Response to interpellation 2024/25:561 on withdrawn transport services
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the transport service act is a framework law where municipalities and regions are responsible for the quality 1 2. KD emphasizes that the law does not prevent a more generous application and that differences are due to municipal self-government 1 2. KD argues that it is possible to make a more generous application and that the municipalities' application has caused the drift in the application of the law 3 4. S considers that it is the Riksdag that enacts the law and that legal practice contradicts the law's intentions 5. S wants the government to act on Trafikanalys' proposal 5 6 and argues that the legislation needs to be changed because the laws are outdated 7. C argues that rights are being eroded and that the law must be changed to ensure a door-to-door perspective 8. C considers that the government has a lack of commitment and that the legislation is deficient 9.
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 if I and the government plan to take any measures to ensure people in need of paratransit and, if so, which measures.
Several Members of Parliament have asked questions about the application of the transport service legislation, which I have answered earlier during the parliamentary term. My answer is consistently that the Act (1997:736) on transport service is a framework act. The Transport Service Act does not regulate in detail which conditions shall apply in the transport service or when assessing the right to transport service. It is clear from the provisions in the Transport Service Act that it is the municipality, or in applicable cases the regional public transport authority, that is responsible to the municipal residents for ensuring that transport service of good quality is organized within the municipality.
The Transport Services Act does not pose any obstacles to a more generous application, which is clearly evident in the articles in Ystads Allehanda that Adrian Magnusson refers to, where it also appears that the application is more generous in other regions.
I want to emphasize that the right to transport services is an important prerequisite for persons with disabilities to be able to participate in society on equal terms as others.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to Minister Carlson for the answer to the interpellation! This is, as the Minister pointed out, an issue that has been raised several times both inside and outside this chamber. This is because it is constantly relevant, and that in turn is because the development surrounding public transport services and the availability of public transport services in many places is going in the completely wrong direction.
The Minister expressed in his response that this is a matter for the country's municipalities and regions. In my opinion, that is an opinion, not a fact. There is legislation that regulates the use of transport services. I can inform the Chamber that it is the Riksdag, the state, that enacts laws – not the country's municipalities and regions.
The Social Democratic government tasked the agency Trafikanalys with analyzing whether the current application of the provisions in the Act on Transport Services follows the intentions stated in the preparatory works for the Act. The agency returned approximately two years ago with concrete proposals for legislative amendments. Why did the agency do that? Yes, because the agency saw that the application of the law that takes place out in the country does not correspond with the intentions in the law's preparatory works.
Case law has developed in a direction that causes people to lose their travel service. A brutal example of this is Ystad resident Benny Rosdahl. After over 15 years, his right to travel service has suddenly been withdrawn. Benny has a visual impairment and also has difficulty walking. For many years, thanks to the travel service, he has been able to visit Fontänhuset's activities in Malmö and thus, as he expresses it, been able to live a social life. Benny testifies in Ystads Allehanda that he feels good about being able to be at Fontänhuset in Malmö. After the travel service was withdrawn, Benny says that he no longer goes there because he simply cannot, given his disability.
Madam Speaker! That is how it looks across the country. Benny's state of health has not suddenly improved after 15 years so that he now has much better vision and can move unhindered, or at least much more easily. That is not why he has lost his travel service. It is because Skånetrafiken thinks he is no longer entitled to it. Skånetrafiken leans on a case law that has become increasingly restrictive and is based on the interpretation of existing legislation.
Benny Rosdahl's fall is not unique. He is not one in a million. In different parts of the country, we see how people have lost their transport service, which they may have had for many years. These are people who, with the help of transport service, have been able to live reasonably good lives despite a visual impairment or some other disability. It has simply made their lives richer and their existence better.
When one of the government's agencies says that case law has moved in a direction that contradicts the intentions of existing legislation, it is at least my opinion that the legislator should act. As mentioned, it is not regions or municipalities that legislate, but the Riksdag – usually on proposals from the government.
Madam Speaker! There is a finished product on the Minister's desk which indicates how the law could be changed and which points out the need for it to be done so. It has been observed that case law has developed in a direction in conflict with the intentions of the legislation.
I note that the Minister, in their response to the interpellation, does not conclude with the phrasing "the question is being prepared in the Government Offices" or similar. The Minister instead points downwards or outwards, depending on how one wishes to express it, towards the country's municipalities and regions.
Should the Minister's response be interpreted as that there will be no legislative change in the area from the government and that Trafikanalys' investigation and proposal has been tossed into a wastebasket at the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure?
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! Over the last 10–15 years, we have been able to see how the rights of persons with different forms of disabilities have been eroded. It concerns several parts within LSS. Among other things, it concerns personal assistance, within which there have been significant cuts, austerity measures, and tightening. This has resulted in fewer people having received the right to personal assistance.
It has also occurred within the LSS measure called "ledsagning" (accompaniment). In a report that arrived last summer, it was found that 70 percent fewer people are entitled to accompaniment today compared to 2010 among those who are visually impaired and previously belonged to person group 3 in LSS.
A third casualty in the area is the transport service. Within the transport service, there have also been significant cuts since 2010. This has affected, not least, persons with disabilities.
That is why it was very welcome when a report from Trafikanalys arrived in March 2023 and established that an erosion has occurred and that the intentions of the law are not being followed. It was also established that people have been deprived of a right that is supposed to enable their right to participation and to be able to live in society on equal terms as others.
The municipalities have made stricter assessments, and the case law in the courts has been tightened. Behind this also lies the transfer of the transport service from a social right to a part of the regional public transport authority.
What Trafikanalys emphasizes above all is that today, consideration is not taken of the entire journey, from door to door. But for the individual, it is always about traveling from door to door. For someone with a severe visual impairment, it is about being able to get out of the apartment, get to a stop, board public transport, for example a bus, to then get off at the correct stop and from there find the way to the door one is going to. This is traveling from door to door. It is the entire journey, and that is what is not taken into account in today's legislation.
One can, as the Minister, of course say that it is not the law that is wrong, but the application in the municipalities. But when we in the Riksdag, in the government, and in the state authorities see that the application in the municipalities is failing, it is well obviously that it is the law we must change. That is where the changes need to occur for us to achieve legal certainty and equality across the entire country.
Trafikanalys presents ready-made legislative proposals in its report. There are proposals for amendments to update the legislation so that it aligns with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There are also proposals for updates so that the criterion for having the right to transport services is not just about moving, but also about being able to orient oneself. It must be updated so that a door-to-door perspective prevails, not a stop-to-stop perspective.
The Minister is well aware of the report from Trafikanalys and of the proposals for legislative amendments that exist. He answered a question from me during a question period in November 2023 that it is being prepared in the Government Offices. But my question is exactly the same as the previous speaker's. Is this being prepared in the Government Offices or not?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the two members who are participating in the debate for their commitment.
The various cases referred to are, as each of the members says, of course touching. There is no point in hiding that. At the same time, it does not fall to me as a minister to comment on individual cases.
I therefore return to what I said in my opening statement, Madam Speaker. There, I emphasized that the right to transport services is an important prerequisite for persons with disabilities to be able to participate in society on equal terms as others.
The Transport Service Act is a piece of legislation that both the Riksdag and the Government, of course, have an engagement in and are responsible for, but the application of the legislation and the provisions in the Transport Service Act are managed by municipalities and, where applicable, regional public transport authorities. It is they who have the responsibility for them.
There is nothing preventing a more generous application. Given that the regional responsibility is formulated as it is, differences can arise. This also applies to general public transport. Terms and transport offerings, as well as conditions for public transport, differ between different regions. It is ultimately a consequence of municipal and regional self-government.
Christofer Bergenblock is, of course, correct, Madam Speaker, that a change was made through the law that entered into force in 1998. According to the legislation, the transport service is now considered a transport service and not as providing assistance. The purpose was to contribute to a satisfactory transport supply also for people with disabilities.
As I said, the Transport Services Act prescribes that municipalities are responsible for ensuring that transport services of good quality are arranged. I want to emphasize "good quality." That is what the transport service should be characterized by. The Transport Services Act is, as mentioned, concise and does not prescribe exactly in detail how the municipality should proceed in the processing of transport service permits.
However, it is of course important to follow the application. Even though we are not to influence the assessment of the application of the law when it is handled in an administrative court, it is nevertheless important that the government follows the application. Against this background, a mandate was given to the agency Trafikanalys by the previous government.
In the conclusion of this contribution, I, Madam Speaker, want to be very clear that the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices. Both members have asked about it, and the answer is yes.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! It was pleasing to hear that the issue is in any case not discarded in a wastebasket at the ministry, but that it is at least being prepared in the Government Offices. But it has been done for two years now. Just as Member Bergenblock pointed out, the investigation presented finished legislative proposals. I am a bit curious as to why such a long preparation is necessary for a proposal that is nevertheless fairly well-elaborated.
The people who are losing their transport service are people of flesh and blood. They are people who, with the help of the transport service, have lived a fairly normal life but who are now losing their transport service.
A case that has received a lot of attention here in Skåne concerns Caisa Ramshage, who lives in Ängelholm. She has a job today, and the employer is satisfied with her work performance. She is very happy to be able to work. Now she is suddenly deprived of her transport service. It actually came out of nowhere. She will have to resign.
Ramshage asks herself whether we live in a welfare society or a charity society, as she is now dependent on the goodwill of her neighbors or friends to be able to get to work. She also testifies that she has acquaintances with visual impairments who are forced to ask neighbors for help to get to work.
This is happening at a time when other ministers in the government are standing here in the chamber and speaking passionately about a so-called work line. At the same time, one sees the developments around the country, where people who are already today particularly vulnerable on the labor market and are unemployed to a greater extent than other comparable groups, lose their jobs because they lose their travel services.
The agency Trafikanalys itself notes that the intentions of the law are not being followed and that the application of the law is driving the development in a different direction than the law's intentions. There is obviously a systemic error here.
It is clear that one can point to regional self-government and say that it is what is decisive. But I think this is noteworthy when it comes from a Christian Democratic government minister. I have sat in this chamber numerous times and heard Christian Democratic members talk about the importance of Christian values even in politics. For me, that means that one cares about people who are in need of help and support. Here, people are talking about this being an issue that is decided at a regional level, despite the fact that there is an authority, which is subject to the government, which, by reason of the application of the law, says that the intentions of the laws are not being followed.
The government can actually change the legislation if it sees that the development in the courts is such that the intentions of the law are no longer being followed. It is not about having opinions on assessments in individual cases. If the government sees that the legislation is not being followed, it can go to the Swedish Riksdag with a proposition, hand it over to the responsible committee and say: We probably need to review the legislation in this matter.
While we stand here and talk about whether this is a regional or municipal issue, people out there are being deprived of their transport service. As mentioned, there are ready proposals that perhaps, hopefully, could make it possible to reverse this development. Several organizations point this out in any case. This is not something that a Social Democratic Member of Parliament has made up here today, but several organizations, such as Synskadades Riksförbund and Heja Olika, point to the legislation specifically as the basis for reversing this development.
This is not a Scania problem. This issue arises in many more places than in Skåne County, I just want to point out. I do not think it should be diminished to only apply to Skåne.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! The Minister says that he cannot comment on individual cases, and no one has asked him to do so either. What we are asking the Minister to comment on is the deficient legislation that we have today.
The Minister thanks the members who raised the question and many others in this chamber who have also raised the question for their commitment. I wish that the government and its representatives, regardless of whether one is the Minister for Social Services or the Minister for Infrastructure, had the same commitment to these issues. There is a lot of talk about everyone's right to participation, but it is ultimately the ability to drive change, improve people's opportunities, and make the changes in law and regulation that are required that shows whether one truly has a commitment to the issues or not. For the time being, Madam Speaker, I can state that this government has a lack of commitment to issues regarding disabilities, and that is serious.
The Minister also says that the transport service act is today a concise piece of legislation and that it is the municipalities that apply it. But our task in the Riksdag is to ensure that the law is as well-formulated as possible and that we achieve an application that is as equal as possible across the country. When the state's own authorities establish that the application today is not equal, one must act as government, as minister, and ultimately as Riksdag to rectify this. It is a concise piece of legislation, but the proposals for legislative amendments from Trafikanalys are also concise.
Now the minister says that the issue is being prepared in the Government Offices despite everything. My question is: When will a bill be on the Riksdag's table?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I think Adrian Magnusson is choosing and picking a bit when it comes to what I have said in the chamber. I have pointed out that this is important – it is important to have a transport service of good quality. This is not something I have hidden under the table, and I do not use the point that it is municipalities and, where applicable, regional public transport authorities that bear the responsibility for the implementation as an excuse not to do anything. I have, Madam Speaker, stated that the issue is being prepared in the Government Offices based on the report that Trafikanalys has produced.
But it is important, I believe, to emphasize again that it is possible to make a more generous application of the transport service act. It is possible to offer more transport services of good quality in a way that I believe aligns with both the expectations and needs of those who are in need of a functioning transport service.
The reason we are having this discussion today is – I agree with Adrian Magnusson on this – that in several places in the country, attempts have been made to interpret the law in a less generous direction, and based on this, a legal application has been formulated. We would have been in a different situation today if, at the level responsible for the execution of the transport service, a more generous interpretation had been made from the beginning. I believe it needs to be emphasized in a debate such as this that the situation that has arisen, which led to Trafikanalys from the previous government being commissioned to look at the issue and having come up with proposals, is due to the fact that a sufficiently generous application has not been had in the cases in question. As I said, the transport service act does not set up any obstacles whatsoever for a more generous application.
I mentioned, Madam Speaker, that it is not for me to comment on individual cases because some individual cases have been mentioned in the debate today. It was and is important for me to emphasize that the fact that I cannot comment on an individual case is not synonymous with that I am not engaged or that I and, of course, many others with me are not affected by the stories that the members share. But I still cannot comment on the individual matters.
However, it is of course important to follow the application of the legislation. I have had meetings with, for example, Synskadades Riksförbund, which is mentioned in the debate. I have stated here today that this issue is being prepared in the Government Offices.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! It is clear that we shall have a transport service of good quality, says the Minister. It is I, the Minister, and Member Bergenblock who are in agreement in that case – that is what I am completely convinced of.
But the authority Trafikanalys points out, as I have said several times, that the legislation needs to be changed. It is not only the interest organizations that point out that the legislation needs to be changed. Svenska Färdtjänstföreningen wrote in a newsletter some time ago that they plan to approach the minister – I do not know if they have done so. But they write in their newsletter, in any case, that it is the outdated laws that are a problem. Even Svenska Färdtjänstföreningen, therefore, says that it is the legislation that is a problem.
Everyone seems to think that the legislation is a problem, except for Minister Andreas Carlson. I find that interesting. It is also a failing grade for his own agency, which obviously states that the legislation needs to be reviewed because the application of the law is heading in a different direction than what was the intention of the legislation. It is written like this: "The application of the law deviates in some respects from the intentions of the preparatory works and has been tightened several times since the law's inception." Therefore, proposals for legislative amendments are put forward.
Now we stand here in the chamber and have some kind of strange debate. The facts are on the table, so are the constitutional proposals. Everything is there – it has been there for two years. Still, nothing is happening.
To further demonstrate that this issue becomes very strange in many different ways, I just want to mention that the chairman of the public transport committee in Region Skåne recently said that this issue is not political – that it is not politicians who decide on the transport service. It is a staggering statement. Here, the Minister of State says that it is the regions' application that needs to be reviewed.
It is obvious that the legislation needs to be reviewed. There are legislative proposals. It seems as though this issue will be handled in the Government Offices until a change of government occurs. Then perhaps something can happen.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! The report from Trafikanalys highlights that the application, just as Adrian Magnusson points out, deviates from the intentions stated in the preparatory works for the current law, which entered into force in 1998. This is stated in the report. The analysis also points out that the Special Transport Act is a framework law and that it is the implementing authorities at the municipal level and the practice that has been developed that have caused this drift in the application. This is approximately what I have also highlighted during this debate.
The analysis and proposals are now being prepared in the Government Offices. I have discussed them with, among others, the Swedish Association of the Visually Impaired (Synskadades Riksförbund). It appears from the report that Trafikanalys proposes that the Transport Service Act (färdtjänstlagen) should be clarified, but there are some ambiguities that are important to further prepare in the Government Offices. This is work that is ongoing.
With this, I would like to once again thank you for the debate and for the commitment. I share that commitment – there should be no doubt about that – and it is important that we have a transport service of good quality in Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.