest in society. Already, alarm reports are coming in that students in, for example, Lund, Uppsala and Stockholm are going into debt by thousands of kronor every month. Students are also a group that diligently use public transport. For this group, an even more strained time now awaits when the government turns its back on them.
Sweden is in a strained time. But nothing is predetermined. Nothing is the result of some kind of invisible force that determines how resources shall be distributed. The distribution of society's resources is the result of political decisions, of conscious priorities and of choices. The government chooses to see that the country's public transport passengers get cold showers when they buy monthly tickets. But those who could afford it already can afford another weekend in London. It is the government's priority, and I deeply deplore it.
I ask again: Is there any situation where the government could consider taking measures?
Jimmy Ståhl (SD)
Madam Speaker! It is high electricity prices and high fuel prices. The Social Democrats stand and complain that it is expensive to use public transport.
But what did the Social Democrats do in government? They dismantled nuclear power. What does that mean? Well, it means that everything that runs on electricity becomes very expensive. The cost for the trams in Gothenburg has skyrocketed. The cost to run the subway in Stockholm has skyrocketed. The cost to run the commuter train traffic has also skyrocketed.
What else have they done? Yes, they have imposed a reduction obligation on the second fuel. The reduction obligation has caused the cost of ordinary fuel as well to skyrocket. In Sweden today, it is a 7.8 percent blend in gasoline and a full 30 ½ percent blend in diesel.
Had the Social Democrats been allowed to continue governing, the goal would have been a blend of closer to 60 percent in diesel. In addition to that, they would have index-increased the cost of fuel, which means that the price per liter could have landed at 40-50 kronor. This means that public transport has no reasonable opportunities to achieve cheap operation.
Reducing these things is therefore very important. It is not enough that it is expensive to travel by public transport, it also fuels inflation, which also makes it very tough for the regions.
All forms of production become more expensive, and transport becomes more expensive. This means that all equipment going to the municipalities, food and so on, becomes more expensive.
With the help of the Social Democrats' policy, it means that the municipalities will be brought to their knees and that the regions will be brought to their knees.
During the pandemic, it was a different situation. At that time, the regions received support. The regions also have the opportunity to manage their money and distribute it between healthcare and public transport. Many of the regions have a fairly good grasp of their infrastructure and their public transport. But of course, it varies. We have 21 regions in Sweden, and all regions do things a bit differently.
We must not forget that approximately 60 percent of ticket prices today are tax-subsidized. And somewhere, one must be able to allow the ticket price to develop and include more public transport.
We must also look at how we can better utilize public transport. How can we make it so that the tickets go further?
If we look at, for example, Rolfs Flyg & Buss, they have a cost ratio of 70 percent. And if more people travel, it becomes very profitable. The problem with the current setup of public transport is that the more people who travel, the more expensive it becomes for the regions. And we must move away from that.
Given this, I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister for Infrastructure and Housing: Has the government looked at any possibilities to develop public transport in such a direction?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for a great commitment to the issue. Let me underline what I said in my answer, namely that public transport plays a very important role in society. In addition to creating accessibility and expanding the labor market regions, it contributes to reducing congestion in large cities. The emissions from public transport are very low. An increased share of public transport would contribute to reducing emissions from transport within the country.
I will start by answering Jimmy Ståhl's question. We are looking at several different possibilities, but above all, the possibilities exist regionally and locally. That is where one sees what opportunities, and also challenges, exist in the region. We are now following the development very closely. But there is a point in, just as I said in the answer, that it is a responsibility that lies at the local and regional level and which is distributed among 21 regions, given that the conditions for operating public transport vary so much within the country. With a regional responsibility, it is also possible to adapt public transport to local conditions.
The price of tickets in local and regional public transport is set by political decisions at the regional level. And the main state responsibility consists of financing investments in infrastructure. There we also see a sharp cost development as a result of unrest in the world, circumstances after the pandemic, and the new security policy situation which, together with a shortage of skills and a shortage of labor, has caused increased costs even in this part. In this context, it is important regarding the state responsibility that there are funds both to invest in and to maintain the infrastructure network in order to facilitate both commuting and freight traffic. That is the government's direction in the area.
The State takes a large general responsibility for the municipal sector through the general government grants that can be used to finance all municipal activities. The Government follows the economic developments within the municipal sector very closely and has noted that the inflation rate and the price increases resulting from it pose a challenge for municipalities and regions.
The general state grants to the municipal sector increased in the government's budget by 6 billion kronor for 2023. The targeted state grants for investments in healthcare, school, and care also correspond to 6 billion kronor. This means that we target state grants both generally and directly to the healthcare and school sectors at 12 billion kronor, which constitutes a significant part of the entire reform space of 40 billion kronor. This enables municipalities and regions, based on their own circumstances, to make the decisions they consider necessary in consideration of what we are discussing here today, namely public transport.
I met the public transport industry - Svensk Kollektivtrafik, Tågföretagen and Sveriges Bussföretag - this week. They have launched an ambitious statement of intent to restart public transport after the pandemic. It contains several concrete measures that the industry itself can take to increase attractiveness and increase the share of public transport within the country, as well as proposals for measures at the political level, for municipalities, regions and the state.
There are challenges here, and I look forward to a continued good dialogue with Svensk Kollektivtrafik and in this ongoing interpellation debate in the Swedish Riksdag.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I did not think that the government and the Sweden Democrats here today would confirm their reverse Robin Hood policy. It would have surprised me to such a mild degree that I might actually have refrained from this speech. I do, however, want to continue talking about this with political priorities.
I want to point out again to the Chamber that there are other paths to take, other possibilities to look at, and other priorities to make. It would actually have been fully possible for the government and the Sweden Democrats to say "Students, wage earners and pensioners - we hear and see you, and we will at least ensure that your journeys to work, studies, and the grocery store do not become more expensive!". But the government and the Sweden Democrats choose another path.
Madam Speaker! It does not get any better because it is the four government parties that are responsible for the highest fee increases in the country's regions. In Skåne and Östergötland, where the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Sverigedemokraterna rule, fees are increased by a full 10 percent - 10 percent! Every time I travel by train here in Skåne, I hear some traveler complaining about the high fees. It happens every time. But the government and the Sverigedemokraterna shrug their shoulders when the right-wing regional councillors eagerly turn up the tax crane and let the fee increases eat into people's wallets.
Madam Speaker! Even here it can be shown that there are other possibilities. The boards of Region Stockholm and Västra Götalandsregionen have, in light of the fact that people's finances are being pressured in these times of cost crisis, chosen to freeze the fees in public transport. These regions have boards that clearly lean in another direction, led by the Social Democrats. It is thus yet another example of how pure right-wing boards prioritize in comparison with regions where the political governance clearly leans in another direction.
Madam Speaker! The Minister's and the Government's response to the interpellation is, as stated, just another example of the political conflict line in Sweden. The political right's great focus lies on those who are most well-off – those who are not dependent on public transport. Their incomes shall be inflation-protected with all available means at their disposal.
The student in Lund, who studies at Campus Helsingborg and already feels anxiety about having to borrow money from their parents, is however not seeing their income inflation-proofed. The nursing assistant who must take the bus to the hospital in Linköping because she and her partner can only afford a car has not seen their income inflation-proofed. The once-in-a-while part-time working retiree in Båstad who sometimes travels to the grandchildren in Kristianstad has also not seen their income inflation-proofed.
Madam Speaker! I want to make it clear to everyone that this is a political priority that the Moderates, Christian Democrats, Liberals, and Sweden Democrats stand behind. This is their decision. When the student sees their last hundred kronor eaten up by the fee increase in public transport, it is due to a political decision. When the nursing assistant has to sit down and calculate which days of the week there will be sandwiches for dinner, it is the result of a political decision. And when the retiree has to cancel that trip to the grandchildren, it is the result of a political decision.
Jimmy Ståhl (SD)
Madam Speaker! There is talk of Robin Hood politics. But somewhere, one must also take responsibility for the policy that was pursued for eight years.
In eight years, the Social Democrats dismantled Swedish welfare. In eight years, they worked for and succeeded in making everything much more expensive. The new government, with the Sweden Democrats as a coalition partner, is now working to completely overhaul it. We are going to make the ship float and get wind in the sails.
It is very important to understand why voters are forced to eat a sandwich instead of fillet steak. Yes, it is because nuclear power has been dismantled and the reduction obligation has been increased. Everything we buy is skyrocketing. It is not cheap to be Swedish today – food prices are skyrocketing by 20-40 percent, people are forced to leave their cars at home and it becomes a tug-of-war for people to get to work. Some even speak up because it is too expensive to drive to work. That is not how it should be. The Social Democrats' policy is sending Swedes to the Enforcement Authority. It is not acceptable, Madam Speaker.
What the government has done is, as said, to stop the indexation increase and the reduction obligation. Hopefully, the reduction obligation will be lowered very soon, and if we get the Sweden Democrats we want, it will be removed soon. That would mean that one could lower the inflation rate and that it would suddenly be possible to travel again. It is important policy and an important vision for the future.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the floor.
Let me first emphasize that we see commuting specifically as something that it is important to facilitate when we approach questions regarding infrastructure investments. That is why we have canceled many very expensive and costly projects with trunk lines for high-speed trains. They would have eaten up the space for other important investments in both commuting and freight transport, which can also be implemented much faster.
In this debate, it is also important to clarify for those listening that the increase in the price base amount and the increase in the breakpoint for state tax occur automatically. This means that student support, guaranteed pension, and sickness benefit are also increased. Adrian Magnusson does not speak about that as much. One can turn the question around: Which nurses and police officers are it that will receive a significant tax increase with the Social Democrats' policy? They would find it even harder to pay for their travel on public transport. There, Adrian Magnusson owes the answer.
Again: This is a debate about public transport. We have given a good and clear answer to the question, namely that we have added 12 billion to municipalities and regions in general and targeted state grants. It is the municipalities and regions that have the decision mandate, power, and ability to handle this in a wise and good way based on the regional conditions that exist in that specific region.
We are following this very closely. We are in contact with Svensk Kollektivtrafik, Tågföretagen, and Sveriges Bussföretag to look at the developments, and it still looks quite positive. Travel is returning after the pandemic, and we see how important a good and developed public transport is for people to be able to get to and from work or to go and visit loved ones. It is an important issue for the government. However, the responsibility for operating and organizing local and regional public transport is distributed among the 21 regions.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I just want to start by saying that the previous Social Democratic government increased the general state grants to the municipalities by 22.5 billion over eight years.
I have on two different occasions received the answer from the government that no national measures are to be expected due to the increased fees within public transport. Good so! Today I have also received notice that it most likely will not happen in the future either. Good so! I cannot claim that I am satisfied, but I have at least received an answer.
Madam Speaker! I also think that the dividing lines between the right-wing government and the Social Democrats have become clear. We Social Democrats would not have lowered the tax for those who already earn the most. We would have injected more money into the country's municipalities and regions – money that could have been used to keep down the fee increases that are now crashing forward. We would have ensured that public transport could have become free for young people and students during the summer. This is the political priority that we Social Democrats would have made. This is where the dividing line between the Swedish right and the Swedish left lies.
Madam Speaker! There is hope that the government, despite everything, will somewhere change its stance and realize that it is unreasonable that the well-off, who have the means and not least the opportunity to opt out of public transport, should be exempted from bearing the burden and that this burden should instead be placed on those who are dependent on public transport, for example students, female welfare workers and pensioners.
Madam Speaker! Then I have not even mentioned all those who actively choose a collective travel solution for the sake of the climate and who opt out of the car. They are also losers of the government's policy, which in itself is in line with the climate policy that this right-wing government otherwise pursues.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Adrian Magnusson, for the interpellation!
I was struck by something that Adrian Magnusson said in the opening of his closing statement. He said that the previous government spent 22.5 billion on state subsidies to the municipal sector over eight years. In this interpellation debate, I have told about the investments that this government has made in its first budget. They amount to 12 billion - 6 plus 6 billion - in just four months. We shall see if it is eight years - or if it is twelve years, for this government has the ambition to sit significantly longer than these four months. This government has, in any case, come more than halfway compared to what the previous government managed to achieve in eight years. There are certainly things to return to.
These are funds that the municipalities and regions can use for what they consider best in the regional situation they find themselves in. Public transport is such an area, and that is how it should be.
We are following this very closely from the government's side.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.