Response to interpellation 2023/24:849 on the Uppsalapendeln
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the Uppsalapendeln and the government's responsibility for rail traffic. S argues that SJ is not fulfilling its social responsibility and that market failures have worsened the rail traffic 1 2. S wants the government to steer SJ to contribute to society and growth 1 2, and that the state must regain control over basic services and stop prioritizing ideological dogmas regarding privatization 2 3 3. M argues that SJ is a commercial company that should be run on business grounds 4. M argues that SJ has return requirements and that it is understandable that the company withdraws from a route where they are incurring a loss 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Ardalan Shekarabi has asked me if I and the government consider it a desirable result of our governance that the state's companies are closing one of the most important commuting routes in the country. He has further asked me if I and the government intend to change our governance of SJ so that the commercial interests are complemented by societal interests.
SJ AB and other companies with state ownership are subject to the same laws as privately owned companies, including the Companies Act (2005:551). It is the company's board and management that are responsible for the company's organization and the management of its affairs, as well as the ongoing management of the company's operational activities. Questions regarding SJ AB's commercial traffic are operational questions and are thus for SJ AB's management and board to handle.
According to SJ AB, competition from tax-subsidized traffic has progressively increased over a long period on the route in question, and the company's operation of the route today results in a significant loss. The company has therefore decided to cease operations.
SJ AB operates extensive rail traffic in Sweden with a large geographical spread. The company operates within two types of traffic: commercial traffic and procured traffic. SJ AB operates both commercial traffic and procured traffic on commercial grounds in competition with other train operators and, not least, in competition with cars, flights, and buses.
The Riksdag has decided that SJ AB shall conduct its operations on commercial grounds. In accordance with this, the company's business purpose is to provide passenger transport and, within the framework of commerciality, contribute to fulfilling the transport policy goals. The management of SJ AB shall therefore take place within the Riksdag's mandate and in accordance with the rules on competition and state aid. The Government does not intend to act to ensure that SJ receives a public mission with responsibilities beyond what is specified in the articles of association.
Ardalan Shekarabi (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, honorable Minister for Finance, for the answer!
Over 400,000 people live in Uppsala County. Just like people in other parts of our country, they behave correctly, go to work, study, and live the lives they want to live. Often, they are people who contribute or have contributed to our society.
The people and citizens in Uppsala County have reasonable expectations. They want the healthcare system to function, and therefore they are concerned about the government's underfunding of healthcare, which affects not least Akademiska sjukhuset in Uppsala and the citizens in Uppsala. They expect that there will be housing when children grow up and are to move out of home, and they are therefore concerned that we have a housing construction that has come to a halt because the government refuses to stimulate housing construction in a recession.
Very many people in the Uppsala region are dependent on trains, as they live in a labor market region consisting of Uppsala and Stockholm. They are used to traveling one or one and a half hours to work, and they have the reasonable expectation that the state, when they are participating and contributing to society, should take its responsibility to ensure that society functions. But the state is not taking its responsibility when it comes to train traffic.
SJ has operated this route for perhaps a hundred years, in its modern form since the end of the 60s. People have built their lives on the assumption that there is an Uppsalapendel so that they can get to work or study activities by train. But suddenly, when they get up one morning, they hear the news that SJ will shut down its operations in three months. The Uppsalapendel is being shut down without warning or communication with society.
When SJ's management is asked why they do so, they state their reasons, but they also emphasize that they have no social responsibility. Imagine that SJ, owned by the state and all of us, gives the citizens in Uppsala County the answer that SJ has no social responsibility. Even the tobacco companies speak of their social commitment, but SJ has no social responsibility.
Now the people of Uppsala are being saved by Region Uppsala and its progressive leadership, which has focused on stepping in to solve this with the help of other regions and Mälardalstrafik. We will have to see if it solves the problems, but there are good chances of doing so because there is a region that is taking on a role that it does not actually have.
The question remains: What responsibility does the government have? What answer does the government have for the citizens in Uppsala County, when the people there encounter these problems? Does the honorable Minister for Finance agree with the SJ management's answer that SJ has no social responsibility? Is SJ worse than the tobacco companies? Is there any ambition from the government's side to steer SJ in a way that makes SJ contribute to the whole Swedish society, to growth and development, to entrepreneurship, and to that people can travel and get to work?
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Minister Svantesson for being here today to speak about an important issue, namely the issue of securing people's way to work and home.
For twelve years I have traveled the route between Uppsala and Stockholm. It is Sweden's most heavily trafficked commuter rail route. As a commuter, I encounter many setbacks: cancelled trains, delayed trains, signal failures, track fractures, and wildlife accidents. These are just a few examples. Not infrequently, one has to stand because the seats on the train have been taken. I do not commute daily, however, as many do. The commuters, in short, do not have it easy.
It is, however, easy to understand the panic that struck our commuters when SJ announced on August 27 that they are discontinuing the commuter trains between Uppsala and Stockholm because they are not considered profitable.
When Ardalan Shekarabi wrote the interpellation, social media was filled with worried commuters who did not know if they would be able to get to work or pick up the children after floorball practice after the New Year, or if they will now always have to stand packed together on the trains because they can never find a seat, or if it will even be possible to live in Knivsta and commute.
The message is serious not only for our commuters but for the growth of the entire Stockholm region and Sweden. It has consequences if people with their competence cannot move in a reasonable way in this area. This is pointed out not only by us in the opposition but also by Svenskt Näringsliv, which says that it is a catastrophe for both employers and employees that the commuting possibilities between Uppsala and Stockholm are becoming worse.
Last week, the commuters' worst headache could finally subside when Region Uppsala and our Social Democratic regional board chair Helena Proos announced that the region, together with other regions in Mälardalen, has now prepared itself to take over the train traffic through Mälardalstrafik. It was a great relief for many, even though we do not yet fully know what the changes in the timetable will look like.
Despite the fact that a solution was found, concern remains over how SJ has acted and why. I know that SJ is driven by market principles, but now we have seen what serious consequences that can actually have. The commuters between Uppsala and Stockholm have seen it. It should be a strong public interest for the government to ensure that people can travel between home and work. My questions to Minister Svantesson are therefore: Does the government have a responsibility to ensure that people across the country can get to their jobs? Does one want to take that responsibility by clarifying SJ's mandate?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Ardalan Shekarabi for the interpellation.
I know that incredibly many in Uppsala with the aforementioned have become upset, and I have full understanding of that. It is an important stretch, and this affects very many. But even if one stands on the side of the people of Uppsala - which I truly think one should do, because I think it is completely right - I think that as a responsible politician one can take up certain matters first, Madam Speaker. I will take up some facts first, and then I will get a little bit into how I view the management of SJ.
It is still important to remember that 80 percent of the traffic on this specific stretch is operated by others than SJ. It is important to remember that it is therefore not just one company that operates. It almost sounds as if SJ is the only one and that people have to walk, cycle, or do something else to get to Stockholm when the traffic is now suspended. The fact is that there are three large actors - two of which, SL and Mälardalstrafik, are actually tax-subsidized. One can, of course, have many opinions on whether SJ should be a state-owned company or if it should be something else, but fundamentally SJ, just as the interpellator also said, is a company that operates on commercial grounds.
I want to clear up one more thing. Does one have a social responsibility? Yes, but so do all state-owned companies. So, distinguish between a social mission and social responsibility! By social responsibility, I mean what all state-owned companies have; that is why we own them together. Some of them have greater responsibility than others.
However, having a social mission inscribed in the operational objective is something completely different. That can absolutely be discussed, but until now, the Riksdag has, with a fairly large majority, continued to vote for SJ to be a commercial company and have a return on investment. As long as that is the case, the company must also have a return on investment. I just wanted to sort things out a bit.
Yes, of course, one should be able to get to work in Sweden. That is why we in the government now, actually yesterday, made a decision on the largest infrastructure bill ever. It contains large amounts for both maintenance and for new investments, of course – both in railway and road. Of course, it should work to move around in Sweden.
My view - and this may be important to know for those who might follow this broadcast or read the minutes afterwards - is that the government does not go in and manage any companies whatsoever. We are also responsible for Systembolaget and Vattenfall, but we do not control pricing or other things when a company has the mandate it has.
Fundamentally, I think it is very good that this question is being raised. I think it is good that SJ hears the customers' absolute protests, and I understand the protests. Now, I don't think SJ has been running for a hundred years, even if it is quite a long time, but it is still the case that two other actors have entered which are tax-subsidized. That must not be forgotten. As long as they are and SJ incurs large losses, one can understand SJ, which has received the mandate from here in the Riksdag - including from Ardalan Shekarabi - to have a return. Number one is, therefore, that there are several who are running.
It is also good that Mälardalstrafik is now stating that they intend to increase capacity. They already run quite a few routes today. The general discussion about whether SJ should have a public mandate and not be a commercial company is absolutely a discussion that we can continue to have, but it will not help those who commute between Uppsala and Stockholm in different directions here and now. What saves them instead is that there is traffic running, and there obviously will be.
I have all the understanding for the upset over the communication. I also have understanding for that people like SJ. SJ is indeed one of the companies in Sweden that both receives a lot of criticism and that very many love. I myself have traveled a lot by train over the years, and there is a love-hate relationship. Sometimes it is just love, sometimes it is mostly hate, and sometimes it is both from the one who commutes and gets stuck. SJ also sometimes gets the blame for things that they themselves cannot control, such as that Trafikverket has not arranged a rail and so on.
It is fundamentally good that the question is raised, and we must continue the discussion on societal missions.
Ardalan Shekarabi (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the contribution.
The problem is that SJ is not taking its social responsibility. This is not a responsible action regarding the rail traffic that they have had responsibility for for many decades. I do not know if it is 100 years, 90 years or 80 years, but it is very many decades that SJ has operated the Uppsalapendeln. You change your mind and do not handle the announcement regarding the closure of Uppsalapendeln in a responsible way, instead, you throw out the news without coordinating it with different involved actors and without considering that Uppsalapendeln is a prerequisite for growth and people's lives in the Uppsala region.
As a Member of Parliament from Uppsala County, one expects then that the government sees that SJ's management is acting incorrectly and that SJ's management is not taking its social responsibility. One expects that the government steps in and acts so that SJ serves the entire Swedish society, but the government does not do that. That is what is worrying, Madam Speaker: that the government does not learn lessons from this failure.
We now have several decades of market failure in our society. Competition and privatization have severely worsened the opportunities to travel by train in our country. We have split the entire railway system, and it creates enormous difficulties for commuters every day. It also worsens our growth opportunities, not least in the Uppsala-Stockholm region.
What one would like is for the Minister for Finance and the government to set aside dogmas and ideological perspectives and look at the failure we have given an example of here. One would like the government to present a policy that solves the problems with the management of SJ, the view on infrastructure, and the view on market experiments, and that provides the security that the citizens in our country need. The companies in Uppsala, the universities in Uppsala, and the development in Uppsala presuppose that there is well-functioning train traffic between Stockholm, Arlanda, and Uppsala.
Until last week, when the chair of the regional board, Helena Proos, stepped forward and took a responsibility that the region absolutely does not have, we citizens in Uppsala County did not know if we could get to work in the month of January or even at the end of December. It is very strange that as a citizen in Sweden, one cannot rely on the state to do what the state should do so that growth can function and so that people's lives can function.
It is also very strange that we are in a situation where the Minister for Finance is satisfied that it is Region Uppsala that steps in and saves the people of Uppsala, even though they do not have that responsibility. One does, however, take on that responsibility because one sees the need for social responsibility to be taken, that is to say, the need that SJ did not see.
I therefore ask the Minister for Finance again: What lessons does the government draw from the failure with SJ? What lessons does the government draw from the shutdown of the Uppsalapendeln and SJ's irresponsible actions here? Does the government intend to change its view on the governance of the state-owned companies and the view on infrastructure?
Sanne Lennström (S)
Madam Speaker! It cannot be overemphasized how crucial it is that people can transport themselves between home and work in a reasonable way, regardless of whether one lives in Uppsala, in Stockholm, or in other parts of our country. Future commuting opportunities must be secured, and that is why we have this debate here today. It should be in the government's interest to secure the possibility for people to get to work.
It should not be possible to state that Sweden's most heavily trafficked commuter train route is not profitable, only to then pull the rug out and withdraw the commuter trains on short notice. Just as the Minister mentions, there are several different operators running this route, but it doesn't matter. Switching to one of the other trains does not increase my chances of getting a seat, because all trains are full. They were also full this morning.
Sweden's commuters deserve predictability, not to have to worry about whether they will be able to get to work in a few months. Therefore, I ask the Minister: Do both Sweden's commuters and Sweden's companies not deserve more predictability through a clearer directive to SJ?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, both the interpellor and Member Lennström, for this important discussion. It is important for many.
I believe that fundamentally we share the view that we need well-functioning commuting in Sweden. In many of our commuting regions, both better infrastructure and good providers who can run trains or buses and so on are required.
Just this question, I think, is a bit special in the sense that when I listen to the two members, it sounds as if no one is going to drive now. I repeat that 80 percent of all traffic here is driven by others than SJ.
I understand that Member Shekarabi is now praising Region Uppsala. One is welcome to do that, and it is good. But already today, SL and Mälardalstrafik run very many departures, and they have increased over the years.
Here we have three public actors with slightly different mandates that, through their ambitions, partially crowd each other out. SJ has return requirements on it, and I believe that will be the case for a long time to come. I have not seen a majority for anything else, and not even among the Social Democrats.
From our side and from the Riksdag's side, it is of course completely necessary that SJ continues to take responsibility for the whole of Sweden, but also to take responsibility for ensuring that a return is given on the money and that a part of it is given back to the taxpayers, which we can use, for example, for infrastructure, to build railways and much more.
I am the first to regret that the announcement came so late. I truly understand that it stirs up many emotions. I am apparently still the first to be positive that there will be more who will drive there where SJ does not drive.
SJ is a company that people can have many opinions about. What mission SJ should have in the future can be something that our parties discuss both here in the chamber and between our parties in various ways. As long as SJ has a return requirement, which it does, it has a responsibility like all companies. It does run in Sweden. But that does not mean that it applies to every single route.
In this case, according to SJ, it is about 50 million that the company is losing on this. It can then be understood that SJ, with changed conditions and with the Riksdag's requirements for return, is withdrawing from this. I do not defend that. I only state what they themselves have said.
It is about how we are to govern our joint companies. In what way shall we do it? We shall, of course, be clear about the goals. We have the transport policy goals, and we have many other goals that SJ and other companies must adhere to.
I naturally regret the anxiety and stress of many commuters. I also know that many look forward to double tracks, that it will become four tracks, and that there will be more tracks. It will facilitate the Stockholm-Uppsala commute in the future. That is what we look forward to.
I am also glad that others are now stepping in. Mälardalstrafik, for example, has said that it now wants to run even more. That company runs quite a lot of traffic today, it should be remembered.
Ardalan Shekarabi (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answers.
My appeal to the government and the Minister for Finance is to learn lessons from the failure of SJ's actions regarding the Uppsalapendeln. We must regain control in those parts of society where the state has lost control, where the state does not take its responsibility and has not taken its responsibility over the last decades.
The market experiments, the market failures, and the privatization of basic services in our society affect people, growth, and entrepreneurship, not least in the Uppsala region. The Uppsala region is important for Sweden. That people can commute easily between Stockholm and Uppsala is a good and necessary thing for growth in our entire country.
We have multinational companies that have chosen to establish themselves in Uppsala. We have two world-leading universities that collaborate with the universities in the Stockholm region. It must be possible to commute. There, the state must take its responsibility. Ideological dogmas about privatizations and outsourcing cannot stand in the way of that.
One must be able to take off one's blinkers and see: Okay, we believed in the privatization experiments. We believed that rail travel would improve if we privatized and fragmented the railway. Now we see the result, and then we redo it and do it right. We take back the control. Those are the words one would want to hear from a Swedish Minister for Finance, but those words are missing here.
I thank you for the debate. But I urge the Minister for Finance to let go of the ideological blinkers and see the need for the state to take back control to ensure that our country functions and that we deliver to the citizens.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the interpellor for the important question.
It may be good to remind the listener that SJ became a state-owned company in 2001 under a Social Democratic government. One can have many views on this. I believe the member may perhaps be speaking to the wrong person when he claims that I would be dogmatic in different situations. I am pragmatic in the vast majority of situations. One can absolutely see both advantages and disadvantages with SJ becoming a company, but I still see many advantages.
In this case, it is about regional commuting between Uppsala and Stockholm. It is about the fact that conditions have changed. One can have many opinions about that. Both the tax-subsidized companies SL and Mälardalstrafik have, in recent years, entered in a way that simply makes SJ run at a loss on that route.
How then is a government supposed to govern? How are we supposed to govern a company? Are we to point with the whole hand and say: You shall do A or B? No, that is not how it works. State-owned companies have received a mandate from the Riksdag with return requirements and have an ownership policy. Based on that, we act as a government. We do everything we can so that Sweden functions as well as possible.
Every day when I wake up, I think about how we are going to make Sweden better, together with many other parties, of course, and not just the government base. How will Sweden become wealthier? How will Sweden become safer? How will it function better?
There is a great deal that is not functioning as it should. I completely share that picture. Then the question is always what is the way forward. But I rarely have blinkers on, I want to assert myself. But that is, of course, a very subjective assessment. With this, I want to thank you for the debate and wish you a pleasant weekend.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.