Response to interpellation 2022/23:295 on housing and trunk lines
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD argues that the government prioritizes the upgrading of existing railways, road standards, and charging infrastructure over new main lines for high-speed trains 1 2. 3 KD considers that the previous agreements are no longer relevant as the government's direction has changed 3. 2 3 KD emphasizes that new investments must not crowd out important maintenance measures 2 3. 4 KD argues that the government avoids large crowding-out effects by not putting all its eggs in one basket 4. 4 KD argues that co-financing is an opportunity to get tracks in place faster through dialogue with actors 4. 5 6 C argues that entered agreements should be upheld 5 6. 5 6 C argues that the need for main lines exists to meet population growth and the need for increased freight traffic 5 6. 7 C considers that more things can be done simultaneously to create synergy effects 7. 7 C considers that there are different ways to finance projects 7. 7 C argues that the financing should have been discussed rather than calling the project a luxury project 7.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Alireza Akhondi has asked me what responsibility I consider the state to have in relation to the affected municipalities when the planning of new main lines has been halted, and whether I intend to take any initiatives to compensate the affected municipalities from a state level for costs that can be linked to the planning of housing due to the new main lines.
The government investigation Sverigeförhandlingen had several assignments related to the plans for new main lines. It was to, among other things, enter into agreements with affected municipalities and other actors regarding the financing and design of tracks and stations where the main lines connect to respective cities. The agreements were to be entered into subject to subsequent legal reviews as well as the government's and, where applicable, the Riksdag's approval.
The Sweden Negotiation submitted its final report in December 2017. The report included agreements that the Sweden Negotiation had signed with municipalities and regions along the railway. The agreements included commitments from municipalities to co-finance the high-speed railway amounting to a total of 1.24 billion kronor and to collectively build 92,270 new homes. Furthermore, the agreements contained provisions on speed standards on the railway, station locations, and a follow-up organization. The investigation proposed in its final report that the government should approve the agreements.
The current government was already clear when it took office that it prioritizes the upgrading of existing railways, better road standards, and expanded charging infrastructure over investments in new trunk lines for high-speed trains. Trafikverket has also received four assignments concerning the continued management of the new trunk lines.
Finally, I can state that the previous government has had these agreements for almost five years - more than one parliamentary term - without approving them. Now that the current government has made a decision on the continued management of the high-speed railway, it becomes natural to handle the agreements. A preparation of this is ongoing in the Government Offices.
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Mr. Speaker and Minister! On this point, the member is somewhat more angry in that regard that there is a principled issue linked to this. It is about that entered agreements shall be kept, in particular when we have a state as the counterparty.
As the Minister is well aware, these types of processes are extremely long, and they affect very many people. Some of us have followed the Sweden negotiations and the negotiations that took place before them. I myself was part of the Cederschiöld negotiations once upon a time and saw how complicated it was to try to synchronize all the decisions and the actors who need to be involved in order to get it done. Therefore, I am a bit extra saddened that one chooses to handle this issue, which is important for the affected municipalities, in this way, with the left hand. I actually do not think that a state should be able to act in this way.
I did not sit in any government during the previous term and had no influence over this process whatsoever, but the Minister for Finance, Andreas Carlson, has both the authority and a responsibility to be able to provide answers.
It can also be seen from a slightly larger, holistic perspective. We see that it is crowded on the railway. We see that there is neglected maintenance. The idea with merging Trafikverket and Banverket was that one could achieve synergy effects. The idea was not that we would get a road authority called Trafikverket and that one would in that way prioritize away urgent infrastructure investments.
Given the situation we find ourselves in regarding housing construction - with the collapse that is occurring and with the population increase, but also regarding increasing the stimulus and expanding the labor market regions, so that people can actually take jobs where the jobs are - it is deeply unfortunate that this issue is being postponed.
We had a golden opportunity when interest rates were negative to borrow money at a cost and make powerful investments for the future.
If one then chooses to object and call them high-speed tracks and luxury projects, or if one calls them what they actually are, namely new main lines in a country with a growing population, is another discussion. But the need for these main lines exists.
The Minister mentioned at the end of the answer that there are some agreements to be processed, and that makes me a bit curious. Can we get some more information about the starting values in the handling of these agreements?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The Government has since its inauguration been clear that the gears for the railway infrastructure are being shifted. But I have respect for the fact that one can have different views on the issue at hand.
In the interpellation, the agreements are addressed, and just as I said initially, the agreements would be entered into subject to subsequent legal reviews as well as the government's and, where applicable, the Riksdag's approval.
It is interesting that the previous government had the agreements that Sverigeförhandlingen had signed with municipalities and regions along the planned routes on the table for almost five years, i.e., during more than one parliamentary term, without approving them. The previous government had a cooperation with Centerpartiet, so Alireza Akhondi can perhaps ask internally why Centerpartiet did not push for such a matter of importance to the party when they had the chance within the framework of the previous government's mandate.
That the new government, given the new direction and the decisions we have made, has a different starting point and focus cannot come as a surprise.
This is, as said, an issue that we have to handle. A preparation of this is ongoing in the Government Offices, and I cannot say more about the content today.
I am almost a little tempted to turn to the Speaker of the House in this context in my capacity as my predecessor in the position of Minister for Infrastructure, but of course, I shall not do that today. But there are questions to ask the then government regarding the handling of this.
For the current government, which has been in place for six months, the Swedish railway network is of the utmost importance for all of Sweden to function. Maintenance has been neglected for many years, and therefore a new direction is needed for the investments to be carried out so that new investments do not displace large and important maintenance measures.
That is why we prioritize the upgrading of existing railways and investments in capacity increases when it comes to removing bottlenecks and ensuring that we get, precisely, higher capacity, which Alireza Akhondi is touching upon. The investments being made in railways shall primarily facilitate for work commuting and freight traffic because it promotes jobs and growth throughout the country.
I also want to remind that the National Audit Office criticized the previous government for choosing to push forward with the high-speed rail project despite very high costs and lack of control.
Now we have a different direction, and we have tasked Trafikverket to develop plans for the implementation of the sections that were already in the national plan. We have also tasked Trafikverket to see what opportunities exist to accelerate infrastructure investments in the railway network in the northern parts of the country – this is to enable and accommodate the very extensive new industrialization we see and so that the transport system as such does not become a bottleneck in the green transition.
We have, therefore, high ambitions, work hard and have given Trafikverket the assignment. I also, however, look forward to returning within the framework of the regular revision of the national plan.
(THE SPEAKER: As tempting as it is, I shall stick to being the Speaker in this context and enter the debate at another occasion.)
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Mr. Speaker! It would actually have been interesting if there had been an opportunity for the Speaker to step in, as the Minister is raising an issue that I have no insight into.
What I do have insight into as a member of the Swedish Riksdag is the principle that entered agreements shall be honored regardless of the majority situation in the chamber. These are such long processes that it is not possible to change hats just because the mood changes.
As a person, I am a numbers nerd, and the Minister implies that the cake is static, which is an incorrect assessment. The cake can grow depending on the priorities one chooses to make. Let us not get stuck on terms like high-speed trains, luxury projects and so on, but let us focus on the core issue, that is, the capacity of the railway tracks. There is a need for increased freight traffic, and we would like to reduce the transport sector's climate impact. More transport on rail provides benefits, and that must also be able to be factored into the calculation.
I am well acquainted with the issue of commuting to work because I was the spokesperson for labor market policy during the previous parliamentary term. If the Norrbotten region, with approximately 250,000 inhabitants, is to achieve its full potential, a doubling of the population is needed. In some way, these people must be able to travel to different places, and this must not be reduced to oddities such as relocation grants and the like. This is about structural issues that also affect the Minister's other portfolio, that is, the housing market and the need to build housing in the north.
The approval of the agreements is one thing, but when it comes to the economic management within the framework of the infrastructure bill and the national plan, one can choose to inject money without driving up the inflation rate given the inflation pressure we have. Public expenditure does not necessarily drive up inflation if one chooses to make the correct adjustments in other policy areas.
Focusing on the future is the way forward, Andreas Carlson. I truly hope that the Minister sees both the principle-based importance of keeping agreements and the substantive importance: that we need a stronger Sweden that holds together and that the railway is an important means for that.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with the principled question. The agreements that Alireza Akhondi refers to would be entered into on the condition that subsequent legal reviews as well as the government's and, where applicable, the parliament's approval were in place. Given the government's new direction regarding trunk lines for high-speed trains, this prerequisite no longer exists. We do, however, obviously have a responsibility to handle this type of agreement, and this preparation is, as mentioned, ongoing in the Government Offices.
So to the issue at hand. I fully agree with Alireza Akhondi that there needs to be a transport system that is robust, safe, and accessible throughout the country. Against the background of just this, the government abandoned the plans for main lines for high-speed trains because they risk consuming an all-too-large part of the cake. Regardless of whether it is static or can grow, it would have been a significant crowding-out effect for other important measures. There was also criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office when it comes to the very large costs and lack of control.
An example where we in the government have now put in a new gear is that, when it comes to the north, we have given a mandate to Trafikverket to see what can be done to accelerate investments in the so necessary improvement measures needed for both commuting and freight traffic to enable the green transition and new industrialization. It is a short mandate to Trafikverket, only six months, and I look forward to taking part in it.
The second example is the assignment we have given to Trafikverket regarding the southern parts of the country. Given that the Fehmarn Bält link between Denmark and Germany will open in just a few years, the pressure on the Swedish transport system is expected to increase even further. This is six years ahead, 2029. It is simply not possible to wait for very long-term plans that are ready in a very long time, but we need to see what we can do within the framework of existing infrastructure. There were, for example, proposals in Trafikverket's referral to the national plan regarding capacity-increasing measures on the Swedish side of the Öresund Bridge. These are relatively small measures in the context, but they would have a very large effect in increasing the capacity on the bridge and moving from 8 trains per hour to 14 trains per hour. This was not included in the national plan but is something that, of course, Trafikverket can look at within the framework of the assignment that the government has now given. There, one can also see how capacity can be increased on Lund-Hässleholm and other parts in Skåne that can be completed significantly faster than new main lines for high-speed trains would have. They can also be more cost-effective and have a different socio-economic calculation that ensures we get more for the money and enable jobs and growth throughout the country.
It is two examples of how the government is working to accelerate and ensure that we increase capacity and at the same time create room to also have money for the important maintenance measures to be preventive and predictive and not be forced to go out on emergency missions when the contact lines have collapsed without being on site earlier and preventing it in the maintenance. There are many needs, and in that case, it is a matter of being able to prioritize and doing so at a high tempo so that we can strengthen the railway infrastructure in our country.
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that Andreas Carlson is not only sitting in his chair in Rosenbad but is also engaged in these issues. I truly feel the love for our beloved country and the will to make it even better. But something is missing from the government's statement: There is no contradiction in being able to do more things at the same time and in that way also achieve synergy effects.
When it comes to taking trimming measures, I remember when Scania called out on E4 towards Botkyrka. Then Vägverket came with the proposal that if we trim, we get the effect without having to make necessary investments. That the Minister took the Öresund Bridge as an example is fantastic. As a friend of order and tidiness, and that one is cautious with people's and companies' hard-earned tax payments, I want to say that there are different ways to finance different projects. The Öresund Bridge is a classic example of that one can actually finance this in a sensible way without it, for that matter, becoming a deficit in the end but rather positive. If one had views on the design of the financing issue, that is, the macroeconomic issue, one could have pulled on the brakes a little and discussed the financing rather than saying that this is a luxury project that does not fulfill a function. It also affects the municipalities that have entered into agreements with the state.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Alireza Akhondi, for the interpellation that has been raised and for this debate!
Several things at once, Akhondi mentions. That is actually what the government does: not to put all eggs in one basket and to avoid the very large displacement effects that new main lines for high-speed trains would have entailed.
"Trimming measures" is one of the finest words I know. Even "maintenance" is a very fine and important word in this context, and it is also what we need to have the means for in order to have as much effect as possible from our tax funds when it comes to infrastructure measures.
Alireza Akhondi also mentions another type of financing. Co-financing is one such type. It is included in Trafikverket's mandate when it comes to the review of what can be done in the north to accelerate infrastructure planning there. To get tracks in place faster, one should also look for opportunities for co-financing and do so in dialogue with more different actors, including the business community, and of course also regions and municipalities.
I look forward to having a high tempo in these matters, despite the tight timeframes. We do not have unlimited space given the economic situation and the cost increases that follow in its wake. Therefore, it is so important to be able to prioritize and also to do so, even if we may have slightly different views on how it should be done. But I appreciate the dialogue we have had today and look forward to continued good dialogue ahead – perhaps also including the Speaker of the House, so that we can have a three-party conversation without violating various debate rules here in the chamber.
(THE SPEAKER: Thank you very much! That sounds tempting.)
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.