Response to interpellation 2023/24:67 on the impact of urban environment agreements on buses in Örebro
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD, 2 KD and 3 KD argue that the phasing out of the urban environment agreements is responsible and that entered agreements are being fulfilled 1 2 3. 1 2 3 KD emphasizes that the rapid buses in Örebro are financed via the municipality and the county transport plan, not via the urban environment agreements 1 2 3. 3 KD claims that the government has taken responsibility for families with children and low-income earners through tax cuts and housing allowances 3. 4 KD argues that there is an opportunity to use county transport plans and municipal financing 4. 5 S and 6 S argue that the government and SD are breaking promises by withdrawing the urban environment agreements 5 6. 7 S argues that the government cannot be trusted and that they are lowering environmental and climate policy 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! Matilda Ernkrans has asked me whether the residents of Örebro Municipality will have to pay for what the state as recently as this year has committed to pay until 2027, what measures I intend to take to provide the industry with long-term decisions, and whether I will take measures to ensure that the planning and implementation of more and faster buses in Örebro can become a reality in line with previous national decisions.
The Government proposes in the budget bill for 2024 that the urban environment agreements be phased out starting from 2024. The purpose of the urban environment agreements has been to promote sustainable urban environments by providing support that leads to an increased share of passenger transport by public transport or bicycle traffic as well as sustainable freight transport solutions. The support could be applied for by municipalities and regions. The urban environment agreements are being phased out to create room for financing of other initiatives. The phasing out will take effect by no new applications being granted. This means that already entered agreements will not be affected by the phasing out but will be completed as planned.
In the transport-wide national plan for the transport infrastructure for the period 2022-2033, as established by the previous government in June 2022, Trafikverket was tasked with allocating up to 6 billion kronor to the urban environment agreements for the period 2022-2027. The decision meant that new measures for which municipalities and regions sought support, as well as counter-performances, would be completed by 2027 at the latest. Exceptions were made for the agreements entered into before the summer of 2022. For these, the timeframes for payment that were previously agreed and negotiated apply.
Trafikverket has during 2023 completed an application round which resulted in an additional 26 applications being granted support. For these agreements as well, it applies that the measures and counter-performances shall be completed by 2027 at the latest in accordance with the previous government's decision on the national plan.
The needs within the infrastructure are great, and it is necessary to make thoughtful prioritizations between different measures. It is important that this is done in an orderly process with a sufficient basis. The Government has recently begun the work on a new national plan for the planning period 2026-2037 by, in a first step, commissioning Trafikverket to submit a basis for direction for a new planning period. This assignment shall be reported in January next year and will form the basis for an infrastructure bill with economic frameworks and direction for a new planning period 2026-2037. When the Riksdag has made a decision on economic frameworks, a measure planning follows where Trafikverket is commissioned to produce a proposal for a new national plan and the county planning authorities are offered to produce new county transport plans.
In conclusion, I would like to inform Matilda Ernkrans that the municipal measures in Örebro that the municipality has decided on so far and which Matilda Ernkrans refers to – a system of rapid buses in Örebro called BRT, Bus Rapid Transit – are financed partly by Örebro kommun and partly by state funds via Örebro läns länstransportplan. They are therefore not financed via the stadsmiljöavtalen, as she implies in her interpellation.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden is an innovative welfare country with a strong technological development, and I am convinced that Sweden can and shall drive a technological development for greater prosperity, better commuting, and care for our common nature and environment.
In my opinion, this is best achieved by taking a shared responsibility, and that is what the urban environment agreements have entailed – a shared responsibility for the planning of sustainable cities in Swedish climate work. But all around our country, the government's austerity agenda is now creating a completely different reality.
In my home county, Örebro län, the announcement has been made that for the express buses in Örebro - for which the urban environment agreement is part of the financing - money can no longer be counted on from the urban environment agreements. The government gave an initial announcement that the agreements would be shortened to 2027, which caused Örebro to adjust the plans for express buses already last year. They aligned themselves with that announcement. Now comes the next fatal blow, less than a year later, which is simply another broken promise from the government and SD. The government's cutting agenda is now stopping the expansion of faster buses in Örebro. Only one-third of what was planned based on last year's announcement will be able to be completed; after that, it is a stop.
Almost every fourth municipality in Sweden has signed urban environment agreements based on the premises that applied for 2023 and based on the statements given by the government and SD a year ago. Now, all these municipalities with urban environment agreements face a completely new, worse reality. This also applies to the industry, which has requested long-term perspective, and the citizens, who demand faster and better public transport. It applies to the labor market, which requires a better commute to work. It also applies to nature and the environment, where it is required that we take responsibility for reducing emissions from transport and securing good living conditions with new technological developments. All of this now meets a new, harsher reality.
In what was just a shared responsibility between the state and the local communities, the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is now withdrawing its share of the responsibility. That is the reason for the rather simple questions I have asked the responsible minister in the government, namely Minister Carlson, and I intend to repeat them – because, frankly, it was not many of the questions that the minister actually answered in his first entry. The minister, however, has more time.
The government is now evading its responsibility and rolling back previous long-term decisions regarding the state environmental agreements - those which, among other things, were to provide faster and more efficient public transport in the cities. I once again give Minister Carlson the opportunity to answer: Should the municipal residents pay for what the state has already, as recently as this year, committed to pay until 2027? What measures does the Minister intend to take to provide the industry with the long-term decisions it requests and which have now been rolled back? Will the Minister take any initiative to ensure that the planning and implementation of more and faster buses in Örebro can become a reality, in accordance with previous national decisions?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! This is a very responsible phase-out. As I said in my opening response, it means the message that the government has given that already entered agreements will not be affected by the phase-out but shall be completed as planned. Those who have applied for and been granted support will have it paid out.
Something I also highlighted in my response, Mr. Speaker, is that it is implied that the planned investment in Örebro would be financed via the urban environment agreement, and that is not the case. The financing has so far been carried out partly through funds from Örebro municipality, and partly through state funds via the Örebro County regional transport plan, and these possibilities for financing rapid buses and other measures do remain in the future as well.
It is possible—I do not know if that is the case, but it is possible—that the municipality or the region in its calculations had intended to apply for urban environment agreements as part of a long-term financing, but that does not mean that they by definition would have been granted funds even if the government had not made the decision to phase out the urban environment agreements. It is a clarification I would like to repeat here in the chamber.
I have also given answers regarding the long-term transport infrastructure, where the government has already taken the first step by commissioning Trafikverket to develop a basis for direction for it. In the conversations and the dialogue I have with many regions around the country, it is highlighted, just as can be observed for the national plans, that the county plans have been affected by cost increases, as has occurred in many other plans in the country, and a need is seen to strengthen the funds available for the county plans. It is a suggestion that it is possible to make when the basis for direction is referred for consultation at the beginning of next year. Then the government will return to the Riksdag with a proposition to establish the frameworks for the national plan and for the transport infrastructure.
Regarding the urban environment agreements, I want to repeat that the entered agreements will not be affected by the phasing out but will be completed as planned.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Mr. Speaker! I do not think it helped that I gave the Minister another chance to answer three rather simple questions.
The Minister can beat his chest and say that already entered agreements will be fulfilled. That is very nice. The problem is that last year you announced that the urban environment agreements would remain with funds allocated until 2027. Municipalities such as Örebro Municipality and others working with sustainable cities have adapted accordingly. Deep conversations have been had with Trafikverket, an agency for which the Minister is responsible, to plan for what would complete the entire project and provide both better public transport and better climate benefits.
A year later, the same government, together with the Sweden Democrats, returns and says: There will be no urban environment agreements. All the work that has been done will not be able to be realized, and now you will have to settle for the one-third that has already been done.
I do not think that is responsible. I think these are reprioritizations, as the Minister said in his first contribution. Yes, we know that. We see a poorer Sweden emerging. The Government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, has prioritized spending more money on lowering the tax on plastic bags than on stopping the new recruitment to the gangs, more money on tax cuts for those with the highest incomes than on the country's families with children, who are having a tough time when food prices increase and inflation eats away at their own wallets. It is a government that with blatant courage increases Swedish climate emissions and at the same time commits a breach of promise against all those who had counted on the urban environment agreements until 2027 based on the announcement given by the government last year.
That is how it looks. One promises one thing before the election, and then it becomes something else after the election with this government together with SD. The messages that were given in the budget last year and which were supposed to apply until 2027 are now being removed.
I understand that things happen that one cannot always plan for. The government must act, and I respect that. But what is it that has happened? Are Swedish cities sustainable now? Have we seen reduced emissions from the transport sector? Are fewer people needing public transport for their work commute? Have the employers already received their labor? Are the municipalities in Sweden now heading towards such large surpluses in their finances that they can handle a landslide of costs from the state? No, that is not the case. Everything I list is instead going in the opposite direction.
The Minister for Infrastructure is therefore answerable. Why is this breach of promise coming from the Minister for Infrastructure? If the Minister now does not want to be held accountable for this, there should still be some form of integrity from the Minister, such as taking the initiative to mitigate the consequences for those whom the government and the Sverigedemokrater are now abandoning.
I have received a question from home in Örebro. Örebro is in the middle of a transition that has suddenly been given new, worse conditions to be completed. Could the Minister not at least, for those municipalities that are in the middle of a transition, promise to, together with the agency that the Minister is responsible for, Trafikverket, strengthen the resources in the regional transport plans? Could it be a statement that comes from the Minister here and now?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I do not know if Matilda Ernkrans was listening when I said what needs I hear from different parts of the country when it comes to precisely the county transport plans.
We will process this in the usual order in the manner that is possible, where the regions can submit consultations on the orientation basis, and then the government will return to the chamber of the Riksdag to make decisions on the frameworks in the manner in which a national plan is developed.
I appreciate that honesty is brought to the debate. I think Swedish politics deserves more of that. On that theme, I think Matilda Ernkrans should take into account that it was actually the government she sat in that removed the wealth tax – speaking of lowering the tax for the very richest.
The government that I sit in and represent has lowered the tax for low- and middle-income earners. We have also strengthened and extended the housing allowance for those families with children who have the tightest margins in their household economy. We see that 110,000 families with children are affected by this. It is to take responsibility for those who have it the toughest. But the member may be welcome to answer how she views the word integrity when she accuses others of lowering the tax for the very richest when her own party has just done so during the last parliamentary term.
No, this is not a breach of promise. We have taken a great responsibility by phasing this out in a responsible manner. I think it deserves to be mentioned again, since the member does not mention it themselves, that the financing until now has been provided through Örebro municipality and state funds via the Örebro County regional transport plan. It is possible that calculations were made using funds from the urban environment agreements, but that does not mean that funds would have been granted even if the government had not decided to phase out the urban environment agreements. The member is also welcome to comment on this, regarding the fact that it is good to have correct underlying data for an interpellation debate in the Swedish Riksdag.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the debate. I am not becoming much wiser.
If one now imagines that one is going to remove the urban environment agreements and replace them with regional transport plans, would it not have been more honorable and more responsible to first put the regional transport plans and the financing in place, and in connection with that – if one does not like the urban environment agreements – remove them?
A family with children has become 1,000 kronor poorer during this government's first year. I do not think that one as a Christian Democrat should be proud of that. It becomes quite obvious that one cannot trust this government, which said that the urban environment agreements would remain until 2027 and which instructed its agency to initiate contacts and make preparations together with those municipalities that were to finance their transition to sustainability with the help of the urban environment agreements, which they are intended to be used for.
Integrity is something one can reflect on quite a bit. I do not know how honest the Christian Democrats think it is to lower the one percent target for aid, which will affect international solidarity work for a long time to come, or the fact that one is now lowering Sweden's environmental and climate policy, which will also affect and diminish Sweden's development power regarding the industrial green revolution that we see now in Sweden. I do not know how honest it is.
I want to be very clear: We in the opposition are trying to fill the holes left by the SD government. We are doing our absolute best to do so. But even if it is the case that the opposition, in its opposition budget, does not fund every single part that this government is dismantling, crown for crown, it does not mean that we share your policy.
So, it didn't amount to much of an answer. The people of Örebro are left behind, and they are among those - every fourth municipality in Sweden - where the urban environment agreements disappeared.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! There were many different issues here that I will not have time to comment on in the last two minutes of this debate. But what does it actually look like in the Social Democrats' budget regarding the one percent goal for aid? I will answer the question myself because it was rhetorical, Mr. Speaker. The Social Democrats are abandoning the one percent goal for 2023. I think such debates can stay above accusing others for something that one does oneself.
This is a responsible phasing out of the urban environment agreement. Entered agreements remain valid. Those who have received notification will continue to be able to use funds for that. There is also an opportunity to use the regional transport plans and municipal financing in the same way that Örebro has previously financed it.
I thank you for the debate and the discussion we have had here in the speaker's chairs.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.