Response to interpellation 2023/24:157 on the consequences of the market within the railway system

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Gunilla Svantorp has asked me what measures I intend to take to facilitate rail commuting and whether I intend to take any measures regarding the market for railway maintenance.

For the government, it is a priority to continue improving the existing transport infrastructure, repairing where necessary and managing the common resources in the best way. The government therefore discontinued the work on the costly project of high-speed railways.

Trafikverket has been tasked with investigating conceivable solutions that can achieve capacity improvements in the Göteborg-Borås corridor and in Skåne in a cost-effective manner. The Government gave two new assignments to Trafikverket in October this year: partly to restart the paused planning work for measures in the Göteborg-Borås corridor with a new focus, and partly to plan for a number of measures in the railway system in Skåne.

For Göteborg-Borås, the new direction is that the railway shall be expanded in the corridor to improve the work commute but in a more cost-effective way compared to previous planning on the section, as the project was intended as part of new main lines.

For Skåne, the government assesses that there will be both more regional benefit, in the form of improved conditions for commuting to work, as well as better value for money, as two new tracks between Hässleholm and Lund can now be complemented with additional capacity-increasing measures.

Regarding maintenance, the needs within the Swedish transport infrastructure are great and maintenance has been neglected. For many years, sufficient railway maintenance has not been carried out, which has contributed to the accumulated need that is now at hand.

The Government considers that the planning and implementation of maintenance measures shall be based on socio-economic efficiency and a long-term sustainable transport supply. When maintenance is carried out, it needs to be done in such a way that traffic is disrupted as little as possible and with short lead times. The Government assesses that an important factor for efficient maintenance is that market actors work with development and innovation and invest in the operations. In this way, the working methods can be improved and the maintenance can be made more efficient.

In August, the government tasked Trafikverket with reporting on measures to strengthen the execution of railway maintenance and the robustness, reliability, and punctuality of railway traffic. Trafikverket shall, among other things, report on the measures it takes to strengthen its procurement competence and ability to plan and execute railway maintenance. The assignment also includes reporting on what measures Trafikverket, in cooperation with the industry, takes to improve the way the market for railway maintenance functions and to promote the conditions for development and innovation.

The capacity allocated for maintenance measures must be utilized in the best possible way, and Trafikverket shall therefore report on how it will work to ensure that maintenance can be carried out more efficiently than until now. The Government has thus already taken initiative and implemented measures to strengthen railway maintenance. The assignment will be reported in February 2024, and after that, a couple of follow-up reports will also be made during June and October 2024.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

I was quite angry when I wrote this interpellation, which is based on an article in Göteborgs-Posten. The railway between Gothenburg and Stockholm is to be closed for quite a long time, and the article was about the fact that one cannot use the wire-replacement train that would make it faster to repair. This is because there is only one operator and that it would distort the market if it were used. That made me quite upset, and therefore I wrote the interpellation.

What is actually important? Is it important that it is fair towards a market system, or is it more important that it is fair towards us as citizens of society – above all those who are going to commute between Gothenburg and Stockholm, which is what it is about? It is also about all the freight transports that are to flow there.

I wrote this interpellation because I thought we need to have a discussion in the Riksdag about what is actually important: market or social benefit. When we discuss what constitutes critical infrastructure, we also need to look at critical infrastructure, which we have discussed earlier today, and what the marketization that we have within infrastructure actually does. Should we really have a market for something that is critical infrastructure – is it so damn smart?

One can enjoy reading different reports, for example, reports from the National Audit Office from many years back where cost increases within the infrastructure area are discussed. One can wonder what it actually is that drives costs within the infrastructure area and ask questions about it. One assumption could then be that the procurement system drives costs. We also know that costs increase with this as there are appeals and so on. It thus drives costs, I believe, in the system that we have.

If we take the railway as an example, which was the origin of this interpellation, we know that Sweden has one of the world's most deregulated railway systems. The other day we were informed by Trafikverket that there are now 52 actors within the railway system who are to compete for all too little capacity.

One can, as the Minister did in the response, say that you have scrapped the project that we thought was very important and which was about connecting the whole of Sweden through new main lines. But is it really reasonable that we have so many actors inside a system that is already too small and that they are also to struggle with procurement rules, which can be the reason why we have the large cost increases that we have?

One can wonder if we should continue to have this system. What is it that is actually important? That is the question I wanted to ask the minister and which I have not received an answer to. Is it the market that is most important, or is it the public benefit?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank my parliamentary colleague Gunilla Svantorp for this important interpellation. I would also like to thank the Minister for the answer.

Mr. Speaker! I want to stick to the railway maintenance. During the year that we are soon leaving behind, we have read about broken rails and derailed trains almost daily - first on the Arlandabanan, which stopped several regional trains for weeks, and now the ore train that derailed, which will cost the state-owned ore company LKAB nearly 1 billion kronor. Furthermore, there have been several delays and cancelled trains.

In a previous interpellation debate, the Minister mentioned robustness and the importance of having a robust railway. The railway is, after all, the lifeblood of society. I would very much like the Minister to elaborate on the reasoning regarding critical infrastructure. We Social Democrats consider the railway and railway maintenance to belong to that category.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden today has one of Europe's most privatized and fragmented railway maintenance systems. There is no other country that has as many actors within the railway as Sweden does; it has no equal in the rest of the world. The almost religious belief that market forces would bring order and tidiness to the railway has proven to be false.

We Social Democrats believe that one should have a more pragmatic and responsible view. In order to create efficiency in society, different activities should be organized in different ways. The market can be good at certain things, but not at everything. The market school is, for example, a good proof of a total failure when one places all its trust in that the market should rule.

The recent failures within the railway have shown that the railway is not a common market. It is a critical infrastructure for society that should receive more respect and higher prioritization. It must function well for Sweden to function well. It has a central role to play in everything from environmental and climate work to national security of supply and regional development.

Delays, cancelled trains and accidents on the railway cost Swedish society billions. The business sector suffers losses in the billions, and it is a loss for everyone who does not arrive at their job on time due to train delays and for the employers.

With the results in hand, we see that the deregulation and privatization in railway maintenance have not led to anything constructive.

We also know that the Tidö parties have had a now revised budget where it has been asserted that the infrastructure is included. Thomas Morell, the Sverigedemokraternas transport policy spokesperson, has told Sekotidningen that there is a secret agreement to take back parts of the railway maintenance. I would very much like to hear if there is anything such, if the minister can disclose anything such in the chamber tonight.

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Social utility is, of course, important. That is what is guiding.

Robustness, reliability, and punctuality have been pointed out very clearly by the government in the assignment that Trafikverket has received regarding measures to strengthen the execution of railway maintenance and the functionality of railway traffic. This means that the maintenance shall be carried out more efficiently, that the client competence shall be strengthened, and that the capacity to maintain shall be reinforced.

The government also points out in the assignment the importance of market actors working with development and innovation and that they invest in the operations. There are good examples of several Swedish companies that testify that one could maintain even more efficiently if the procurements simply enabled it.

We have a very old railway infrastructure in Sweden that will need to be maintained for a long time to come. It is, of course, important that the maintenance is planned in a way that allows one to achieve the maximum possible innovation and to use the technology that exists to maintain in as efficient a way as possible, with as little impact as possible for both passenger transport and freight traffic.

Regarding the interpellator's question about the deregulated railway system, I would like to take the opportunity to make a historical reflection and remind the members that it was actually your own party, the Socialdemokraterna, that opened up the railway market to external actors as early as 1998. At that time, Banverket separated its management and production into a procurer and provider organization to streamline operations. In one of Trafikverket's investigation's partial reports, the cost effects of the competition for operation and maintenance were assessed. The conclusion was that the cost was at least 25 percent lower than before the competition was introduced, while the quality remained the same and safety continued to be high.

Mr. Speaker! I heard Gunilla Svantorp say that she believes the situation is driving up costs. But VTI has studied the effects of competition on costs with data at the track level from 1999 to 2011. The study takes into account developments regarding traffic volumes, weather, characteristics of the track, as well as, for example, average age and quality class. VTI's conclusion is that the competition has lowered the cost level by approximately 11 percent. At the same time, the quality has not deteriorated regarding measurable errors, if one compares it with how it would have been otherwise.

I think these analyses speak for themselves. Based on the aforementioned conclusions, which are therefore not based on faith or opinion but on analyses from VTI, the interpellor should give some thought to how she defines optimal use of every krona and every minute, as it was stated in the question.

Then it is not said that the situation is acceptable or sufficient. We need to prioritize maintenance even more. But that is done by promoting development, innovation, and investments in the operations. It is about not just doing as one has done previously. It is about ensuring that there is a client competence and ability in procurements, so that, for example, Swedish companies will be able to develop the maintenance.

So it is about prioritizing this in the budget, that more money needs to go to maintenance, but also that those funds must be used as efficiently as possible. The studies that I have referred to show that the outsourcing in itself has not driven up costs but on the contrary lowered the cost level, Mr. Speaker.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! There are also other investigations. For example, Boston Consulting Group has concluded that liberalization and competition within the railway have no positive impact on supply, quality, or punctuality at all. And it is no small organization saying this. There are, therefore, other things to look at as well, I think.

We see that countries that previously have had a deregulated market, perhaps not quite as large as we have, have pivoted. We see it in Europe. We see it in New Zealand. We see it elsewhere. The railway has been retaken under own management.

One can ask any company. Core activities are not leased out; instead, they are kept within one's own group. This was somewhat what I started with. What actually is critical social infrastructure, which we perhaps should not ask other actors to manage? I am thinking, not least, of what we discussed earlier, which concerns whether we would end up in war or in a new pandemic. What is it actually that benefits us as a society in such a situation? Is it not to have a well-established own competence rather than us ensuring that we have a well-established procurement competence? It must still be more important to ensure that we have the competence we need, for example for our railway, in our own country and in our own organization?

Then, of course, one can refer, as the Minister did, to who has done what and so on. It was another time, I would like to say. Today we are perhaps a bit more sober. One can go out and ask any person whatsoever and anyone in the business sector: Do you think it works today? Everyone will say: No, it doesn't work. Then one can list various reasons. There is too little capacity. The switches don't work. The trains don't run if it snows or if it's windy or something else. There are as many reasons as one can count.

I cannot understand that it is therefore most important that we put all our focus on ensuring that our agency has procurement competence. It must still be most important that we ensure we have the competence required in a state capacity, so that we can actually perform that which ensures that the infrastructure we have serves the very best purpose. That is what I would really like to see instead of increased buyer competence within Trafikverket.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by correcting the Minister. The Minister claimed that it was the Social Democrats who put railway maintenance out to tender. That was not the case. It was actually Mats Odell, the Christian Democrat Minister for Communications from 1991 to 1994, who was the primary driver when it came to putting railway maintenance and the railway out to tender. From 2010, it was the Alliance government with the Moderates who completely put railway maintenance out to tender. We must stick to historical facts.

I have not received an answer to my question regarding railway maintenance and the view on critical infrastructure. What is the government's view on critical infrastructure? Should it be outsourced and subject to competition given how things look today – I am thinking of the global situation and the security policy situation?

Sweden has today allowed the deregulation of the railway to go the furthest in the entire world. This has also been pointed out by my parliamentary colleague Gunilla Svantorp. There are countries that have gone this way earlier but which have actually taken back the railway maintenance under their own management because the market has not managed the maintenance and has not been able to deliver. This we see today also in Sweden: Market forces are not managing to maintain the railway. Here the government needs to deliver answers.

The Sweden Democrats claim that there is a secret agreement regarding railway maintenance. I and many Swedes really want to know what it is about. Will the railway maintenance or parts of the railway maintenance end up under own management or not?

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is cooperation that is the way forward here. It is very important that we take advantage of the competence and innovation capacity that exists in Swedish business. We have touched upon this several times earlier this evening in the chamber, in other debates. Party comrades of Gunilla Svantorp have highlighted how important the green transition that is now taking place is, with new industrialization and that companies lead the way. Why should the companies that are far ahead in developing new technology when it comes to maintenance work not be included in this? I think it is a somewhat strange argument.

Ordering competence is, of course, important. Having the ability to manage the maintenance is important. I invited many actors to a meeting before the summer - that formed the basis for this assignment. Everyone highlighted that the maintenance can be clarified even better if a clearer assignment is received, and that it is precisely new technology and new innovation that can be rewarded in this.

This is, of course, important for the government. At the same time, we must say that no one is satisfied with the situation as it is today. But is it due to the deregulated market? Is that the cause? No, it is that maintenance has been deprioritized for far too long. Two-thirds of the railway in Sweden is nearly 100 years old – if not over 100 years. Maintenance has consistently been deprioritized.

This is also one of the points of criticism in the National Audit Office's report: that the previous government allocated less for maintenance than Trafikverket proposed. It is therefore both about prioritizing this in the budget and about ensuring that the money that is set aside is used in as effective a way as possible.

Here is cooperation with maintenance contractors, where it is about giving the opportunity for more to be involved and develop the maintenance, of course a way forward. We will need to maintain the Swedish railway for a long time ahead. In that case, it is obvious that it should occur in as efficient a way as possible and in a way that affects passengers and freight transport as little as possible.

When it comes to the cooperation regarding preparedness and what the members are asking about regarding the security situation, a cooperation is ongoing regarding preparedness sector transports with private and public cooperation. It is of course clear that the business sector also has an important role when it comes to the availability in different parts of our society in order to have a high level of preparedness in a deteriorated security situation.

Then, of course, repair, maintenance, and clearing work can be part of this. It also lies within the mandate that Trafikverket has to report by no later than 15 January 2024.

The government is therefore working full out to prioritize the maintenance. In that case, it is not just about providing more funds, but also about ensuring that the funds provided are used in the most effective way possible. There are Swedish companies here that want to and can contribute. Therefore, it is important that Trafikverket strengthens its procurement competence and takes advantage of this very high-quality knowledge, so that we get a railway that can be relied upon in Sweden.

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

Gunilla Svantorp (S)

Mr. Speaker! I still think it is important to point out that everyone knows that we have a maintenance debt which, regardless of the color of those who have governed our country, is gigantic and far too large. But we must also not forget that in the latest national plan that was presented, the money for maintenance was nevertheless increased by 48 percent. I think it is important to say that.

It was not as much as had been requested; it is always like that. But it was still 48 percent more than it had been previously, and I think it is important to point out. It sounds as if no money has gone towards maintenance at all, but it actually has.

As I said earlier, all of Europe is moving towards increased regulation of precisely railway maintenance, and I think it is important that we reflect on why there is such resistance to actually reclaiming a part of the railway maintenance in our own hands. There are international comparisons that show that countries that invest in maintenance and where the state has the collective responsibility for maintenance are at the top when it comes to functioning railways. We can hardly claim that we do that in Sweden, and therefore we need to reflect on what it is that makes it not look that way.

We also know that what is called corrective maintenance is what is prioritized today, as opposed to preventive maintenance. The corrective maintenance is significantly more expensive than the preventive maintenance, so we really need to consider how we use the money in the right way.

Finally, and so that no one thinks otherwise: the Social Democrats appreciate the business community, and we must, of course, have a cooperation. But we need to reflect on what constitutes critical infrastructure and what is the core mission of our infrastructure.

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

Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! No one has claimed that no money at all has gone towards maintenance. But must it always be as the member says, that it was not as much as Trafikverket had requested? It is no coincidence that it looks the way it does if one consistently builds on the maintenance debt which, of course, affects travelers throughout our country. One does not need to travel many miles on either road or railway to realize that we have great needs, and that is why the government has hit the brakes, shifted gears, and said that now we shall prioritize maintenance.

I appreciate the approach, and I perceive that we will be able to have a broad consensus regarding this moving forward. It is about both prioritizing maintenance with more money and using these funds in an even more efficient way, and it is of course positive that the Social Democrats see that the business sector has an important part in that work.

Just preventive maintenance, performing maintenance earlier and, for example, using new technology to detect where maintenance can be done long before a contact line is torn down, are such things that, for example, Swedish companies point out: The technology exists, and it needs to be used to a greater extent. This now falls within the framework of Trafikverket's mandate.

I look forward to the work being carried out in close cooperation with various actors so that we can achieve better functioning railway maintenance in Sweden. I can say that the need for this to succeed is obvious, Mr. Speaker.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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